Google responds to Microsoft over privacy issues, calls IE’s cookie policy ‘widely non-operational’

“Microsoft [has] accused Google of manipulating Internet Explorer’s default privacy restrictions in order to ‘bypass user preferences about cookies,’ T.C. Sottek reports for The Verge.

“Google [yesterday] responded with a lengthy rebuttal, arguing that Microsoft’s P3P cookie technology is ‘widely non-operational,’ and that the issue has been around since 2002,” Sottek reports. “The response also points to other offenders, citing a 2010 Carnegie Mellon research paper that says over 11,000 websites don’t use valid P3P policies.”

Sottek reports, “Google’s also specifically bringing Facebook and Amazon into the fracas, citing their similar use of the P3P bypass.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related articles:
Google’s tracking of Safari users could prompt FTC investigation – February 18, 2012
WSJ: Google tracked iPhone, iPad users, bypassing Apple’s Safari browser privacy settings; Microsoft denounces – February 17, 2012


    1. … you approve of the policies advocated by the Tea Party and USED by the “Pro Life” movement?
      While the government is prohibited from limiting your “speech”, society is not. Should anyone actually follow your … suggestion? … you can be tried for “incitement”, perhaps more.

      1. 1. iCupertino’s comment is juvenile and not clever or funny.
        2. That kind of talk or mindset has no relationship to Tea Party.
        3. Core Tea Party objectives are to reduce the spending and size of the Federal buracracy. It was created BECAUSE the Republican Party has become too bogged with fights on social issues.
        4. You parroting the anti tea party bile made up to marginize the party as a bunch of hateful kooks are playing
        right into the hands of the entrenched Washington DC politicos that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
        5. Quit dragging politics into these comments, I cannot resist responding.

        1. @ Spark – thanks for clarifying. No snark intended. I may not agree but what you state is clear and well-thought out.

          I especially agree with your point #5. Please continue responding to juvenile comments on both sides.

      2. Speaking of ‘Libel’… show me the TEA Party written bylaws of these “policies advocated” by them?! And please don’t associate some nut job that, in the name of, commits a heinous act. It is as insulting as the nut jobs on your side coming out saying it was Rush Limbaugh and others that caused Jared Loughner, a person whose friends said was A-Political and had no interest in one side or the other, to shoot Gabby Giffords. Sometimes a nut is just a nut!

      3. Interesting conclusion you have there..

        However since iCupertino seems to be a proponent of the taking of innocent life 7 disrespect of property rights, he’s probably more aligned w/ the pro-abortion & occupy movements.

    2. I can’t believe that you are advocating death as a solution to a problem with cookies. I think you have been playing too many first person shooter games. Have you seriously considered getting counselling?

      1. Thank you, 3l3c7ro, for putting this into reasonable perspective. How stupid can people get? Cookies, and tracking anonymous data about you—you would kill over this, iCupertino?! That is ridiculous.

  1. Dear Google, just because everyone else does it doesn’t make it right.

    If your friends were going to jump off The Golden Gate Bridge, would you do it too?

    Well, that’s what my Mom would tell them.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.