WSJ: Safari Loophole Allowed Google to Track Users via Ads

[JMcEntegart]

Google and a number of other ad networks have been accused of tracking users web browsing by using a loophole to circumvent Safari's default security settings.

WSJ: Safari Loophole Allowed Google to Track Users via Ads : Read more

 

[warezme]

I hope the FTC slams all those mutha's. I'm tired of their lying sneaky ways they keep trying to steal your information or force feed you ads. If your org can't sustain itself without lying and cheating then maybe it wasn't meant to be. Just go out of business. The web was built to share information and not advertisements that track and steal.

 

[freggo]

"but was unaware that it inadvertently enabled the advertising cookies"

Yeah, right. Because Google employs 2nd tier programmers.
Gimme a break. You got caught with your fingers in the cookie jar (pun intended).

It seems that slowly but persistently Google is sliding down the slope of misconduct like every other corporation that grew too big to be held accountable.

Shame, but certainly no surprise.

 

[rantoc]

But but Apple products are impervious and patched quickly if anything is found... *trying to hold laughter*

 

[molo9000]

"Don't be evil"
"provide features"
"privacy policy"

George Orwell was right about newspeak...

 

[dalethepcman]

I find it sad that Google "gets in hot water" for a flaw in Apple's software. Then has to go back and fix their +1/ad sense programs, but still gets called out for being the bad guy.

They should have said "we have reported this flaw to apple to be fixed in a future security update" and passed the buck to where it should have been.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

circumvent Safari's default security settings

Safari has security settings?

 

[molo9000]

[citation][nom]amk-aka-Phantom[/nom]Safari has security settings?[/citation]

Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Internet Explorer all accept 3rd party cookies by default.
Only Safari blocks them by default.

btw: it should be called privacy settings, not security settings.

 

[glasssplinter]

[citation][nom]rantoc[/nom]But but Apple products are impervious and patched quickly if anything is found... *trying to hold laughter*[/citation]

"Well, just a second there, professor. We, uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it'll just work itself out naturally." crapple philosophy 101

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]I find it sad that Google "gets in hot water" for a flaw in Apple's software. Then has to go back and fix their +1/ad sense programs, but still gets called out for being the bad guy.They should have said "we have reported this flaw to apple to be fixed in a future security update" and passed the buck to where it should have been.[/citation]

Google did not find it, and it is not a security problem. It is a privacy issue which Google used for the benefit to Google to get around measures in Safari to block the use of 3rd party cookies. All the other browsers have it enabled by default, Safari does not so Google decided to us a method to get around that.

So no this is not a case where someone finds a vulnerability and gets in trouble for it. This is a case where a large company leverages a flaw to gleen additional information from a device without explicit permission from the user.

It is the same thing as someone using a exploit in a browser to install Gator or something on your computer. No one wanted that crap on their machine but somehow it ended up getting installed and showing up next to your clock. Anyone remember Gator?

 

[greenspoon]

Come on guys. Google was doing this for the good of its users. That is all. They were not out to make money, invade privacy, or anything else. They just wanted to provide a better experience for there users.

Apple on the other hand. This was a deliberate mistake on their part and everyone at Apple should be hung until dead for the oversight.

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]greenspoon[/nom]Come on guys. Google was doing this for the good of its users. That is all. They were not out to make money, invade privacy, or anything else. They just wanted to provide a better experience for there users.Apple on the other hand. This was a deliberate mistake on their part and everyone at Apple should be hung until dead for the oversight.[/citation]

lol, are you serious? For the good of it's users on IOS devices? Am I the only one that finds it interesting that your so understanding for Google and then you go to the extreme when talking about Apple. I mean come on "hung until dead"? seriously?

 

[greenspoon]

[citation][nom]ap3x[/nom]lol, are you serious? For the good of it's users on IOS devices? Am I the only one that finds it interesting that your so understanding for Google and then you go to the extreme when talking about Apple. I mean come on "hung until dead"? seriously?[/citation]

Ummm.... It is called sarcasm.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]warezme[/nom]I hope the FTC slams all those mutha's. I'm tired of their lying sneaky ways they keep trying to steal your information or force feed you ads. If your org can't sustain itself without lying and cheating then maybe it wasn't meant to be. Just go out of business. The web was built to share information and not advertisements that track and steal.[/citation]

if those ads are what keep youtube free, my email free and with more than 10mb of storage space, and help allot of websites and video makers make money through allowing their ads, in large enough sums that popular places can make it a full time job... well i am PERFECTLY FINE with being shown ads.

i WILL NEVER see why people have such a huge problem with ads.

 

[cookoy]

Curiously IE, FF and Chrome are not affected. Only safari. Is this poor programming or something more sinister?

 

[ap3x]

[citation][nom]greenspoon[/nom]Ummm.... It is called sarcasm.[/citation]


Ahh, my apologies. Guess I am used to seeing all kinds of really extreme comments on this site so it is hard to tell when someone is being sarcastic.

 

[popatim]

It said in a statement to Electronista that users who had opted out of its interest-based ad program (via Google's Ad Preferences Manager) were not affected by the work around.

This proves that it was intention; why else would you code the workaround to not work on users that opted out...

Not everyone is a moron Google. You're cold busted. Enjoy the lawsuits and fines.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]cookoy[/nom]Curiously IE, FF and Chrome are not affected. Only safari. Is this poor programming or something more sinister?[/citation]
IE, Firefox and Chrome aren't affected because they accept third party cookies by default while Safari doesn't

 

[del35]

I find it sad that Google "gets in hot water" for a flaw in Apple's software.

You comment points light at how the MSM list of favored companies is rigged these days. Imagine Microsoft getting off that easily.

 

[freggo]

Talk about THG not even trying to filter the spam ads out.
It's not that hard to do after all; especially for a top tech site.
Shame.