Google has been slapped with the largest fine ever imposed on a single company by the US consumer protection body. The US Federal Trade Commission demanded £14.4m from the big G for using cookies to trick Safari into eavesdropping on your online comings and goings.
Authorities imposed the fine on Google for ignoring the Do Not Track privacy settings of Safari users, monitoring their online activity by exploiting a loophole in the software.
Google used a snippet of code to get around Safari's security, allowing web surfers who had signed in to Google Plus to then click the +1 button in adverts that belong to Google's DoubleClick network.
Tracking cookies are small text files installed on your computer to monitor your online activity, information which can be used by advertisers to target ads or collect information about what people are clicking on. Data from tracking cookies is usually anonymous, and Google says no personal information such as names or credit card data have been swiped from the Safari controversy.
Safari's security settings block tracking cookies by default, unless you've directly interacted with a website. Google's code tricked Safari into placing a tracking cookie by making the browser think you were submitting a form to Google rather than clicking an ad.
The exploit was spotted way back in 2010 by one Anant Garg, and Google's use of it was spied by Stanford University researcher Jonathan Mayer. Other advertisers are suspected of using this exploit too.
Google has accepted that it was less than up-front about its policies, which is what the fine applies to. By paying the fine, Google doesn't have to own up to the actual methods used to get around Safari's settings. £14.4m sounds like a lot, but it's pocket change to the US search giant, which made £1.8bn profit in just three months earlier this year.
Is the fine harsh or fair? Is Google still living up to its 'Don't be evil' motto? Tell me your thoughts in the comments or on our Facebook page.
Android App 
RSS Feeds 
iPhone App 
Newsletters 
Comments 10
Add your comment
anonymous 10 August, 2012 13:20
The persons responsible within the company should be fined, not the company.
Fining the company penalizes the shareholders who are key to business development.
Nathan Explosion 10 August, 2012 14:00
You have to wonder who writes this crap...
"Google has been slapped with the largest fine ever imposed on a single company."
A 10 second Google would come up with a $2.3bn fine for Pfizer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
Whatever happened to factual accuracy? Is sensationalist gutter reporting now the norm?
TechnoMo 10 August, 2012 14:26
Yep, also, when I close the google app on my iPad, at the top it says with a red background, Google (Recording)! WHY???
Rich Trenholm 10 August, 2012 14:55
Hi Nathan Explosion, thanks for correcting us in so charming a manner. The fine you mention was levied against Pfizer by the Department of Justice over criminal charges, whereas this fine was a record for the Federal Trade Commission over a consumer issue. I've clarified the opening paragraph to reflect that.
Nathan Explosion 10 August, 2012 15:12
@Rich Trenholm
Problem is, it's pretty much every article CNET writes, sensationalist gutter journlism, very little checking of factual accuracy and get it out and who cares attitude.
I would love to know if any of your articles have a review process, as it doesn't look like it from here. The more fanboy baiting the better, and depending on what stock the writer owns, depends upon the bias applied.
Rich Trenholm 10 August, 2012 15:41
Stock?! They don't pay us enough to own stock. We're lucky if we own shoes.
We do indeed have a subediting process, although in this case I hold my hands up for not making the first paragraph clear, that's my fault.
Apart from that I feel you're being pretty harsh. Bias is in the eye of the beholder: we call things like we see them, we write in an irreverent style, and that inevitably rubs people up the wrong way. Apple does something bad, we say it's bad, Apple fans say we're biased. Samsung does something bad, we say it's bad, Android fans say we're biased. Someone always shouts bias just because we don't share their worldview. We've got used to it.
Sorry you don't enjoy the site, but hey, it is free!
anonymous 10 August, 2012 16:02
Well said, young Richard. However, there is a glaring error in your headline. To wit:
"Google hit by record fine over tricksy tracking cookies"
I think you mean "hit with". Give your sub-editors a slap, and then treat yourself to one.
anonymous 10 August, 2012 16:34
If US Federal Trade Commission is the consumer protection body, they should give this £14.4m to the consumers!!!
Nathan Explosion 10 August, 2012 22:09
@Rich Trenholm
I'm frankly stunned that CNET can claim they are unbiased. Clearly you have never read that Apple sponsored "Ask Maggie" tripe that CNET constantly spew onto the Internet.
damien2501 11 August, 2012 17:48
If you don't like it go to a website that says things u do like. Cnet is not bias