[mikedgolf40505]

While this is horrid behavior and I opt out of third party cookies; the bottom line is that without advertisers the internet will not remain free of charge. Just a fact of life.

[Kahuna]

What's the big deal? Google and the rest of the scum can track me all they want...as a use a proxy.

As for the advertising, all of it is already blocked with an ad blocker...even on the Chrome browser.

I am surprised Apple has not retaliated by including an ad blocker in an OS X update, where the default is set to NO ADS. (The user can change the setting is some hidden obscure part of Preferences (Settings).)

HIt Google where it hurts, in their pocketbook, for starters.

Apple also needs to bring in the Justice Department for Google's criminal behavior: violation of Federal wiretap laws. I would also push for prosecution under the RICO statutes, (Google's racketeering coordinated in concert with other companies).

[akbozo]

you firgot about google advertising phamaceutical (drugs) FROM CANADA. illegal. theybroke federal law, knowingly, and were found guilty, had to pay federal fines. google is all about money.

[deepsand]

durantimbodenu566, on 20 February 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

... we need to ask ourselves what Apple's motives were in making it harder for logged-in users of Google ...

They weren't

As I understand it, Google essentially devised a DoubleClick (owned by Google) ad to look like Google g+ button, one that opened in a new instance of a window, thereby giving the appearance to the browser that DoubleClick was a 1st party rather than a 3rd party site.

[deepsand]

Kahuna, on 20 February 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

What's the big deal? Google and the rest of the scum can track me all they want...as a use a proxy.

Unless you're using true anonymizing proxies, they still get your real IP Address.

And, no proxy prevents anyone from profiling the platform that you are physically using.

[deepsand]

mikedgolf40505, on 20 February 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:

While this is horrid behavior and I opt out of third party cookies ... .

Google's trick here was to make a 3rd party site, DoubleClick, look like a 1st party one.

[deepsand]

Kilzna43zk, on 20 February 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

The problem with all this is that it comes from a work around instituted by webkit/Safri, not Google.

BillyVierra, on 20 February 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

The issue here really is not with Google but directly with apple. Reading over the bug that they had for web kit, they broke site functionality (and knew they did) in the name of privacy and at the same time left a work around.

If anything, the FTC should investigate Apple for false advertising of this 'feature'. You cannot blame anyone for using a work around provided by the developer because you felt the developer did not mean for it to be used this way.

That, fellows, is pure BS. Google knew exactly what it was doing when it disguised a DoubleClick ad as the g+ button.

This post has been edited by deepsand: 21 February 2012 - 12:26 AM

[michael1213]

durantimbodenu566, on 20 February 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

First of all, Google wasn't the only company that used this workaround. So if this is a genuine "privacy" issue, other offenders also need to be held accountable.

Second, we need to ask ourselves what Apple's motives were in making it harder for logged-in users of Google and other non-Apple services to enjoy those services while using Safari. Should Apple be investigated--and possibly penalized--for anti-competitive behavior?

Bottom line: We need to figure out what this flap really is about: privacy or antitrust.

Then ask Microsoft as they just accused Google also regarding IE.