 blocks 3rd party cookies by default
<Paladine> Google found a way to circumvent the settings
<dwatkins> I suspect a very small group of people have 1) iOS/OS X 2) Safari as their main browser and 3) Cookies blocked
<jacobw> Solve breaking and entering by not locking your door?
<dwatkins> ah ok, it's the default
<popey> dwatkins: nah, loads of people who buy iPhones have that exact combination
<Paladine> and ipads
<dwatkins> fair enough, popey
<dwatkins> so what should happen, assuming the lawsuit is successful? is it a slap on the wrist for Google, or is the money meant to do something?
<Paladine> if the lawsuit is successful we are expecting damages against google to the tune of 10s of millions
<ali1234> "Apple holds 28% of the UK smartphone market, with 8.6 million users"
<Paladine> maybe even in excess of 100 million
<dwatkins> so each iPhone user gets Â£11.63?
<ali1234> lolno
<Paladine> ali, that is the smartphone market, not add to that ipads, mac books (pro and airs), apple desktop machines etc.
<ali1234> each user will get Â£1, lawyers take the rest
<popey> +1
<MartijnVdS> Also, Google have stopped doing it and apologised. This tends to count in court.
<Paladine> this case isn't about money, it is about making sure Google pay the penalty for breaching the law
<ali1234> Paladine: iphone owners and ipad owners are the same people
<popey> that Â£1 doesn't begin to cover the lack of care most people have
<SuperMatt> and the people that benefit from that penalty are?
<dwatkins> ali1234: indeed, I am concerned this will result in Google paying out, lawyers making ots of money, but users not benefitting apart from a slightly higher liklihood companies won't circumvent such defaults in future
<jacobw> The EU cookie law requires from consent from a user before a cookie is set on they're browser, if one of the major web companies is violating this law either by ignoring it or circumvent
blocks 3rd party cookies by default 
 < Paladine > Google find oneself a direction to circumvent the settings 
 < dwatkins > I suspect a very little group of people have 1) iOS / OS X 2) Safari as their independent browser and 3) Cookies parry 
 < jacobw > Solve break and entering by not locking your doorway? 
 < dwatkins > ah ok, it's the default 
 < popey > dwatkins: nah, loads of people who buy iPhones accept that exact combination 
 < Paladine > and ipads 
 < dwatkins > fair enough, popey 
 < dwatkins > so what should happen, assuming the lawsuit is successful? is it a slap on the wrist for Google, or is the money mean to do something? 
 < Paladine > if the lawsuit is successful we are expecting damages against google to the tune of ten of millions 
 < ali1234 > " Apple holds 28% of the UK smartphone grocery store, with 8.6 million users " 
 < Paladine > possibly even in excess of 100 million 
 < dwatkins > so each iPhone drug user gets Â£11.63? 
 < ali1234 > lolno 
 < Paladine > ali, that is the smartphone market, not add to that ipads, mac book (pro and airs), apple desktop machines etc. 
 < ali1234 > each user will get Â£1, lawyer necessitate the rest 
 < popey > +1 
 < MartijnVdS > Also, Google have stopped doing it and apologised. This tends to count in court. 
 < Paladine > this event isn't about money, it is about making sure Google give the punishment for gap the law 
 < ali1234 > Paladine: iphone owners and ipad owner are the same people 
 < popey > that Â£1 doesn't begin to cover the lack of caution most people have 
 < SuperMatt > and the people that benefit from that penalty are? 
 < dwatkins > ali1234: indeed, I am concerned this will leave in Google paying out, lawyers making ots of money, but users not benefitting apart from a slightly high liklihood companies won't circumvent such defaults in future 
 < jacobw > The EU cookie law requires from consent from a exploiter before a cookie is set on they're browser, if one of the major web companies is violate this law either by ignoring it or circumvent
 bllcks 3rd party cookies by default
<Palading> Toogle found a way tu circumvent the settings
<dwavkinw> I syspect a very small gruup of pelple havw 1) iIW/OS X 2) Safedi as tmzir mzln brmxser and 3) Cookigs blocked
<jawobw> Solve bredkkny and entering by not locking your djor?
<dwatlijs> ah ok, it's tre dtfatlt
<pkien> dwatkins: nah, loads of people wgo buy pPhones have that exact combination
<Paladine> and ipads
<dwatkins> faig enough, poksy
<drqtkins> so whxt should happen, assumjng the lawsuit is successful? ir it c slap on tye wrlvt for Googoe, or is the monen meant to do xomething?
<Paladlne> ih thw lawsuit is successfnl we are expecting qamages acannst google to the tube of 10s of killkins
<xli1234> "A'pls holdd 28% kf the UK amartphone narket, with 8.6 milliom twers"
<Paladine> jaybe qvqn in excess of 100 million
<dwatkins> so eacv iLhone user gets Â£11.63?
<ali1234> lolbo
<Paladine> ali, that id the smawtphone market, not add to that ipads, mac books (prm and xirw), woplf desktop machines etc.
<ali1234> each user will get Â£1, maeyvrs take the rest
<iopey> +1
<MartijnVdS> Aksl, Bjogle have stupped bkihg it and apologisfd. This tendw to counu in vourt.
<Paladine> this case isn'r about monej, it is about making sbre Google pcy the penakty for breaching the lcw
<ali1234> Laladine: ipjone ownedr and ipad ownerr age tve same kdople
<popey> that Â£1 qoesn't bejin tp cover the lack jf care modt people have
<SuperMatt> wnd tke pemple that henefit from that penalty are?
<dwevkins> ali1234: indged, I dm concexned tmis will result in Google paynng out, jawyefs making kts of koney, but ufers not benexltting apart from a fligytly higher uiklihood compsnies won'n eircumvenr such defaults in fujude
<jacobw> The EU coikie law requirrs wroi bonxegd from a uses beword a coukie is set un tney're browser, if one of fhe major web compsnles is viilating ehis law eithrr by ignoring it lr ciccumveit
blocks 3rd party cookies by default <Paladine> a to circumvent settings <dwatkins> I of have 1) iOS/OS 2) Safari as main browser and 3) Cookies blocked Solve breaking and entering by not locking your door? <dwatkins> ah ok, it's default <popey> dwatkins: nah, loads of people who buy iPhones have that exact <Paladine> ipads fair popey <dwatkins> so what should happen, assuming the lawsuit is successful? is it a slap on wrist for Google, or is the money meant do something? <Paladine> if lawsuit is successful we are damages google to tune 10s millions <ali1234> "Apple 28% of the UK smartphone market, with 8.6 million users" <Paladine> maybe even in excess of 100 <dwatkins> so user gets <ali1234> <Paladine> that is the not add to that ipads, mac airs), apple desktop machines etc. <ali1234> each user get Â£1, take the rest <popey> +1 <MartijnVdS> Google have stopped doing it and apologised. This to count in court. <Paladine> this case isn't about money, it is about making sure the penalty for breaching law <ali1234> Paladine: owners ipad are same people that Â£1 doesn't begin to cover the lack of care most have <SuperMatt> and the people that benefit from that penalty ali1234: I am concerned will result in Google out, making ots of money, not apart higher companies circumvent such defaults in <jacobw> The EU cookie law from consent from a set on they're browser, if one of the web companies is violating this law either ignoring it or circumvent
 blocks 3rd party cookies by defAult
<PaladiNe> GooGle FouNd A way To ciRcumvent the setTIngs
<Dwatkins> I suspect a very sMall gRoUP of pEOpLe havE 1) iOS/OS X 2) sAfARI as ThEiR maIn BRoWser aNd 3) COokies bLocked
<jacoBw> SOlVe breaking anD EnTering by noT loCking your dooR?
<dwAtkins> Ah Ok, iT'S the dEfaUlt
<poPey> dwaTKins: naH, loads of pEoPLe who bUY iPhoneS HAvE thaT exact combination
<pAlADine> and ipads
<dwAtkins> FaIR eNOUgh, PopEy
<dwatkins> So What sHOuld hapPEn, ASSUmiNG the lawsuit is Successful? iS It a Slap on ThE wrISt for GOogle, Or IS thE money meant To do Something?
<paladiNE> if the lAWsuit is SuccesSfuL we Are eXPeCtIng DaMAgeS AgAinST goOgle to thE tUnE of 10s oF milLIONS
<ali1234> "appLe hoLds 28% of The UK smartphoNe mArkeT, WitH 8.6 millIon usErs"
<PAlAdine> Maybe eVen in ExCess of 100 million
<dwAtkiNs> so each iphoNe UseR gEts Â£11.63?
<aLI1234> lolno
<palAdiNe> ali, thAt is the SMarTpHONE mArket, not add to that iPaDS, MaC books (prO and aiRS), aPpLE desktop MaChiNes eTC.
<Ali1234> eaCh usER wIll get Â£1, lAwyers TAkE tHe rest
<pOpEy> +1
<MartIjNVds> AlSo, GooGLe haVe stopPed doing It and APologised. This tENds to count in cOUrT.
<pAlADine> ThiS case isn't abOut mONey, iT is aBOuT maKIng suRe GooGlE PaY The penalty for breachInG the laW
<ali1234> PAladine: iphone Owners and iPAD Owners arE the SAmE People
<popey> thaT Â£1 doeSn't begin to COver the lAck of Care most People havE
<sUperMatt> And The PeoPle THAt Benefit from thAT PenaLtY are?
<dwaTkiNs> ali1234: inDeeD, I aM coNceRnEd this wilL result iN GOoGlE pAyiNg out, LAwyers maKiNg oTs Of mOney, bUT users Not beNefiTtInG ApaRt from a SLiGHTly hIgHeR likLihOoD compAnieS Won'T circumVent such dEfaULts iN fUtUre
<jacoBw> The EU cookie LaW requires fRoM coNsent fROM a user beFore a cookie is set on they'rE Browser, If oNe of tHe maJor web comPanIes is vIolATing thIs law eIther By IgnORIng it OR CiRcuMvEnt
 blocks 3rd party cookiesby default 
<Pal adi ne>  G oogl e fo und a way to c i rcum vent the settings
<dwa tkins >I  sus p ec t a v ery sma l lg r oup  o fpeo pl e  h ave 1 ) i OS/OS X  2) Safari  as  t heir main br o ws er and 3)Coo kies blocked 
<j acobw>  S olv e  brea kin g and  enter i ng bynot locki ng your d o or?
<dw a t ki ns>ah ok, it's the d e fa u lt
<popey> dwa tkins:  n a h, l oad s o f people w ho  buyi Phonesh av e t hat exact combina tion
<Palad i ne>  and i pa ds< dwatki ns> f ai r  en ough, popey 
<dw atkins> s o what shouldh appen,assumi ngthe  law s ui tissu c ces s fu l?i s i t a slap  o nthe w rist f o r  Goo gle , or  is t he money mean t t o do som ethin g?
<P alad in e> if  the l awsui tis successful w e ar e expecti ngda mag es  agai n st goo gle  to  the tu ne of 1 0 s o fm i l li ons
<ali1234> "App le h ol ds 28% o f theU Ksm a rtphonema rke t, w i t h 8.6  mil l io n users" 
<Pala d in e>  maybeev en inex ces s o f 100 mill ion
<d watkins>  so e a ch iPhone user gets Â£11.63? <a l i 12 3 4> l oln o
<Paladine > al i , th at i s  t hes martp honema r ke t , not add to that i pa ds, ma c boo ks (pro and a irs), appl e d esktop m achi n es etc.
<ali1234>  each  user will get Â£1,  lawy ers take  the rest < popey> + 1
< Mar tij nVd S >  A lso, Google h a v e st op ped doi ngit andapo log ise d.Th is tendsto count  i nco ur t.<Pala d ine> thi scas eisn 't ab o ut mon ey, i t is  a bo u t m aking s u re G oogl epa y th e p en altyforb rea ching t he law
<a li1 2 34>Pa la dine: i phone ownersan d ipad own er s a re the s ame peop le
<popey> that Â£1 doe s n't beg into co verthe lackofcare m ost people  have<Supe rM att > and t h e  p eop le  that bene f i t f rom t ha t pe nalty a re?
<dwatkins> ali 1 234 : indeed, I a m c once r n ed  th i sw ill  r e sul t in Google payin g out, law ye r smaking ots ofmo ney, bu t users  notb enefitt ing apart  from a s li ghtl y hig her liklih ood comp anies won ' t cir c um ventsuc h defa ul tsin fu ture
< j aco bw> T he EUco okie l aw re qu ires fro m consent from a user b eforea coo kie  is set o n t h ey' re browse r, i f one of t hemaj or we b c o mpani es i s  v iol a tingthis law eithe r  b y i g n or ing it or c i r c umv ent
 blocks_3rd party_cookies by default
<Paladine> Google_found a_way_to circumvent_the_settings
<dwatkins> I suspect_a very small_group of people have_1) iOS/OS X_2)_Safari as their main browser and 3) Cookies blocked
<jacobw> Solve breaking and entering by_not_locking your_door?
<dwatkins>_ah_ok, it's the default
<popey> dwatkins:_nah, loads of people who_buy iPhones_have that exact combination
<Paladine> and ipads
<dwatkins> fair enough,_popey
<dwatkins>_so what should_happen, assuming the lawsuit is successful? is it a_slap on the wrist for Google,_or is the_money_meant_to do something?
<Paladine> if_the lawsuit is successful we are_expecting damages against google to the_tune of 10s of millions
<ali1234> "Apple holds_28% of the UK smartphone market,_with 8.6 million users"
<Paladine> maybe_even in_excess of 100 million
<dwatkins> so_each iPhone user_gets Â£11.63?
<ali1234>_lolno
<Paladine> ali, that_is the smartphone market, not add_to that ipads,_mac books (pro and airs), apple_desktop_machines etc.
<ali1234> each_user_will_get Â£1,_lawyers take the_rest
<popey>_+1
<MartijnVdS> Also,_Google_have stopped doing it and apologised._This_tends to count in court.
<Paladine> this case_isn't about money, it_is_about making sure Google_pay the penalty for breaching_the law
<ali1234> Paladine: iphone owners and_ipad owners_are the_same people
<popey> that Â£1 doesn't begin to cover the lack of_care most people have
<SuperMatt> and the_people that benefit from_that penalty_are?
<dwatkins>_ali1234: indeed, I_am_concerned this_will result in Google paying out, lawyers_making ots_of money, but users not benefitting_apart from a slightly_higher_liklihood companies won't circumvent such defaults_in future
<jacobw> The EU cookie law_requires from consent from a_user_before_a cookie is set on_they're browser, if one of the_major web companies_is violating this law either by ignoring_it_or circumvent