The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2012 AFPBrowser bypasses put Google in privacy cross hairs
SAN FRANCISCO©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2012 AFP
12 Comments
Login to comment
littlebear
I believe that Microsoft's complaint is way to late to start making a complaint. It's been a couple years in knowing this and now they complain about identity bypass...What's up at Microsoft that is so pressing for them to suddenly make this complaint.
I think Apple has a reasonable concern considering they have always positioned themselves along with taken all the steps to not enable bypassing identity protection. How much Google has to pay? I think before they start targeting Google they should start targeting those who have taken advantage of the bypass for capital gain i.e. Amazon and Facebook which have clearly done so...Charge the advertisers if that's possible too..
gogogo
Someone with knowledge of the internet and software needs to write these articles, this is a jumble of buzz words that mean nothing.... what the hell is "track-blocking" software?
nath
@gogogo
Basically speaking, all web browsers use "cookies" or small files when we browse the web. Some of these cookies are called "trackers", which sends the information from the cookies across the web.
Safari has been using a "track-blocking software" that denies the information collected by the cookies to be sent.
Microsoft has been aware of the bypassing, but has focused on other things instead of improving IE's privacy protection. Just look at Microsoft's patches and service packs ... most of them are hotfixes for a wide array of vunerabilities.
Apple, on the other hand, has been actively improving their systems and security.
smithinjapan
“Now they complain after Google uses it.”
This is how Google proclaims its innocence?
gogogo
Elvensilvan: No offence, but you also need to understand what you are talking about, I hope you don't get paid for your IT skills? I would fire you if you said that in a meeting or to a client.
Cookies are suppose to store data that is what they were built for.
There are no such thing as a "tracking cookie" and a regular cookie, they are all cookies. If a cookie blocking software wants to block or delete certain cookies it is upto that software to detect which cookies to delete and which not to... it is not upto the company or site that makes the cookie to make sure that the blocking software can block their cookies.
Photoman333
Microsoft is accusing Google of putting profit ahead of privacy? How do you say "this is the pot calling the kettle black" in Japanese? 8-)
gelendestrasse
Yeah, there is no honor among thieves. I'm sure Microsoft would be willing to profit from gaming the Safari privacy settings if they thought of it first. But, since they didn't, better to take the high road and pillory Google. Of course Google deserves the grief.
Everybody should join the EFF and see more of what is going on. You would be amazed at how much of your personal data is available to anybody who wants to buy a database. And, since it's easy to set up a sham company to front as a legit business it's very simple to do. Everybody has their fingers in this pie.
Bartholomew Harte
So out of curiosity i search a product,then as i'm going from place to place online i'm getting ads for it,like i'm being followed? too bad, I Never buy Online,I want to pay in person & deal in person.as for personal info i'm sure i'm on "The List" somewhere sooo #@$!'EM!
Badge213
So essentially google's response was "you guys do it too, so why are you jumping on us for doing it?" ha.
Photoman333
gelendestrasse: Yeah, there is no honor among thieves. I'm sure Microsoft would be willing to profit from gaming the Safari privacy settings if they thought of it first.
How true!
Everybody should join the EFF and see more of what is going on.
Well the EFF is no group of angels either. They fight against court cases that try to outlaw cyber-stalking and that's inexcusable.
nath
@gogogo
I would like you to reconsider firing me for these grounds:
As an example, if you visit www.example1.com, which sets a cookie with the domain ad.foxytracking.com. When the user later visits www.example2.com, another cookie is set with the domain ad.foxytracking.com. Eventually, both of these cookies will be sent to the advertiser when loading their ads or visiting their website. The advertiser can then use these cookies to build up a browsing history of the user across all the websites this advertiser has footprints on.
gogogo
A "persistent" cookie is not a "tracking cookie", a persistent cookie is a cookie that has an expire time value added to it... exactly the same way as "remember me" on any site with a login works... it uses a cookie with a time value. A persistent cookie can use used to determine what sites people have visited or store search data or ID numbers which could be analysed and used to track a user but a persistent cookie can be used for hundreds of other valuable things.