

Safari users win right to sue Google over privacy - luxpir
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32083188

======
emehrkay
This seems to be from the mobile iframe workaround that Google implemented.
Apple decided that Safari should not allow an iframe with different source
urls to drop cookies unless the user interacts with the iframe (clicks
something in it). Google's iframed ads automatically clicked something in
order to drop a Google cookie.

I feel that Google didn't get enough shit for this. They kinda get a pass for
their shitty behavior.

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
Thanks for the explanation, I was genuinely struggling to understand what it
is they actually _did_ based on the story... I know it's intended for a
mainstream audience but at least some technical info would've been useful!

------
Navarr
While this is obviously great for privacy proponents - I still can't
understand how, legally, Google must acknowledge and adhere to browser
settings.

Does this set precedent for that?

~~~
toomuchtodo
To not adhere to the user's wishes (in this case, through browser settings) is
malicious behavior.

~~~
Navarr
So then if I write code that works around an ad-blocker, am I being malicious?

I'm not sure those two are actually equivalent, but it feels like it in this
case - in which case this would be pretty bad precedent.

------
eevilspock
evil is as evil does.

