Submitted 9 hours ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to technology@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: infosec.pub/post/41122324
Google did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement of the class-action case, which accused the firm of “unlawful and intentional interception and recording of individuals’ confidential communications without their consent and subsequent unauthorized disclosure of those communications to third parties.”
I was originally part of this class-action. When the lawyers decided to settle I refused to accept the settlement, purely because Google admitted no fault and also required us to agree that we couldn’t ever sue over the issue again in the future even if new evidence came to light. The dollar amount they offered wasn’t tiny (it wasn’t large by any means either), but I felt it was in no way a valid amount for what was being claimed. Not to mention the lawyers were taking close to or maybe more than half of the settlement money, which I find offensive considering they decided to settle the case and allow Google to wash their hands of the matter. Luckily I reserved my right to sue again in the future, but I’d either have to go at it alone or try to form a new class-action suite. I’m still incredibly disappointed that the lawyers handling the case backed down and took the settlement, I would have rather lost the case and discovered the truth than take a pittance and let Google off.
One would almost start to think the lawyers were out for the settlement money…
It’s a shameless plutocracy at this point. The mask is off, no one is pretending to follow the rules.
Oh, yeah. That $3.07 settlement covers the damages with a little to spare. Now I can put a down-payment on some French fries.
It’s less about making you whole and more about hurting the corporation. Although that’s a drop in the bucket for Alphabet. “Cost of doing business”.
I mean, really, you probably have $0 worth of damages to worry about. If something in particular happens, like corporate espianage hurting your business that causes real damage, then you have the freedom to sue for that particular thing (supposing you aren’t locked out by the settlement I suppose.)
Google did not admit wrongdoing in the settlement of the class-action case
A settlement is an admission no matter what Google says. Headline should read, “Google Admits To Using Its Consumer Hardware To Spy On Users.”
A settlement is an admission
I mean it’s an “admission” that it would cost more money to fight in court than it would to make it go away. Or that they would likely lose, regardless of whether they’re guilty of anything. Other than that, no.
68 million is probably a rounding error in their yearly lawyer budget alone.
Buying themselves free, how convenient.
In the past gods absolved kings. Nowadays money absolves capitalists. Very convenient indeed.
Free of what, exactly?
My understanding of false starts is when it think it hears the wake word and starts recording.
Sometimes it happens when I watch TV or rarely in a normal conversation.
If this happens, what else would you expect to happen? It’s going to behave exactly as if you woke it.
Stop talking if you notice, but unless you expect a perfect wake word rate with zero mistakes there’s nothing that can be done.
Now, if Google is intentionally waking it when it knows it’s not the right word that’s another matter entirely.
$68 million is chump change to Google.
This is like me getting a speeding fine for $1.
This is the cost of doing business for them.
Google spying on its users? To push ads? Preposterous!
That is a paltry amount, whomever the class action lawyers are did a shit job, and should’ve taken it to a jury.
No doubt they figured a judge would overturn any large judgement though, the judges being so thoroughly captured by the rich, especially appeals courts and higher.
Yeah them and every other tech company that has apps. The punishments should be much higher for companies who violate people’s rights
MolochHorridus@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
Settlements should not be allowed in cases where its companies versus people.
XLE@piefed.social 8 hours ago
They should be a de jure admission of guilt, is what they should be
nil@piefed.ca 6 hours ago
Yeah, why settle? They should stop spying on us and we all know that.
frongt@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
You’d rather have them drag it out in court until the person can’t afford to fight the case?
unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org 1 hour ago
I think we would all prefer if the US would stop pretending the 6th amendment didn’t exist and if trials could be carried out without endless delays.
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Settlements only happen with the consent of both parties. I don’t see that as a problem. If you really don’t want a settlement, then opt out of the class action and bring your own case.
SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world 28 minutes ago
As far as I’m aware the lawyers didn’t consult with the clasa-action members, or at the very least I was never asked if we should accept the settlement or not, the lawyers just accepted. Alternatively you could opt out of the settlement if you wanted, which is what I chose to do.
idealism_nearby@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
I don’t think it should be acceptable to buy your way out of a court case which reveals truth and justice.
artyom@piefed.social 6 hours ago
And how do you think the claimants would feel about that? If we had a functioning justice system we wouldn’t have to.