( CNN ) -- A few days ago , controversy erupted when news broke that Google and other online advertising companies bypassed privacy protections in order to track users of Apple 's Safari web browser and iOS mobile devices . This is not the first time , nor likely the last time , that Google finds itself in hot water for questionable behavior . At a time when many companies ( notably Facebook ) try to come up with ingenious ways to hoard personal data about consumers for lucrative ends -- undermining users ' privacy along the way -- Google 's actions reflect what is becoming the norm in this hypercompetitive space . Many compare tailored Internet advertising to the old small-town butcher , grocer and tailor . As relationships with these merchants developed over time , they learned about your preferences and were able to provide you with a higher level of service . But this is a broken analogy , for several reasons . I grew up in a small town , and guess what -- you have no privacy in a small town . It was n't until I moved to a large city that I developed an appreciation for not being judged , spied upon and tracked by my community . When I moved to the city , I had a clean slate and something akin to true anonymity . Similarly , the companies tracking your every move on the Web do n't stop tracking when you visit a new website , or even when you change Internet providers , computers or browsers . In the nondigital world , this would be like having the butcher , grocer and tailor follow you to your workplace , your home and your family vacation destination . They bring along their children and some of their friends -- not saying who , just people they know . This might result in the perfect cut of meat for your mood , a recommendation for spring vegetables that just came in , and some really awesome workout clothes for your new Pilates classes -- but I do n't think any of us would really find this an acceptable tradeoff . Google knows too much about you . Google stopped using the offending technique after it was reported , although Microsoft is now reporting that Google is using a similar technique to bypass protections in Internet Explorer 9 . Google said it had circumvented the protections against third-party cookies in Safari to allow Google+ users to click `` +1 '' ( instantly share ) when they like an advertisement . That this technique allowed advertising tracking cookies to be placed as a result was just an accident . Google further defends itself by saying the trackers were not collecting personal information . They were simply checking whether you were logged in to Google and what your preferences were with regard to its advertising . The problem is that , as a result of this circumvention , Google 's ad networks were also able to start tracking users -- an unintentional side effect , according to Google . Therein lies the problem . Google and other advertising networks chose to circumvent built-in privacy technologies that were designed to prevent the very thing they were trying to do . Google 's own engineers recognized this as a security flaw in the browser code last summer and submitted a fix to the Webkit project . It is hard to understand how this mistake could have happened , considering the intense scrutiny Google 's privacy policy has received in recent weeks . Clearly the testing of this code was either cursory or nonexistent . I choose to use Gmail , but that does n't mean I expect Google to undo other privacy choices I 've made in order to make social sharing more convenient . Google is heading in a direction that sounds a lot like Facebook 's frictionless sharing , which automatically shares your activities on the Web through social apps -- and that 's scary . The bottom line is that defining privacy using technical specifications will always lead to clever circumventions . Is n't it time to take a page from the laws meant to restrict our digital freedoms and use that broad language to instead write laws that defend our privacy ? In the United States , the Digital Millennium Copyright Act restricts our ability to break digital locks like copy protection and encryption . It is illegal to bypass a `` technological measure that effectively controls access to a work . '' Basically , this means if the author of a protected work intended to protect it , you must have a darn good reason to break that protection . Should n't this be the way privacy works ? If I take an action that indicates my intention to avoid being tracked , should n't you be required to honor it , even if you suppose it will diminish my `` experience '' with your products ? Jonathan Mayer , the researcher who described how these cookies exploited the Safari bug , concluded his disclosure by calling privacy protections a `` cat and mouse game '' or `` arms race '' with advertising companies . Average Americans should n't have to stay one step ahead of advertisers by understanding the complexities of how cookies work and the intimate details of how they are used . Perhaps we should take a piece of advice from Howard Beale from the movie `` Network '' : . `` I want you to get up right now , sit up , go to your windows , open them and stick your head out and yell -- ' I 'm as mad as hell and I 'm not going to take this any more ! ' Things have got to change . But first , you 've got ta get mad ! '' Privacy is n't dead , it 's just being pulled out from under our feet . Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter . Join the conversation on Facebook . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Chester Wisniewski .
Google and other companies bypassed privacy protections to track users . Comment: He says Google is emulating Facebook 's frictionless sharing , which is scary . Wisniewski : We can look to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for a smart law on privacy .