翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Perez
・ United States v. Franklin
・ United States v. Freed
・ United States v. Fricosu
・ United States v. Fuentes
・ United States v. Garcia
・ United States v. Gementera
・ United States v. General Dynamics Corp.
・ United States v. General Electric Co.
・ United States v. Georgia
・ United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.
・ United States v. Gilmore
・ United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.
・ United States v. GlaxoSmithKline
・ United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
United States v. Google Inc.
・ United States v. Gotcher
・ United States v. Gouveia
・ United States v. Graham
・ United States v. Grimaud
・ United States v. Grubbs
・ United States v. Guest
・ United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.
・ United States v. Hamilton
・ United States v. Handley
・ United States v. Harris
・ United States v. Harris (tax case)
・ United States v. Harriss
・ United States v. Hasan K. Akbar
・ United States v. Hatch


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Google Inc. : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Google Inc.

''United States v. Google Inc.'' (No. CV 12-04177 SI (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012)) is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ever won in history. The FTC and Google Inc. consented to the entry of the stipulated order to resolve the dispute which arose from Google's violation of its privacy policy. In this case, the FTC found Google liable for misrepresenting "privacy assurances to users of Apple's Safari Internet browser". It was reached after the FTC considered that through the placement of advertising tracking cookies in the Safari web browser, and while serving targeted advertisements, Google violated the 2011 FTC's administrative order issued in FTC v. Google Inc.
==2011 FTC administrative order==

In February 2011 the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint before the FTC requesting an investigation against Google Inc. EPIC alleged that during the launching of its Google Buzz social network, Google's businesses practices violated the privacy interests of its consumers. EPIC specified that's its "...complaint concerns an attempt by Google, Inc., the provider of a widely used email service to convert the private, personal information of Gmail subscribers into public information for the company’s social network service Google Buzz…"〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=In re Google Buzz, complaint )
In October 2011, the FTC initiated an administrative proceeding against Google, charging that it had violated the FTC Act. The FTC asserted that Google, while launching its social networking tool, Google Buzz, had designed business practices which unfairly affected "commerce" In the FTC's view, Google violated its privacy promises to its customers since it "misrepresented to users of its Gmail email service that: (1) Google would not use their information for any purpose other than to provide that email service; (2) users would not be automatically enrolled in the Buzz network; and (3) users could control what information would be public on their Buzz profiles."
In the complaint, the FTC considered that Google launched the social network Google Buzz through its Gmail web-based email product. The FTC alleged that the tools to decline or leave the social network were ineffective. Even more, in those cases where users declined to be part of the social network, they were nonetheless "enrolled in certain features of the Google Buzz social network. For those Gmail users who clicked on "Sweet!," the FTC alleged that they were not adequately informed that the identity of the individuals they emailed most frequently would be made public by default. Google also offered a "Turn Off Buzz" option that did not fully remove the user from the social network."〔
As stated in the complaint, the FTC concluded that "…the setup process for Gmail users who enrolled in Buzz did not adequately communicate that certain previously private information would be shared publicly by default. Further, the controls that would allow the user to change the defaults were confusing and difficult to find" and that "certain personal information of Gmail users was shared without consumers’ permission through the Google Buzz social network."〔

In late 2011, the FTC and Google agreed to a settlement order, wherein Google was to implement a privacy program intended to efficiently protect consumer data. Additionally Google was to subject itself to independent privacy audits for the next 20 years.〔 According to the settlement, Google agreed that it will not, among other things, misrepresent in any manner, expressly or by implication, "the extent to which respondent maintains and protects the privacy and confidentiality of any covered information, including but not limited to, misrepresentations related to: (1) the purpose for which it collects and uses covered information, and (2) the extent to which consumers may exercise control over the collection, use, or disclosure of covered information." as well as the extent to which Google participated in any U.S.-EU Safe Harbor〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=In the matter of Google, Inc. Decision and Order )
The consent order was served on Google on October 28, 2011. It is known to be the first decision of its kind, requiring a company to implement a comprehensive privacy program. The order prevented the company "from future privacy misrepresentations, requires it to implement a comprehensive privacy program, and calls for regular, independent privacy audits for the next twenty years."〔

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Google Inc.」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.