ie8 fix
madison

Google defense cites study arguing for stronger privacy regulation

By | February 21, 2012, 10:26am PST

Summary: Recent reports suggest that Google is attempting to circumvent industry-standard privacy protections in both Safari and Internet Explorer. Google’s defense cites a study from Carnegie Mellon. What they don’t mention is that that study argues for increased regulation of companies like … Google

Last week the Wall Street Journal published a report accusing Google of deliberately circumventing privacy settings in Apple’s Safari browser, by implementing a technical workaround that tricks the browser into accepting tracking cookies from a third-party site.

Yesterday, Microsoft accused Google of “employing similar methods to get around the default privacy protections in IE.”

Google fired back with a blast email message that was widely reported by tech news sites, including ZDNet. My colleague Mary Jo Foley included the Google statement as an update to her post. This sentence was a key part of Google’s defense:

Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational. A 2010 research report indicated that over 11,000 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.

The implication is that P3P is outdated and widely ignored, and that Microsoft is relying on a technicality to score meaningless points.

It took some digging, but I found the study Google was referring to. Its title is Token Attempt: The Misrepresentation of Website Privacy Policies through the Misuse of P3P Compact Policy Tokens.  The study was published in September 2010 by Pedro Giovanni Leon, Lorrie Faith Cranor, Aleecia M. McDonald, and Robert McGuire of Carnegie Mellon University.

The abstract of that study makes fascinating reading. In fact. I suspect that Google’s communications staff didn’t read it carefully. If they had, I don’t believe they would have wanted to world to read it.

Judge for yourself. The Carnegie Mellon researchers say this:

We collected CPs [Compact Privacy Policies] from 33,139 websites and detected errors in 11,176 of them, including … 21 of the top 100 most-visited sites.

Let’s turn that around, shall we? Using this study’s results, these researchers concluded that 79% of the top 100 most-visited websites in the world have perfectly valid compact policies. That seems to contradict Google’s assertion that “the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational.”

In addition, those errors were, in many cases, minor:

Our work identifies potentially misleading practices by web administrators, as well as common accidental mistakes. We found thousands of sites using identical invalid CPs that had been recommended as workarounds for IE cookie blocking. Other sites had CPs with typos in their tokens, or other errors.

Indeed, a look at the detailed results from the Carnegie Mellon study shows that some Microsoft-owned web properties have errors in their CPs. Appendix D cites msn.com, safety.live.com, and windows.com—all owned by Microsoft—as having “slight differences between CP and privacy policy.” By contrast, the same appendix criticized facebook,com, godaddy.com, and hulu.com using more severe language language: “Policies do not match.” Amazon.com and imdb.com were listed as “Invalid CP, unable to compare.”

The abstract concludes:

It appears that large numbers of websites that use CPs are misrepresenting their privacy practices, thus misleading users and rendering privacy protection tools ineffective. Unless regulators use their authority to take action against companies that provide erroneous machine-readable policies, users will be unable to rely on these policies. [emphasis added]

That’s an eye-opener. The study that Google uses to justify its behavior concludes that regulators should “take action against companies that provide erroneous machine-readable policies.”

They’re talking about Google, among others.

This is a complicated topic, filled with nuance and opportunities for confusion. I’ll be digging into the details more and will have a follow-up next week.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
63
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

You should get this then
ego.sum.stig@... 25th Feb
As in, already know it, that Microsoft also recommends using incorrect P3P to get around a flaw in IE.

You really like your storms in miniscule teacups don't you.
-3 Votes
+ -
that's very misleading
The Linux Geek 21st Feb
google and others just advanced the state of the technology by innovating when M$ and apple refused to do so since 2007. This is a perfect opportunity to dump IE and Safari and adopt chrome that offers the cutting edge technology and privacy protections for the people. That 'study' is out of context and biased.
Folks, the real issue here is the technical ineptitude of apple and M$ that unlike Google, failed to implement the latest industry standards and misrepresented the privacy to the end user!
@The Linux Geek... SPYWARE. Since that seems to be the business Google has chosen to be in as a bridge to advertisers. Plain and simple Google is a spyware writer.

Pagan jim
@James Quinn
obviously you are talking crazy and don't appreciate the treasure of free software and services from google that most people cherish.
0 Votes
+ -
The others are already free, too.
spdragoo@... 22nd Feb
@The Linux Geek

When was the last time you paid to download IE, Safari, or even Firefox or Oracle?
@James Quinn
Not often do I find occasion to agree with you, but on this subject we are in synch. This is the main reason I do not use any google products--none!!
@James Quinn
Agreed and what's funny the Geek's next post encourages FOSS software over included software as a benefit. Browsers have been included with OS forever and assuming you maintain vigilant safe browsing techniques and anti-virus (if necessary) you should never have to worry about corrupt big name companies that should be helping solve exploited code not using it for their gain. When IE, Safari, and Forms of Mozilla have been the included browsers for so long I see no reason for redundancy. I also appreciate security over speed at any cost who cares if its FOSS.
1 Vote
+ -
They say they do no evil
Robert Hahn 21st Feb
@The Linux Geek
Yeah, everybody knows how biased the Carnegie-Mellon folks are. You are wise to reject their study and believe Google instead.
@Robert Hahn
most likely that 'study' was written by some disgruntled professor angry for not getting grant $$$ from google.
1 Vote
+ -
"Most Likely"?!
use_what_works_4_U 23rd Feb
@The Linux Geek
"Most Likely"?!?! Now you've gone from framing the facts to fit your argument (which is fine - we all do it) to rampant unfounded speculation. If I was going to take you seriously, well you just put a nail in that coffin by showing that you'll just make stuff up to argue with anyone who disagrees.
@The Linux Geek

I'd love to install a browser that sends every bit of my web activity to Google, rather than forcing them to keep employing trickery and fraud to get the information.

What I've done instead is to continue using IE9, but with all 3rd party cookies blocked. And I've just installed the Google-blocking Tracking Protection List (link in 3rd paragraph here http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/02/20/google-bypassing-user-privacy-settings.aspx).
@DaveN_MVP
then you'll miss the outstanding user experience google provides using the latest technologies.
0 Votes
+ -
What outstanding experience?
spdragoo@... 22nd Feb
@The Linux Geek

Gmail has less features & is less user friendly than Yahoo Mail, in my personal experience with using it. So much for "outstanding" experience or the "latest technologies".
@DaveN_MVP
Thanks for the tip! I went to the URL specified and added it to my IE 9's both the 64 bit and the plain Jane version. For people using FireFox, whichever flavor, add Ghostery to your add-on's. It too allows you to block 3rd party cookies, especially "Google" ones. It may take a little tweaking but to "Defeat the ET (Google) phone home syndrome it's worth the time and effort!!!!!!!
To The Linux Geek- keep drinking the Google Kool-Aid. Your either a paid Google shill or just in love with spyware on your machine! I'm sorry, I just had a epiphany,
you just love to stir the caldron, sit back and say to yourself : look what I did, I got them all stirred up again!!!
@The Linux Geek

I'm more apt, as are many, to believe a study conducted by researchers with doctoral degrees and years of study with a given subject than your unfounded statements. For instance, what 'latest industry standard' did either Apple or Microsoft fail to implement relevant to this article/case?
@FuzzyBunnySlippers
you could always find a professor willing to make a phony study for a handout....err grant (or lack of grant). Google is a leader in standards and M$ and apple just have to follow the leader to fix privacy issues.
@The Linux Geek

So the study that google sited is biased against google? Just because you love google doesn't mean you don't excoriate them when they are caught with their hand in the cookie jar

By a firefox user
@the.nameless.drifter
you don't get it! It was M$ and apple being caught for not implementing the latest standards and proper privacy policies.
@The Linux Geek

I get it fine its you who stated that the report google sited was biased against google.

Both Apple and MS have implemented the standard as its written, P3P is a poor standard and will eventually be replaced but it hasn't been replaced yet.

Google have been caught using an exploit in the P3P standard and as a company which preaches standard compliance this is embarrassing
@The Linux Geek Please stop embarrassing Linux supporters with your multiple inane kneejerk posts.
Or at least take the word 'linux' out of hour handle.
@The Linux Geek what exactly would people have to be biased about back in 2007? Are you suggesting that the people who did the study had advanced knowledge about the coming of bing, and chrome?
@The Linux Geek
You ever tried to be the spokesperson for Puke? I hear Puke may just be FOSS. Do you think anyone mashing a keyboard should install Puke? Now Puke decides they can be a small operating system, a new nimble browser, a search giant, an office in the sky alternative but knows when your next bowel movement is and can tell what your sister's bra size is and hell why not snap a picture of them to display on Puke's map page forever, even off that street marked private drive. Puke is free so everyone should install it. Its FOSS and great Linux Geek says so!
Looking at the facts of this broken system, the selective outrage looks funny.
It is hard to not think that Microsoft needs to grow up and become more professional.
@somereader

But MS would be in trouble for turning their back on open standards.
0 Votes
+ -
P3P is Microsoft's baby, not a standard
ego.sum.stig@... 22nd Feb
If I could pronounce something as a standard and the world jumped to attention and said, "Sure, why not? And while we're at it we'll provide you at least a life time of beer gratis" life would be a lot less amusing.
@ego.sum.stig

Its a W3C standard not a MS one suggest you read up!
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, however...
ego.sum.stig@... Updated - 23rd Feb
The whole essence of the blog here is Microsoft "discovering" that they use it, it's being bypassed, and google is easy. In fact, if you look around, you'll find that IE is the only major browser to support P3P. IOW, it's Microsoft's baby.

The fact that all too many sites care less about this "standard" and that some of Microsoft's own sites don't use it (or do it right) hardly makes it earth shattering news that Google is side-stepping it.
0 Votes
+ -
@somereader
Not to start an OS war here but Apple is also being undermined by your beloved "Google"-ware App.'s. So your post (this one) equally needs to shared by Apple.
BOTH Apple and M$ is being pawned by Google. How can 2 OS's/ browsers be wrong but Google is "Saintly". God grief step away from the punch bowl please, you've had enough Kool-Aid for one day.
I hope the FTC grabs Google by the privates and castrates them without the benefits of
anesthesia.
Just because the lock on the house isn't what it could be DOESN'T make it okay for a burglar to rob the house!! NOT to mention the FACT that locks only keep the honest people honest. A CROOK will ALWAYS find a way to "rob you" even if it means setting a bomb to the front door and blowing it off the hinges!!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Google defense cites study
somereader 23rd Feb
Check around. The protocol MS used was broken and known to be broken. I can't say that of Apple's method because I don't know. MS should have start working on that problem years ago because it should have known this and third party's bought it to their attention. I don't know that about Apple. Now using this in trying to damage the reputation of a competitor sounds sour. But OK, also Apple would probably better work on the problem in stead of communicating about it.
And I hope Google will reply to your remarks directed to Google.
1 Vote
+ -
Lets be honest,,,
NoAxToGrind 21st Feb
Google WANTS to track every user on the internet to sell their stinking adds. If at any point they find ANY methiod to go around users wishs they will do it in a heartbeat becasue they do not give a d*mn what users want when it comes to privacy.

Google knew full well they were circumventing users settings and it doesn't matter if they try to blame MS or Apple, they made the CHOICE to say to h*ll with what users want.

Personally, I think only a fool would continue to use a service / company that deliberately goes against what users want.
@NoAxToGrind
No surprise when this comes from an ABMer.
ABM means anything but Microsoft.

How is that relevant here?
@The Linux Geek
My bad! I meant NBMer.
@NoAxToGrind

Unless I'm mistaken, in IE 8 at least, the only way to block all 3rd party cookies is to block all cookies, period. IE users don't HAVE a choice to allow cookies from the page they're on and block all 3rd party cookies.

I'm not clearing Google, but only a fool would continue to use IE.





happy
@none none

3rd party cookies are disabled the same way in IE 8 the same way they are in IE 9. No real trick to it. The setup even looks the same.
@Test Subject

Yeah but which setting blocks all third party cookies? Only the "Block all cookies" setting. All the other settings allow some third party cookies per the P3P spec. That's how Google (and MS partners like FB) were able to set third party cookies.

P3P was designed to facilitate data collection, not protect privacy. That's why the only way in IE to absolutely stop 3rd party cookes is the take the extreme and painful step of blocking ALL cookies.

Oh, and to whoever deleted my post: you're a real class act.


happy
0 Votes
+ -
@none none

"the only way to block all 3rd party cookies is to block all cookies, period."
That seems like a redundant statement, or you are looking to block your own? I'm guessing that's not the case. More likely you'd like to block some 3rd party cookies? Try your own personalized tracking list built into both browsers you've mentioned. And/Or try out some that are prebuilt for you.
@FuzzyBunnySlippers

That sounds like a lot of trouble just to use IE safely. I prefer the checkbox in firefox. If you put a tick in it, FF doesn't allow third party sites to set a cookie. No ifs, ands or buts, like there are in the IE "privacy" settings.

The IE privacy settings are designed to facilitate third party data collection.





happy
@none none Well that is the only way apart from changing your privacy settings to block third party cookies. Go to the privacy tab and click advanced. Not exactly difficult.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@none none
You're completely wrong.

Internet Options, Privacy, Advanced button.

Click Override automatic cookie handling, and you will see the option to Block third-party cookies.
@none none
Absolutely false!!! You can block 3rd party cookies without blocking all cookies in IE8. Plus, if you want to specific who you block (Google), you can click on the "sites" tab and enter the url you want to block and never have to worry about them again. I wish you Microsoft Hating Trolls would at least learn about Windows before posting SPAM!!!
@ Ed Bott

Then I stand corrected.

But if people were using it Google would not have been able to set 3rd party cookies. I still maintain that if you have to drill down to see that option a lot of users won't know about it.




happy
@none none
.... and switch to what? Something "Google". To use anything Google is inane. Why not just get up in the morning, plan out your day on the internet, send Google your schedule along with your credit card numbers. Make sure you include every little nuance of data/ info. It will save the people at Google hundreds of hours of time not having to come up with a new data mining scheme. Think of the time you'll save them.
Exactly is the problem, they are accessing everything on the web and showing the things favors them.
0 Votes
+ -
It seems very convenient for Google or anyone to decide this is not one of the web standards they will adhere to, while touting a higher degree of web standard adherence for their own browser. Are there no other web standards that predate this specific one that are still in use and abided by? Or is there a 'born on date' which nullifies them over time?
0 Votes
+ -
This is ridiculous
dazzlingd 21st Feb
I don't know what's worse.

The faux outrage from Google fanboys that their favorite company got called out AGAIN in doing something that is very close to legalized spying.

Or their defense that it's all Apple's and Microsoft's fault for having lousy security.

Or the ridiculous statement that we all use Chrome because it's far more secure. (Of course there are no P3P workarounds in Chrome. Everything you do is sent back to the Mothership. D'UH!)

Or the total lack of outrage that Google completely went out of their way to violate their customer's privacy by hacking their customer's browsers.

Oh wait. We are not Google's customers. We are Google's product.

Never mind. Carry on...
@dazzlingd

Don't forget the total lack of outrage that MS implemented a set of privacy options in IE that doesn't allow users to accept 1st party cookies and block 3rd party cookies.

Allowing those 3rd party cookies is not "bad security," it's a feature. It was deliberate.




happy
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry, but you CAN
spdragoo@... 22nd Feb
@none none

The following link shows a screenshot of the Internet options in IE8 which control how 1st- and 3rd-party cookies are enabled:

http://www.trishtech.com/internet/block_third_party_cookies_in_internet_explorer_8.php

Note that in IE8, you not only have the option of allowing 1st-party cookies while blocking 3rd-party cookies, you also have the option of allowing or disallowing "session cookies".

As for Chrome, sorry Google fanbois, but Google's "protection" against 3rd-party cookies is apparently not a default setting:

http://www.aboutcookies.org/Default.aspx?page=1#gchromex

"Google Chrome allows all cookies by default, but you can restrict the behaviour of first-party and third-party cookies or even block them completely."
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You're completely wrong
Ed Bott 22nd Feb
@none none

Please go look at the options. Would you like me to post a screenshot for you?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
You're completely wrong
Ed Bott Updated - 22nd Feb
Duplicate. Yes, it happens to me, too. sad
Lets turn that around, shall we? Using this studys results, these researchers concluded that 79% of the top 100 most-visited websites in the world have perfectly valid compact policies. That seems to contradict Googles assertion that the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational.

48% of the 100 most-visited websites have CPs

79% refers to paragraph 2 related to 33,139 sites with Cps.

(Page 1, paragraph 3)
Among the 100 most-visited websites we found 48 sites with CPs, 21 of which exhibited CP errors that our automated analysis could detect. In addition, 41 of these popular sites with CPs did not have corresponding full P3P policies.
0 Votes
+ -
You should get this then
ego.sum.stig@... 25th Feb
As in, already know it, that Microsoft also recommends using incorrect P3P to get around a flaw in IE.

You really like your storms in miniscule teacups don't you.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix