Google to pay $22.5m to settle Safari tracking row: report

Summary: According to The Wall Street Journal, Google will pay a record-breaking amount to settle with privacy regulators at the US Federal Trade Commission

Google's tricky bypassing of Safari's security settings is set to earn the company the largest-ever fine levied on a company by the US Federal Trade Commission, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.

Browsers such as Safari often let their users block third-party cookies from tracking them around the web. Google used special code to trick Safari into accepting its advertising cookies even when users had chosen to block them, and this now-ceased practice is apparently about to lead to a $22.5m (£14.5m) settlement with the FTC.

The WSJ based its Monday story on unnamed "officials briefed on the settlement terms".

The fine itself results from the fact that — just months before it was caught out sneaking its cookies past browsers' security settings — Google had signed a 20-year decree with the FTC pledging to be honest and open about its privacy practices. That agreement followed the scandal over Google Buzz, which broadcast some users' private information without them realising it.

Safari users weren't the only ones to have their privacy preferences ignored by Google's cookies. The same happened to Internet Explorer (IE) users, although, when that came out, Google claimed that it was Microsoft's fault for using out-of-date security mechanisms.

Google has said that the relevant advertising cookies do not collect personal information.

Topics: Privacy, Google

David Meyer

About David Meyer

David Meyer is a freelance technology journalist. He fell into journalism when he realised his musical career wouldn't pay the bills. David's main focus is on communications, as well as internet technologies, regulation and mobile devices.

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

Talkback

15 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • So much for "Do No Evil"...

    "Google has said that the relevant advertising cookies do not collect personal information." And we should believe this why?
    athynz
    • Google proving yet again that it is EVIL!

      I think all tracking should be turned off by default on all browsers and if a user wants to be tracked they can go into settings and turn it on. At most prompt users when a browser is first used if they want to be tracked. I bet less than 1% will say it is OK to track me! And yet that is how Google makes most of its money; tracking users and using that to target them with ads. Apparently that is too lucrative of a business to have ethics . . . at least if you are Google.
      rmark@...
  • So much for "Do No Evil"...

    "Google has said that the relevant advertising cookies do not collect personal information." And we should believe this why?
    athynz
    • Because...

      they provide some free services and open source some things, so that makes them Mother Theresa, or so some of the Google advocates on here would like you to believe.

      You can split hairs over whether flaws in Safari enabled Google to do this, but the bottom line is that Google purposely circumvented a feature designed to protect THE USER, and did so for their own benefit. That's what we should expect of hackers, not one of the most powerful tech companies in the world.
      piousmonk
  • Just Don't Use Google

    There are dozens of free search engine alternatives to Google that work just as good (Yahoo and Bing for instance). If you don't want to fall prey to Google's unscrupulous privacy invasion tactics, then just quit using them. You won't be compromised and they will surely get the message.
    MeerkatMac
    • Good luck with that

      First, Yahoo is Bing. Second, the idea that they return "just as good" results is, at the very least, debatable.
      Third, you think Bing doesn't track?!?
      .DeusExMachina.
  • 22 and a half million dollar fine.

    I wonder how much they sold the data they collected for? If it's more then 22.5 million, then they made out, and they'll just do it again.
    William Farrel
    • Exactly what I was thinking myself!

      They probably made, over 300 million, and it only cost them 22.5 million. Great ROI...
      T-Wrench
  • Google being clandestinely creepy as usual

    Marching to their own drummer, as always. Next stop: under your bed.

    But it's good to know they're at least pledging for the umpteenth time to be honest and open about their privacy practices. *doink*
    klumper
  • Conspiracy Cookies

    Not a Google fan; Chrome, Safari, or whathaveyou, but . . .

    "Google used special code to trick Safari into accepting its advertising cookies even when users had chosen to block them . ."

    Ever try to block Microsoft cookies; Windows Marketplace, Zune, Microsoft Research, by using the built-in tools in Internet Explorer?

    What's good for the "Google" is good for the . . .

    Or should be.
    WCarlS
  • Search Engines that Respect Privacy

    For those who are interested ( and I am not affiliated):

    Startpage offers you Web search results from Google in complete privacy!

    Look here: https://startpage.com

    Quote: When you search with Startpage, we remove all identifying information from your query and submit it anonymously to Google ourselves. We get the results and return them to you in total privacy.

    Your IP address is never recorded, your visit is not logged, and no tracking cookies are placed on your browser. When it comes to protecting your privacy, Startpage runs the tightest ship on the Internet.

    endquote
    WCarlS
  • What the future may hold...

    Google is a "free" service, and so is Bing and other search engines. Google is not totally free, because, they use the results page for advertising, which is an annoyance to many people. If people block advertising, and enough people do that, or if the default setting for all browsers eventually call for ad blocking, then Google and other search engines will have to go out of business.

    The alternative might be, to charge a fee, on a monthly basis, through the ISPs. Sort of what is done with cable TV, where people pay for a lineup of channels, whether they view them or not. If search engines were to be treated like the TV stations, then, the ISPs would need a way to determine traffic flow into and out of the "internet stations", so that, they could pay the respective search engine companies amounts that would be commensurate with the traffic.

    So, while we may not like advertising, and tracking of our searches and browsing, what alternative is left, other than paying the ISPs so that they can pay the internet companies? Nothing is free.

    Having said all of that, I still don't like Google's tactics and I don't like being tracked by anyone.
    adornoe
  • You're all effin' nuts...

    ...if you think you're not being tracked by a multitude of other entities that are much more invasive and pervasive.

    I would guess that $22.5m to Google is the equivilent of me dropping a quarter down a sewer grate. Just another example of the corporate behemoths skating away with their fortunes intact, i.e., Mozillo of Countrywide paid fines of $47m for insider trading after bilking the public out of nearly $600m, $130m realized as Countrywide flatlined.

    I would also guess that NFC (Near Field Communication, which has been around for years) is gobbling up all kinds of info from your [never off] smart phones. It's not the phones that are "smart." And, btw, does anybody read those "annoying ads?"

    The trick here is to NOT be annoyed...
    USDK
    • The $22.5 million penalty, was not because of "spying" or "tracking",

      per se, and it was a penalty levied because of the tactic Google used to get around the Safari blocking of cookies.

      Most people already expect and "understand" that, Google's business depends upon spying and tracking and loading up your pages with advertising, even as most people hate the idea.
      adornoe
      • I think you give "most people" far too much credit

        Most people, I'm guessing, never even think about how Google makes money. They may know on some level it's advertising, but most probably have no clue on the spying/tracking aspect of it.

        As for others posting about how the amount of the fine is insignificant to Google, it may be financially, but don't think for one minute the fact that they managed to get the largest fine ever levied by the FTC isn't resulting in some serious conversations at Google right now.

        Google's been served notice, they'd be smart to clean up their act. But then again, I think there's an attitude of "do what we want now and we'll deal with the fallout later" there, so this probably isn't the last we'll see of this type of thing.
        piousmonk