Feeds

Google pays just $22.5m to FTC over Safari tracking blunder

More of a tickle than a drop and cough test

The essential guide to IT transformation

As expected, Google has agreed to pay the US Federal Trade Commission a paltry penalty of $22.5m for its sneaky bypassing of the default privacy settings of Apple's Safari browser.

The consumer watchdog confirmed in a statement today that Google had settled on charges that it "misrepresented privacy assurances to users" and described the fine as the biggest one ever meted out over the violation of a Commission order.

Nonetheless, the payout is ridiculously small change to Google - which racks up sales of over $20m roughly every five hours. Indeed, the US regulator acknowledged the fact that the company generates billions of dollars of revenue annually.

The penalty was gently flung at the search and ad giant, after the FTC confirmed that it had violated an earlier privacy agreement with the commission.

There was another minor slap applied to the rosy cheek of CEO Larry Page, with the FTC stating that, in addition to the civil penalty, the order also demands Google to disable all the tracking cookies it had said it would place on consumers' computers.

The commission's chairman Jon Leibowitz said:

The record setting penalty in this matter sends a clear message to all companies under an FTC privacy order.

No matter how big or small, all companies must abide by FTC orders against them and keep their privacy promises to consumers, or they will end up paying many times what it would have cost to comply in the first place.

The FTC referred the case to the US Department of Justice, which on Wednesday agreed that Google's privacy blunder was in the public interest and proposed a consent decree that is subject to court approval.

Google, as part of its original agreement in October 2011, avoided being fined and did not have to admit that its biz practices had been unlawful. However, it was always clear that a penalty would be issued to Google if it was found to have violated that deal.

A consent decree makes it clear that the defendant in question - in this case Google - had not operated outside of the law by breaking the initial settlement deal with the FTC.

So slapped hands all round, but the headmaster's cane remains fixed to the wall.

Click here for the FTC's full statement, and this way for a handy technical guide to Google's crafty screw-up. ®

The essential guide to IT transformation

More from The Register

next story
Super Cali signs a kill-switch, campaigners say it's atrocious
Remote-death button bad news for crooks, protesters – and great news for hackers?
UK government accused of hiding TRUTH about Universal Credit fiasco
'Reset rating keeps secrets on one-dole-to-rule-them-all plan', say MPs
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
Don't even THINK about copyright violation, says Indian state
Pre-emptive arrest for pirates in Karnataka
The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal
And our man Corfield is pretty bloody cross about it
Felony charges? Harsh! Alleged Anon hackers plead guilty to misdemeanours
US judge questions harsh sentence sought by prosecutors
prev story

Whitepapers

A new approach to endpoint data protection
What is the best way to ensure comprehensive visibility, management, and control of information on both company-owned and employee-owned devices?
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Maximize storage efficiency across the enterprise
The HP StoreOnce backup solution offers highly flexible, centrally managed, and highly efficient data protection for any enterprise.
How modern custom applications can spur business growth
Learn how to create, deploy and manage custom applications without consuming or expanding the need for scarce, expensive IT resources.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.