Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Netscape Pays $100,000 To Settle Privacy Issue 99

Posted by Hemos from the putting-the-issue-out-to-pasture dept.
crazyhorse44 writes ""The New York Attorney General's office said on Friday Netscape would pay $100,000 as part of a settlement of complaints about a feature used by the unit of America Online to track what users downloaded online. Netscape, once the browser pioneer that has fallen second to Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer in recent years, would also delete all URLs and related data it has obtained through its SmartDownload browser software and undergo privacy audits, the Attorney General's office said. The settlement comes after a two-year probe, begun in 2002, into Netscape's collection and retention of information that identified files downloaded by users, which contradicted its statement to consumers that none of the information was saved." Story at Wired."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Netscape Pays $100,000 To Settle Privacy Issue More

Netscape Pays $100,000 To Settle Privacy Issue

Comments Filter:
  • So they basically know that most of their internet users download pr0n and mp3s. Is this news? An invasion of privacy? Maybe, but you could write this in a text file:

    User (212.23.32.19) downloaded pamela_boobs.jpg at 3:30PM.

    And chances are, you would be close to the truth, just out of sheer random pr0n coincidence.

    In all seriousness though, good job to all the people who don't let evil AOL get ahead in this world!

    • Re:So? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by yatest5 ( 455123 )
      So they basically know that most of their internet users download pr0n and mp3s. Is this news? An invasion of privacy?

      Yes, I'm sure if this was Microsoft all the slashbots would be responding in *exactly* the same way. Hypocrits.

      • Yes, I'm sure if this was Microsoft all the slashbots would be responding in *exactly* the same way. Hypocrits.

        Responding in the exact same way is not hypocritical.

        ---
        hypocrite

        n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]
        ---

        Now praising AOL for it while condemning Microsoft for the same thing would be hypocritical.

        Consider learning the meaning of words before you use them. Also note the spelling.

    • Re:So? (Score:2)

      by Soko ( 17987 )
      Funny thing is, is that the objects of pamela_boobs.jpg are just as bought and paid for as Netscape.

      Yup, it's all realted to getting more $, via silicone or silicon. Go figure. (pun intended)

      Soko

    • Re:So? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And who gets the $100,000??? Anyone that had their privacy invaded??

    • Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Moraelin ( 679338 )
      Personally I'm just disappointed in it all. The electronics age seems to have just created wonderful new opportunities for the dishonest and the corrupt.

      What are they going to do with that data about the users? What _can_ they do with that data? Probably nothing useful. Ever.

      And I don't mean only Netscape. I mean all the retards who just have to collect a whole database of every single CD you listened to, every single piece of shareware installed on your computer, every web site you've been to, etc.

      _I

      • First off any company who employs deceptive practices to gather information (no matter how useless) should have to pay for it 100k sounds like a good start.

        That said I would like to address one of your other points:

        How's every single detail of my life going to help them make a better game? Does my street, house number and phone number really help their design process?

        Actually it does. One of the most important aspects of design is knowing who your designing for, and geographic influences are often
        • Look, I'm not against knowing their target audience, to some degree. However:

          1) Do they _really_ need to go into that kind of detail? I mean, honestly, there's a difference between knowing that 25-35 year old men from Seattle bought your game, and requiring to know exactly on what street I live in.

          A statistic that fine grained is just pointless. There's a fine line between (A) knowing that 5000 men from NW Germany bought the product, and (B) knowing that 2 guys living on Gneisenau street bought it, as o

      • Their collecting your information often doesn't have anything to do with you or their product. Just having that information is valuable to marketing companies or spammers. A database of 100,000 verified identities with demographic data is incredibly valuable in the modern marketing world. Therefore if a company can get you to give them that information for free they will as another revenue stream. I would suspect that when they come up with the idea the concept of privacy and respecting the customer is co
    • To be exactly accurate all they know is that users downloaded files whose names are consistent with those often used for pr0n and mp3s.........as the RIAA/MPAA have found already a filename does not a file make. Where would dildo_song.mov fit for instance ?

      It says India on tyres but that doesn't mean that's where the bus is going !!

      Which sort of makes the whole exercise even more pointless.

  • what were they going to do with all that data? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    See what people are downloading?

  • Hold on (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ian Harris ( 122919 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:51AM (#6210558) Homepage
    "The settlement comes after a two-year probe, begun in 2002"
  • The settlement comes after a two-year probe, begun in 2002
    I didn't know we already were in 2004.
    must've fallen asleep.
    I should take more caffein.

  • Only $100,000? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maliabu ( 665176 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:52AM (#6210563)
    this must be the lowest settlement in recent history? is this already the end of the 2nd dotcom boom?

    • Re:Only $100,000? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by muffen ( 321442 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:59AM (#6210583)
      Why do they do this??
      What's the point of saving this kind of information? Can anyone actually come up with a good reason for saving this info. I mean, really, who cares what files people download (except RIAA and MPAA that is).

      I fail to see what use AOL/Netscape will have of this info.

      In regards to the low amount of money, it was probably because they were only saving filenames. It may be personal info, but IMHO still not too bad. I mean, if they'd tell me they were collecting this, I probably wouldn't care, even if I was using Netscape.

      • Re:Only $100,000? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by stephenbooth ( 172227 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:51AM (#6210753) Homepage Journal
        Why do they do this?? What's the point of saving this kind of information?

        Marketing. Simply marketing. If you analyze the data you get and find that people who tend to download items of type A (say, Pr0n) also download items of type B (say, MP3s of Britney Spears) you can sell that information to the mainstream pr0n merchants for loads of money so they know they should get Britney to do a centre spread. To rehash an old joke:

        1. Collect information.
        2. Do statistical analysis and correlations.
        3. $$$$

        Stephen

        • 1. Collect information. 2. Do statistical analysis and correlations. 3. $$$$

          You mean to say the underpant gnomes actually figured out step 2 ;)
    • The settlement was reached based on a fine of $10000 for every user of the netscape software.
    • Zoidberg - "Once again the sandwich heavy investor comes out ahead *munch* ... I'm ruined!"

  • Booh Netscape (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pocharngo ( 592711 ) <pocharngo.netscape@net> on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:52AM (#6210566)
    As an old Netscape fan, I can only say: "Disappointed!!" Since they are one of MS:s most prominent historical "enemies", I really thought they could be trusted.

    • Re:Booh Netscape (Score:4, Insightful)

      by x0n ( 120596 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:26AM (#6210670) Homepage Journal
      <troll>
      The sad thing is, you're probably 100% serious when you say that. It must really sting to discover that microsoft are not at the root of all bad business practices.
      </troll>
      • Well, I am. But that's not what stings. What stings is that Netscape was in the position (sought after or not) to look like it was everything MS wasn't (for example, being able to produce a good browser... ;-) ), and that's apparently changed. Well, I shouldn't be surprised, things do change. No sane person would argue today that Netscape is a better browser than IE. 5 years ago, however, things were very different.

        • Yes, I used Netscape long after everyone had allready switched, because I had a better sence of trust of Netscape over IE. But it seems that regardless of what companies claim with their privacy statements, it's gonna be bogus anyway.

          Allways nice to get a reminder..

        • Agreed, but it's a pity really. Back "in the day", Netscape corp was gripped by the hacker ethic, driven by it's then very young visionary, Marc Andreeson as you well know. It was initially a port of Mosaic to X windows -- and its monolithic, C-based architecture never changed; we all have the horrific DHTML hacks put forth in 4.x to attest to that. Microsoft hit the nail on the head with their rewritten 4.0 release (although stability was an issue, it had an amazing DOM model). Anyhow, this is all past his
    • You are probably the first Slashdot reader who trusts AOL.
    • I see it as the difference between trusting Netscape and trusting AOL. Since AOL bought Netscape (and Winamp too), quality has dropped and spyware and 'features' have taken over.

  • Netscape == sad story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:54AM (#6210571)
    Here was the first Linux www browser worth that name, that wasn't perfect but it was working, that became more and more bloated and unstable, while at the same time Microsoft decided to give away IE for free, effectively killing off Netscape. Then Netscape sold out to AOL like a cheap whore and the browser has now become a giant marketing turd.

    The happy end of the story ? Netscape released the source code of the browser, enabling the Mozilla project to begin. Thanks guys !
    • Yeah Netscape released the source code, but it sucked so much the Mozilla team had to start over. It took them years to release the first version of Mozilla, and now the Mozilla suit is too bloated and slow, they have to trim down the code and work on Firebird. At the same time AOL made a deal to use IE for the next few years. I don't know it is happy end or not, but it seems to be going nowhere.
    • um, sorry, you've got things a little mis-interpreted i believe.

      first, ns was about the only browser for linux for quite some time. even after AOL bought ns. MS never gave away IE for linux, they only released an outdated solaris version. also, MS giving away IE didn't directly kill off netscape. it was the OS bundling that killed off netscape. users didn't have to download a 10+ MB browser to install, it was already there on the pc. ISPs began to get really competitive. IIRC, it was win95 V. 2 tha
      • MS giving away IE didn't directly kill off netscape. it was the OS bundling that killed off netscape.

        Oh, crap. Netscape killed netscape. People downloaded the 10+mb upgrades of IE, but they didn't download the upgrades of netscape, because there weren't any. Netscape was a bloated buggy browser that never got updated, threw a tantrum with any broken html in pages (a problem users must deal with, not us web geeks), and generally offered nothing to users. IE 3 was ok.... It was pretty crap. But IE4 was a ma
        • i would think that most people never downloaded upgrades to IE. they had a browser, and they stuck with it. people didn't like weird website signs that said "best viewed with ie 5.0" or some such. 5.0 came out with win 98 SE i believe and most people switched due to hardware upgrades (bought a new pc). that or they installed some other software that included a IE 5.0 install. people didn't go out of their way to install a browser.

          the only way to say that netscape killed netscape would be to say that th
      • Whenever anyone talks about how Microsoft destroyed Netscape by giving away IE, I always remember that I never had to actually pay for Netscape either. Netscape was free, up to version 4.0, and IE 4.0 was, at least for me, better than Netscape 4.0. I'm sure many many people didn't bother downloading Netscape because IE was incorporated into Win 98, but by then, Netscape wasn't any better than IE.

    • You can't really blame them for selling out when they had the chance... IE was obviously going to win the browser war, so getting AOL to pay for a dying product was quite a feat :)

  • Heh heh heh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:55AM (#6210573) Homepage Journal
    Netscape, once the browser pioneer that has fallen second to Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer in recent years

    Read obliterated, wiped out of existence.

    Best euphemism I've seen in a while :)

    (Disclaimer: I use nothing but mozilla)

  • so when do i get my cash ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    so who is going to benefit from this pathetic 100k ? the CEO earns that a month

    more signs that American buisness is more corrupt than anyone could believe
  • Does anyone else go along with the conspiracy theory that M$ turns people in who give them trouble? Hopefully not, but Apple may be turned in for collusion if Microsoft doesn't get it's way with the record companies and being able to offer the same service as iTunes.

    If Microsoft can't find a legal reason, they find a software component to stick it to you! Just because they also stopped developing IE for Windows, doesn't mean it wasn't a direct blow to Apple and direct "yeah ...well up yours, we just won't

  • what does AOL-TW-(Netscape) need $ for? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by I Want GNU! ( 556631 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:04AM (#6210598) Homepage
    They already have acquired the 'privilege' to license IE for 'free' from Microsoft. Seriously, I wonder how long it will be until AOL kills off the division completely. I doubt they will actively invest in it anymore anyway, lest they harm their warm relationship with Microsoft. It will die the slow death of MacIE.
    • AOL have always used Netscape as a threat if Microsoft ever decides to piss them off... Should Microsoft no longer allow AOL to use all the features of IE, or decide not to include AOL on the desktop of default installs, then 20 million people will suddenly be using Netscape's browser, wether or not they realize it... That's one hell of a bargaining chip, and I imagine, the small ammount of money that Netscape doesn't make back on it's own, that AOL has to sink into the project, is probably very small, an

  • In 2004 news... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:10AM (#6210615) Journal
    Mozilla lends $100,000,000 to AOL to keep Netscape alive. Despite trying to get back in the news with a dead products after the IE steamroll, and competition from Opera and AOL-sponsored Mozilla, Netscape is failing miserably.

    Such 'settlements' are illusory and just PR stunts.

    Wired News? Or Wierd news?

  • Great - now for Passport and other violations... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:18AM (#6210638) Journal
    First off, to whom is the settlement money being paid? Should it not be the dumb smart-downloaders who shuld be getting compensated?

    Secondly, this opens up a thought - how about Passport (in)Security violations, Smart Update to IE, Smart Tags, etc. .Next to Rich, Smart is the most commonly used MS propoganda word. Seeing there are many dumb users of SMART features, who's gonna settle their privacy issues?

    Just wondering - is Netscape tring to say it's still alive?

    • Re:Great - now for Passport and other violations.. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The problem here was that NS contradicted their own privacy promises, I'm not sure what you mean by "other violations. Violations of what? I would wager that Microsoft is not violating any privacy promises with Passport, Smart*, or Windows Update for that matter, because they've constructed their licenses to allow them to do whatever they want. Where are the privacy issues there? Surely you can't be thinking of US law or anything, since there is no mention of information privacy in the Constitution or anywh

  • Who gets the $100,000? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:23AM (#6210658)
    Given the number of Netscape users these days, that should be about $25,000 each :-)

  • victory for open source! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:25AM (#6210662) Journal
    yet another reason to use the open-source mozilla (or konquorer, or galeon, etc) browser vs the proprietary netscape browser.

    Wh knows what other stuff AOL/TW might be doing when nobody is looking...

  • Not as bad as it's made out to be.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by TrancePhreak ( 576593 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:32AM (#6210687)
    "The version of software that was reviewed has not been distributed since the fall of 2000 to consumers, and did not adversely impact users," an AOL spokesman said in a statement about the Netscape settlement.

    I wonder if anyone else RTFA... My guess is not many people who care about it are still using this version of the browser anyway.

  • Well, that's half of the problem. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @07:36AM (#6210702) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't sound like they're going to do anything about searches in the location bar being sent to Netscape before being passed on to Google. Mozilla doesn't do this, but I noticed this behavior in Netscape 6 when I was trying to load it as a more stable alternative. Apparently others have noticed this, but nothing's been made of it.

    So now I use Internet Explorer, which ironically is more stable and respecting of privacy, not to mention that it seems to work with many more web sites.

    • Did you really think Netscape 6 could be more stable than Mozilla? Netscape 6 was simply an older version of Mozilla plus some AOL junk.

    • So now I use Internet Explorer, which ironically is more stable and respecting of privacy,

      That's just stupid. MSN IS where the search terms are sent when your search from IE's URL bar. That's no more privacy, it's just lack of configurability.

      Also, as you mentioned, Mozilla doesn't have any problem. It sucks that Mozilla isn't putting out distros with all the best end-user options enabled, and without the debugging, and is instead pushing Netscape as much as it can, but all it takes is changing a few o

  • Privacy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomstdenis ( 446163 ) <tomstdenis AT gmail DOT com> on Monday June 16, 2003 @08:18AM (#6210904) Homepage
    Since when is what files you download private? I mean is it, or is it not legal for me to post the access_log for my website publicly?

    Tom
    • They are not particularly private. Many people do post web site logs publicly.

      The problem arises when the company says they are not collecting the information in a privacy statement, then does it anyway.

      Which is what Netscape did.

      • Re:Privacy? (Score:3, Informative)

        by krumms ( 613921 )
        Also, consider that Netscape is a third party in this instance. There's a difference between passive logging by a HTTP server and blatant spying by a third party such as Netscape.

  • The Netscape Bug Bounty. (Score:5, Informative)

    by x0n ( 120596 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @08:41AM (#6211033) Homepage Journal
    Ouch! Georgi Guninski [guninski.com] must be feeling a little hard done by; he resolved a number of privacy problems for Netscape, but probably only got $1000 [netscape.com] a pop.

  • IE gets a free ride? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    THe biggest spyware of all time, IE, gets a free ride?


    The NY AG should visit http://www.fuckmicrosoft.com and learn about how MS has been the master of snoop.

  • Yeh, and IE doesn't track anything, interesting that they went after Netscape, but they would never go after these cookie people, IE/M$, or any of those other pieces of crap that cause our computers to crash.
    Thanks DOJ for protecting our privacy!
    • Hmm I guess I wonder why noone has complained about Macfromedia and its flash 6.0, that allows sites to store info on YOUR machine, access your video camera or microphone. It was mentioned on /. once and if you know what you are doing or are inquisitive enough you can shut it off, but to 'set preference' you have to go to macromedias site.

      I do wonder how much info IE stores, but since I hardly ever use it I could really care less. I do think that since about 90% of the planet uses IE / Windows, it should

      • It's all right there in your cache, cookie and history folders! You can even delete it if you are concerned using the command line, built in tools or third party tools.

        It's all visible and controlable and none of it has been used to harvest user info by Microsoft.

        As ususal someone else does something truly evil and they get a "eh" from /. while working in an unwarrented MS conspiracy theory at the same time. :(

        Sadly par for the course.
  • I was wondering why this story seemed so familiar. Then I remembered: I already read it on Wired three days ago...
  • If you're the pioneer of something, and then your market share slips, how does that revoke your "pioneership"? Either you were the first to do something, or you weren't.
  • How does one get a "two year investigation" from something that "began in 2002", when it is only the middle of 2003? Even if it was begun Jan 1st, 2002, that still puts it at less than 1.5yrs. Gotta love they way they teach math these days.

    -bZj

Slashdot Top Deals

All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities. -- Dawkins

Close