<story><title>Google sued for &apos;clandestine tracking&apos; of UK iPhone users&apos; browsing data</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/21/google-sued-tracking-44m-uk-iphone-users-browsing-data-apple-safari</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ams6110</author><text>While I don&amp;#x27;t condone bypassing a users intent, I&amp;#x27;m struggling to see the damage claim here. So some Safari users got more targeted ads than they would otherwise have seen. Does that merit financial compensation?</text></item><item><author>ocdtrekkie</author><text>&amp;gt; Specifically, Google used a bit of JavaScript code – the workaround – to bypass Safari’s default blocking of third-party cookies (set by domains other than those being visited) in order to allow sites within its DoubleClick ad network to track users.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nakedsecurity.sophos.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;google-sued-over-iphone-safari-workaround-data-snooping&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nakedsecurity.sophos.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;google-sued-over...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Sephr</author><text>What does &amp;quot;bypassed privacy settings of Apple’s Safari browser&amp;quot; mean? Ignoring the DNT header? Setting third party cookies? Something about ITP?&lt;p&gt;This article has practically no details about the actual accusation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jhayward</author><text>&amp;gt; So some Safari users got more targeted ads than they would otherwise have seen.&lt;p&gt;So, some users had their browsing habits illegally harvested, stored, analyzed, and sold to an unknown number of parties for an unknown number of purposes, many of them adverserial in nature to the well-being of the individual.  So what?</text></comment>
<story><title>Google sued for &apos;clandestine tracking&apos; of UK iPhone users&apos; browsing data</title><url>https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/may/21/google-sued-tracking-44m-uk-iphone-users-browsing-data-apple-safari</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>ams6110</author><text>While I don&amp;#x27;t condone bypassing a users intent, I&amp;#x27;m struggling to see the damage claim here. So some Safari users got more targeted ads than they would otherwise have seen. Does that merit financial compensation?</text></item><item><author>ocdtrekkie</author><text>&amp;gt; Specifically, Google used a bit of JavaScript code – the workaround – to bypass Safari’s default blocking of third-party cookies (set by domains other than those being visited) in order to allow sites within its DoubleClick ad network to track users.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nakedsecurity.sophos.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;google-sued-over-iphone-safari-workaround-data-snooping&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nakedsecurity.sophos.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;11&amp;#x2F;30&amp;#x2F;google-sued-over...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item><item><author>Sephr</author><text>What does &amp;quot;bypassed privacy settings of Apple’s Safari browser&amp;quot; mean? Ignoring the DNT header? Setting third party cookies? Something about ITP?&lt;p&gt;This article has practically no details about the actual accusation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>samb1729</author><text>&amp;gt; So some Safari users got more targeted ads than they would otherwise have seen. Does that merit financial compensation?&lt;p&gt;Given that the way it occurs is by allowing Google to more accurately profile the users, I&amp;#x27;d say yes.</text></comment>