13-year Google privacy settlement pays litigants the equivalent of a Big Mac meal About 2.5 million people who clicked on a Google Search link between October 25, 2006, and September 30, 2013 can expect to receive $7.16 to compensate them for claims of violated privacy, after an epic legal battle with the ad giant. On Tuesday, Edward Davila, US district judge in the Northern District of California, finally …
Well to be honest here the settlement is low because few people care about the issue. This was the default way for the Referer header to work, and at the blessed times we're talking of people didn't care about the fact that the website they were going to would know the very keywords... which had brought them there. If anything, they might have thought it was valuable for web admins to know which keywords would turn up their website in Google results.
Yeah nice idea, but then it gets spunked up the wall on fuck all before it benefits anyone. This is pretty much the MO of most charities.
I think it should go to a non-profit, independent, non-government privacy advocacy and research group preferably not based in the US and based in a country outside the reach of the big 5 and their associated political bullshit, but with a footprint in all of them. Each time an organisation oversteps the mark on privacy, the beast there to oppose it should get bigger and scarier.
Privacy is sovereign and should be out of the reach of governments, corps etc therefore any organisation fighting for it should be also.
Lets be honest, the only way you're going to keep privacy in check is if you have a large group of well funded nerds constantly checking anything and everything with a solid legal team behind them so they can go to war as and when needed to shame these privacy abusing bastards.
Ideally we need some kind of international treaty on human privacy and cryptographic rights to ensure there is no way to circumvent local laws by using another third party country for data gathering etc.
It's bizarre to me that we have treaties for things like landmines, biological weapons, chemical weapons etc etc...which does affect a lot of people but nowhere near as many as are affected by privacy violations which can be just as dangerous and threatening.
This is one of those survey style approaches.
"Do you think it's useful for companies to know what search terms you used to find their website so they can make their website better for you?"
Or
"Do you think companies should be able to know how you found them and possibly use that information to identify you and your interests?"
It strikes me that the lawyers were the ones deciding the "settlement" was acceptable because you can be sure as shit they got more than a "Big Mac" each out of it.
If the settlement is so low as to be meaningless to the plaintiffs, then this is exactly the sort of case that needs to actually go to trial and be legally resolves, not settled in a no blame agreement. But then the prosecution lawyers are risking a loss in the case or even a lower payout even if they win, either by a lower "fine" or higher costs in the longer more expensive process. Most likely it's cost/benefit analysis on their part with no consideration or care at all for their clients.
This settlement is typical of American class-action lawsuits, as the lawyers (barristers) pocket big bucks, the judge yawns and approves the settlement, class participants get very little. This settlement has something useful as an award. I recall other tech class action lawsuits that settled by giving class members a coupon for something worthless they could not use. Anybody else remember the class action lawsuit against Gateway about Pentium CPUs not working right?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
