Connect with us

News

Google To Delete Incognito Search Data To End Privacy Suit

Published

on

Google has agreed to delete a vast trove of search data to settle a suit that it tracked millions of US users who thought they were browsing the internet privately.

If a proposed settlement filed Monday in San Francisco federal court is approved by a judge, Google must “delete and/or remediate billions of data records” linked to people using the Chrome browser’s incognito mode, according to court documents.

“This settlement is an historic step in requiring dominant technology companies to be honest in their representations to users about how the companies collect and employ user data, and to delete and remediate data collected,” lawyer David Boies said in the filing.

A hearing is slated for July 30 before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is to decide whether to approve the deal that would let Google avoid a trial in the class-action suit.

Advertisement

The settlement calls for no cash damages to be paid but leaves an option for Chrome users who feel they were wronged to sue Google separately to get money.

The suit originally filed in June of 2020 sought at least $5 billion in damages.

“We are pleased to settle this lawsuit, which we always believed was meritless,” Google spokesman Jorge Castaneda said in a statement.

“We are happy to delete old technical data that was never associated with an individual and was never used for any form of personalization.”

Advertisement

The object of the lawsuit was the “Incognito Mode” in the Chrome browser that plaintiffs said gave users a false sense that what they were surfing online was not being tracked by the Silicon Valley tech firm.

But internal Google emails brought forward in the lawsuit demonstrated that users using incognito mode were being followed by the search and advertising behemoth for measuring web traffic and selling ads.

The lawsuit, filed in a California court, claimed Google’s practices had infringed on users’ privacy by intentionally deceiving them with the incognito option.

The original complaint alleged that Google had been given the “power to learn intimate details about individuals’ lives, interests, and internet usage.”

Advertisement

“Google has made itself an unaccountable trove of information so detailed and expansive that George Orwell could never have dreamed it,” it added.

The settlement requires Google, for the next five years, to block third-party tracking “cookies” by default in Incognito Mode.

Third-party cookies are small files which are used to target advertising by tracking web navigation and are placed by visited sites and not by the browser itself.

No cookies?

Advertisement

Google earlier this year began limiting third-party cookies for some users of its Chrome browser, a first step towards eventually abandoning the files that have raised privacy concerns.

Google announced in January 2020 that it would begin eliminating third-party cookies within two years, but the start has been delayed several times amid opposition from web media publishers.

Cookies have recently been subject to greater regulation, including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation introduced in 2016 as well as regulations in California.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

News

BREAKING! Sole Administrators to manage Rivers LGs

Published

on

Sole administrators to be appointed by the state administrator to head each local government area in Rivers state.

Details loading….

Continue Reading

News

BREAKING: 2 Female House Members Clash Over State of Emergency in Rivers State

Published

on

By Gloria Ikibah
Ahead of Wednesday plenary session, tension flared in the House of Representatives as two female lawmakers engaged in a heated argument.
Rep. Blessing Amadi (PDP, Rivers State) and Rep. Marie Ebikake (PDP Bayelsa State) were seen raising their voices at each other, with the disagreement linked to President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State on Tuesday, which led to the suspension of Governor Similayi Fubara and members of the Rivers State House of Assembly.
Naijablitznews.com observed Rep. Ebikake reading aloud from the Nigerian Constitution while Rep. Amadi, appearing visibly agitated, pointed at her colleague in disagreement.
Also in one instance, other lawmakers were seen in groups engaging in heated conversations, and Rep. Kama Nkemkama, a lawmaker from Ebonyi State was seen banging on a table before walking away in frustration
Meanwhile, the President is expected to formally transmit a correspondence to the National Assembly within two days, seeking legislative consent for the emergency rule. The matter is expected to dominate discussions at the plenary session.
Continue Reading

News

Reps to Debate President Tinubu’s State of Emergency Declaration in Rivers At Wednesday Plenary

Published

on

By Gloria Ikibah
The House of Representatives is set to deliberate on President Bola Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State.
This follows constitutional provisions that require the National Assembly to consider such a proclamation within two days if in session or within ten days if not.
A member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Patrick Umoh, in an interview on the News @10 on Nigeira Television Authority (NTA) explained that Wednesday plenary session will focus on the validity of the declaration and whether it aligns with the constitutional provisions.
Umoh emphasised that the president’s decision was made in response to threats to order and peace, as permitted under the Constitution.
“The President has done so, and there are reasons why this has been done, which are now public knowledge. It is the obligation of Parliament to consider the validity or otherwise of such a proclamation and then take our decision,” Umoh stated.
He also clarified that the House has the power to extend the state of emergency beyond six months if necessary, in line with Section 305 of the Constitution.
According to the lawmaker, he debate, will be conducted in collaboration with the Senate, given Nigeria’s bicameral legislative structure.
Addressing concerns that the state of emergency might lead to militarization and suspension of democratic structures in Rivers, Umoh disagreed with such views, insisting that the president’s decision aligns with democratic principles.
“I can’t concede to the argument of militarization. The decision to declare a state of emergency is in compliance with the Constitution. It is the discretion of Mr. President to appoint who administers the state where the declaration has been made,” he said.
On the possibility that the National Assembly might reject the declaration, Umoh noted that such a decision would mean the emergency rule cannot stand, as the Constitution requires legislative approval.
“If today the decision of Parliament does not go in sync with the declaration of the president, then the decision of emergency cannot stand. That’s the provision of the Constitution,” he stressed.
With the House expected to debate and take a resolution today, all eyes are on the National Assembly to determine the next steps in Rivers State.
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Naija Blitz News