
Google is facing a lawsuit for tracking people even when they opt out - djsumdog
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-lawsuit-app-tracking-without-permission-reuters-2020-7
======
shadowgovt
Interesting. Between this and the Incognito Mode lawsuit, it seems some
lawyers are trying to make a case that companies have the burden of making
their systems plain-language understandable to the consumer, not technically
understandable. "Incognito mode" has never meant "Third party sites can't
track you," but one could argue its plain-language understanding should be
that. Similarly, disabling "Web & App Activity" actually means Android's
built-in tracking is disabled, but does nothing about third-party site
tracking (which is what Firebase is; it's a framework for third parties
building usage tracking into apps that _happens_ to be owned by Google but
doesn't drop its data into the same hopper as the Android project's tracking).
One can clearly see how turning off Web & App Activity tracking could cause a
person to assume systems like Firebase are also disabled, but it doesn't.

I don't know what the right answer is yet. Manufacturer responsibility v.
personal responsibility is an old question, and it's why we have court
systems.

~~~
strictnein
> "third-party site tracking (which is what Firebase is; it's a framework for
> third parties building usage tracking into apps"

Firebase isn't that at all. It can be used to build such things, but so can
PHP and CSV files.

~~~
WhyNotHugo
> Firebase isn't that at all. It can be used to build such things, but so can
> PHP and CSV files.

You can use PHP and CSV for purposes unrelated to tracking. Firebase cannot be
used without any tracking going on.

~~~
strictnein
Yes, it absolutely can. I'm doing so currently.

Firebase at its core is cloud functions, triggers, and storage.

------
gundmc
This is the second suit from this firm that seems to be formed on an
incredibly weak and intentionally misleading argument.

Here: the user turns off data collection from Google services, but third party
apps use a Google Cloud offering to collect analytics (which Google cannot
access).

Previously: I launched Chrome in incognito mode, but when I log into Google it
records my activity.

Given the article's mention of Oracle as a client, it seems likely this is
part of Oracle's continued smear campaign against Google. Keeping a stream of
negative headlines regardless of substance, especially as the big Supreme
Court case looms.

~~~
pd33
Parts of Firebase do share data with Google that Google can access and use.
[https://firebase.google.com/policies/analytics](https://firebase.google.com/policies/analytics)

~~~
gundmc
I'm not seeing anything that obviously supports your statement in that link,
but I may be missing something. Could you quote the relevant section?

~~~
gundmc
I'm outside the edit window, but this page [1] looks more relevant. App owners
can opt in to sharing additional data with Google for use in things such as
spam prevention. It is off by default.

[1]
[https://support.google.com/firebase/answer/6383877?hl=en](https://support.google.com/firebase/answer/6383877?hl=en)

------
dependenttypes
Google should face a lawsuit for intentionally breaking the audio challenge in
captcha when someone is using a proxy or has the fingerprinting protection
enabled (same for cloudflare with their hcaptcha actually which does not even
have an audio challenge). Also for making captcha more difficult when using
firefox.

------
dang
The similar suit filed a month ago by the same firm was discussed here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23405022](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23405022)

also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397045)

------
ForHackernews
Can any googlers comment on whether "turning off" activity on your user page
actually does anything? My understanding has always been that it just hides
that data from the end-user.

~~~
lrem
It does exactly what it says on the tin - Google stops collecting data you
tell it to stop. This lawsuit, from a quick glance, is about Google not
preventing "hundreds of thousands" of third parties from collecting, including
third parties building with Google tech.

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Is the "Google tech" argument the equivalent of saying "Toyota promised not to
track me, but a stalker followed me around town in a Corolla?"

~~~
shadowgovt
Basically. Firebase and Google Analytics can be used to build user behavior
tracking in an app. That doesn't imply turning off web & app activity tracking
the Android OS itself does turns off behaviors in apps running on that OS.

------
digitalpacman
Literally no one stops tracing you when you opt out.

------
a3n
Well, they have to track people that they aren't tracking. Otherwise they
wouldn't know who they're not tracking.

~~~
dudus
I realize this is a joke. But that's an interesting contradiction, how do you
know how many people you didn't track?

The answer is that you don't. These companies estimate how many people block
cookies or pie-hole requests to /dev/null or have ad blockers, etc. Their
estimations are bad and they don't really know. It's a real problem.

------
zelphirkalt
Well, how come I am not surprised. Google is an ad company and I think lots of
people still have not understood this. Google abuses that and does whatever
they can to get more data. Ethics play no role for them.

------
spodek
"Don't Be Evil", according to Wikipedia: "In April 2018, the motto was removed
from the code of conduct's preface and retained in its last sentence."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_evil)

Since you can't demote it past the last sentence, maybe they should change it
to "Whatever sells" or something similarly mercenary.

------
notRobot
This is Google we're talking about. I'm sure they've run the numbers and come
to the conclusion that a lawsuit and a fine costs less than the amount of
money that they earn by tracking users even after saying that they won't.

Is anyone surprised at this point?

~~~
shadowgovt
Honestly, I doubt they've run any numbers on this because I think this lawsuit
hasn't occurred to Google.

Web & App Activity tracking collects data on usage of apps and browsing and
sends them to the Android project (for improving the OS). Firebase is a
framework and service for third parties to build tracking like that into their
individual _products,_ and it has an entirely separate history from W&AA
tracking. It happens to be _owned_ by Google (as of recently), but the data
isn't in the same hoppers as the Android hoppers and Google can't see it (it's
part of the Cloud offering; Google offers the service and stores the data, but
aggregating or using the data itself would be a violation of their agreements
with Firebase customers). Firebase and W&AA tracking are two different
subsystems owned and maintained by two different departments at Google (in
fact, hypothetically, they could build W&AA tracking as a client project _on
top of_ Firebase, if they hadn't already built it).

Firebase was an acquisition; when the W&AA tracking feature was added,
Firebase wasn't even part of Google. This is a lawyer recognizing that an
acquisition has created a novel arrangement that could be interpreted as
suspicious.

