Now, iPhone users in the UK are getting together to sue Google over the debacle. The Guardian reports:

At least 10 British iPhone users have started legal proceedings and dozens more are being lined up, according to Dan Tench, the lawyer behind the action at the London-based firm Olswang.

“This is the first time Google has been threatened with a group claim over privacy in the UK,” he said. “It is particularly concerning how Google circumvented security settings to snoop on its users. One of the things about Google is that it is so ubiquitous in our lives and if that’s its approach then it’s quite concerning.”

There is a Facebook Group called “Safari Users Against Google’s Secret Tracking,” which has been set up by the law firm in connection with the users who are going after Google. In the “About” section, the description says:

This group has been set up to provide information for anyone who used the Safari internet browser between September 2011 and February 2012, and who was illegally tracked by Google.

If you have concerns or want to join the action, contact us via this group and we will share your views or put you in touch with the legal team.

It will be interesting to see how many users get on board with this, and what it ends up meaning for Google. A press release from Olswang has more on the case.

And the story comes from Don Melton, a retired programmer who is best known for working on the Safari project. He details how Safari got its name in a blog post.

Here’s how it all went down in the summer of ’02:

As I remember, Steve just started saying some names out loud — I suppose trying them out to see how they felt in his mouth and to his ears. Which is not as odd as it seemed then — it’s a good technique now that I think about it.

I don’t recall all the names, but one that stands out is “Freedom.” Steve spent some time trying that one out on all of us. He may have liked it because it invoked positive imagery of people being set free. And, just as possible and positive, it spoke to our own freedom from Microsoft and Internet Explorer, the company and browser we depended on at the time.

Of course, all I could think about was, “Please don’t let us name the browser after a feminine hygiene product!” But cooler heads and filthier minds prevailed. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one in the room with that concern. So, after some discussion about its actual merits, “Freedom” moved off the candidate list.

According to Melton, Safari had a couple of internal names that were never really considered – they were just what the folks working on the project called it. “Alexander” was one of them. So was “iBrowse,” which Melton says “became a part of an elaborate joke that later appeared on a team shirt.”

Anyway, when someone on the team would really annoy me about needing to know the final name, I would often say something like, “I’ve just heard from Scott Forstall and it’s ‘iBrowse’ for sure.” Which really meant, “Don’t bug me with that shit right now.” This is how to endear yourself to your engineers

Eventually, Jobs chose a name. Here’s Melton describing his reaction when he was told that the browser he’d been working on would ship as “Safari”:

I honestly didn’t know what to think. My mind was a blank because I just didn’t expect it. The name seemed to come out of nowhere. It sounded more foreign at that moment than its actual origin.

‘It doesn’t suck,’ I finally offered.

Melton promises us more on the Safari story, but he’s saving that for a later date. It’s hard to imagine it not being called Safari, but then again we’d be saying the same thing about Freedom, if that wound up winning out.

[Don Melton]

Based on the revenue that Google brings in, however, some found this amount to be a mere slap on the wrist. Consumer rights group Consumer Watchdog was not impressed with the fine, and went so far as to seek the right to oppose it in a court of law – a right which it was ultimately granted.

Now, we learn, however, that the group’s quest to see Google face tougher financial punishment has so far been unsuccessful. The AP reports that a federal judge rejected Consumer Watchdog’s plea, rulling that Google’s settlement with the FTC was “fair, adequate and reasonable.”

The group will reportedly “pressure” the FTC to take Google to court in its big antitrust investigation, a scenario that is looking quite possible anyway, based on recent reports, though a number of politicians have come out on Google’s side of that issue. Last week, ten Republican senators signed a letter advising the FTC to ease up on tech companies like Google, though it did not actually mention the company by name. Congressman Jared Polis, a Democrat, also sent a letter to the FTC recently saying that to even discuss antitrust with regards to Google “defies all logic”.

Time is close at hand, however, for the FTC’s final decision on whether or not to pursue an antitrust case against the company. A recent report said they were giving Google a few days to come up with a proposal. It’s been a few days. Stay tuned.

Toon Verwaest, Software Engineer for Google, pointed to the latest Octane benchmark scores for the newest release of Chrome Beta. Over the past year, Chrome’s speed has increased by 26 percent.

Of course, Octane only measures a browser’s JavaScript performance. There are other factors to consider, but Google addresses those as well. Verwaest says that Google has been striving to “minimize wait times” in Chrome. For instance, he says that the company has made some server-side changes to Google Cloud Print that makes Chrome’s printer selection dialog load twice as fast.

Google is also working on “reducing the browser’s startup time” and “setting up automated tests to catch any code changes that would slow Chrome down.” With these enhancements, it’s easy to see why people would view Chrome as the fastest browser today.

In all reality, however, Chrome is only the fastest browser on some computers and devices. Surprisingly enough, a recent study from New Relic found that Internet Explorer 10 is actually the fastest browser on Windows PCs. In fact, Chrome 21 is behind Firefox 15 and Safari 5 when it comes to speed on Windows.

Things look up for Chrome, however, when it gets into Mac OS X. Chrome 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are the five fastest browsers on Mac OS X at the moment, with Chrome 19 being the fastest.

Putting numbers aside, Chrome is a fast browser that will serve the needs of any who use it. You can grab the latest beta release, with the above mentioned speed improvements, here.

This makes searching more secure, and ncreases privacy. At the same time, it distorts analytics data. When Google turned it on for the desktop, it turned keyword data in Google Analytics to “not provided”. With Apple’s version, it’s just making search traffic count as “direct”. In other words, if someone gets to your site by searching Google from the search box in Apple’s latest version of Safari, it will look like they just went to your site directly instead of finding it through a search. Your search traffic may seem down, and your direct visitors may seem up.

Danny Sullivan explains the situation in great detail at Search Engine Land, where he shares a statement from Google, who says:

If you go to google.com on most mobile web browsers today, you don’t get SSL. Currently there’s significantly more latency for SSL connections on mobile devices that we believe creates a poor user experience, so we’re looking into the best way to make HTTPS connections faster on mobile devices. That’s why we don’t yet show personal results on mobile, either.

For the web browser on iOS 6 with SSL on by default, our web servers don’t yet take that fact into account. We’re investigating different options to address this issue.

It will be interesting to see what Google’s solution is. Will the company find a way around Apple’s increased privacy? Would they want to do something involving Safari that somehow decreases user privacy after being handed the largest fine for a single company in FTC history over Safari-related privacy issues?

Also, Google seems to consider “poor user experience” the problem with doing SSL search on mobile itself. If this is the case, where are all of the complaints about the “poor user experience” from the Safari search box? I can’t say I’ve heard any.

Chitika looked at hundreds of millions of online impressions from their ad network during a week-long span, and found that outside web browsers and still struggling to gain any ground on default browsers, when it comes to their usage on the two popular mobile operating systems. According to their study, 85.03% of the iOS web browsing share belonged to Safari, while 91.26% of the Android web browsing share belonged to the default Android browser.

Although users of both OS seem content with sticking to their default browsers, it appears that iOS users are a bit more adventurous. Around 15% of iOS users opt for a non-default browser, with Google Chrome leading the way at 3.07%. The remaining 12% or so is spread out among many other mobile browsers including Firefox, Dolphin, Atomic, Mercury, and more.

When it comes to Android users, Opera is the #2 browser with 5.83% of the share. Chrome sees 2.34% usage, while Firefox only comes in at 0.56%.

Chrome for iOS, which launched to immediate popularity, continues to receive its first batch of updates and bug fixes. Google also just released an update for Chrome for Android which they say makes the browser more secure.

Meanwhile, Apple just released iOS 6, which included updates to Safari. These included full-screen mode, iCloud tabs, offline reading lists, and the ability to snap photos or take videos without ever leaving the app.

[Image courtesy Virtualwayfarer, Flickr]

As pointed out by Thomas Baekdal on Google Plus, Apple has retroactively rated the Google Chrome app as 17+. They say the app contains frequent and/or intense mature/suggestive themes. The description accurately describes the Internet, but that’s only if you’re going to specific unsavory areas.

Thomas Baekdal3 hours ago

Apple's bullshit anti-competitive behavior strikes again. Now Apple has age restricted Google Chrome for iOS… with the warning that it includes "Frequent/Intense Mature/suggestive Themes".

Apple really needs to be hit hard with an antitrust lawsuit. 

25    6 Powered by socialditto

Before you cry fowl, Apple is doing this to all the browsers in the Appstore. The Opera Mini Web Browser, another popular mobile browser, has been rated 17+ for the same reasons.

In a far more hilarious turn, Apple has rated the Dolphin Browser 17+ for the following reasons:

Infrequent/Mild Horror/Fear Themes
Infrequent/Mild Alcohol, Tobacco, or Drug Use or References
Infrequent/Mild Mature/Suggestive Themes
Frequent/Intense Sexual Content or Nudity
Infrequent/Mild Profanity or Crude Humor
Infrequent/Mild Cartoon or Fantasy Violence
Infrequent/Mild Simulated Gambling
Infrequent/Mild Realistic Violence

It’s hard to say if Apple would rate Safari the same way since the app is included by default in iOS. By making it the default, Apple seems to at least be saying that Safari is a safer Web browser. It might not be anti-competitive, but it’s funny to see Apple making it harder for the younger crowd to use anything but Safari when browsing the Internet. It shouldn’t be that big of a deal, however, since most iOS users are over the age of 17.

Just for kicks, let’s take a look at the same browsers on Google Play. Chrome is listed as a low maturity app. The Opera Mini Web Browser is surprisingly rated as an app for everyone. Firefox is rated as low maturity, and Dolphin is also rated as low maturity.

So, what’s happening here? Apple is either being anti-competitive or being over protective. I would like to think it’s the latter. The Internet can be a dangerous place for young people, and Apple is probably just wanting to protect them from the worst the Internet has to offer. It’s odd, however, that Apple doesn’t allow parental controls in Safari. The company apparently thinks the only way to protect children from the horrors of the Internet is to restrict access to the Safari app altogether.

Either way, we’ve reached out to Apple for comment. We’ll update if we hear back.

“Google executives want to buy their way out of trouble with what for them is pocket change and then deny doing anything wrong,” said Consumer Watchdog Privacy Project director John M. Simpson. “Allowing this settlement undercuts the entire regulatory process. Companies and their executives must be held accountable when they violate legal agreements.”

A judge has granted the group the right to oppose the settlement, and to file an amicus, or friend of the court, brief. The order granted on Tuesday, gave Google and the FTC a week to respond, and a hearing will be granted once the judge receives all the legal papers, if she deems them necessary.

United States District Judge Susan Illston said in her order granting Consumer Watchdog’s motion, “Nonparty Consumer Watchdog has filed a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the proposed stipulated order of the parties. The Court GRANTS the request, and directs that the amicus brief be filed no later than September 21, 2012. The parties may file reply briefs by September 28, 2012. After review of the briefing, the Court will schedule a hearing if necessary.”

“How can a settlement be in the public interest, when the guilty party gets to deny they did anything wrong?” Simpson asked.

The group filed a complaint back in February about Google violating the “Buzz Consent Agreement” with the FTC, following the discovery of what came to be known as “Safari-gate”.

While the fine will hardly make a dent in Google’s earnings, and is considerably lower than the $500 million Google had to pay to the Department of Justice and other law enforcement agencies over drug ads, the FTC is sure proud of its work in bringing Google to justice.

The Weekly Standard reports that FTC lawyer Megan Gray “bragged about her performance” in an email to friends and colleagues, which allegedly said:

This is also my roundabout way of letting folks know of my new position, since I did not previously have a chance to tell many people (suffice to say, I’ve had my nose to the grindstone since I started five months ago). Upon my arrival, I was made first-chair trial counsel in the case against Google for privacy violations under the comprehensive Consent Order that became effective last year. With a fantastic team working with me, we were able to obtain a $22,500,000 million settlement, the FTC’s largest ever — we officially announced the case and settlement today. I will be continuing as lead enforcer on the Consent Order, but hopefully I will have a chance to come up for air now and resume a quasi-normal life. I hope we have a chance to reconnect in the foreseeable future!

The FTC posted this message on its Facebook page from Gray and Megan Bartley:

Federal Trade Commission20 hours ago

Hi, all. Megan Gray and Megan Bartley here from the FTC’s Division of Enforcement ready to answer your questions about Google! Please post them in the comment thread below. For more information on the settlement, see our press release: http://go.usa.gov/GFW. For information about how our chats work and previous examples, see: http://go.usa.gov/GLC

Google Will Pay $22.5 Million to Settle FTC Charges it Misrepresented Privacy Assurances to Users of
Google Inc. has agreed to pay a record $22.5 million civil penalty to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misrepresented to users of Apple Inc.’s Safari Internet browser that it would not place tracking “cookies” or serve targeted ads to those users, violating an earlier privacy settl…

Powered by socialditto  4 likes ·  23 comments

In the comment thread of the post, the FTC says, “Google is paying with black eyes as well as greenbacks. We will continue watching them and there will be increasing deterrence as needed.”

Some of Google’s opponents aren’t quite as thrilled with the FTC’s performance. A WebProNews, for example, commented, “That’s all! They prob made 1 billion from it, so they [are] laughing at [the] FTC. It should be a fine that is equal to what they made by their crime.”

Direct Marketing News shares the following statement from a Google spokesperson: “The FTC is focused on a 2009 help center page published more than two years before our consent decree, and a year before Apple changed its cookie-handling policy. We have now changed that page and taken steps to remove the ad cookies, which collected no personal information, from Apple’s browsers.”

Under the settlement terms, Google is also required to participate in third-party privacy audits.

The fine is the largest that any single company has ever had to pay as the result of violation of a commission order.

“The record setting penalty in this matter sends a clear message to all companies under an FTC privacy order,” said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the FTC. “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 has also ordered Google to disable all tracking cookies it had said it wouldn’t place on consumers’ computers.

In its initial complaint, the FTC charged that Google had placed a certain advertising cookie on Safari users’ devices, who visited sites in Google’s DoubleClick ad network, though Google had reportedly told users they would automatically be opted out of the tracking, as a result of Safari’s default settings.

The FTC found that Google misrepresented its privacy assurances, and placed the cookie on the devices anyway. The FTC said, “Google exploited an exception to the browser’s default setting to place a temporary cookie from the DoubleClick domain. Because of the particular operation of the Safari browser, that initial temporary cookie opened the door to all cookies from the DoubleClick domain, including the Google advertising tracking cookie that Google had represented would be blocked from Safari browsers.”

The FTC also found that Google had violated a previous settlement it reached with the agency back in 2011, related to Google Buzz.