Judge in Google Trial Not Googley
March 1, 2021
I read an inadvertently amusing story called “Judge in Google Case Disturbed That Incognito Users Are Tracked.” Google is engaged in one of its many legal battles. This case concerns Brown v. Google, 20-cv-03664, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose). The presiding judge is U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. The write up reports:
In this case, Google is accused of relying on pieces of its code within websites that use its analytics and advertising services to scrape users’ supposedly private browsing history and send copies of it to Google’s servers.Google makes it seem like private browsing mode gives users more control of their data, Amanda Bonn, a lawyer representing users, told Koh. In reality, “Google is saying there’s basically very little you can do to prevent us from collecting your data, and that’s what you should assume we’re doing,” Bonn said.
Just as “unlimited” means “you have to be kidding”, the word “incognito” does not mean hidden. Judge Koh apparently was not aware of the GOOG’s native language. Google’s lawyer alleged suggested that Google “expressly discloses” its practices.
I laughed so hard that my eyes watered. No, I was not emulating happy crying.
The judge did not find Google’s argument as funny as I did. The write up reports:
The judge demanded an explanation “about what exactly Google does,” while voicing concern that visitors to the court’s website are unwittingly disclosing information to the company.“I want a declaration from Google on what information they’re collecting on users to the court’s website, and what that’s used for.
My hunch is that Google’s legal eagle Stephen Broome may be swept clean. The door is now open in Judge Koh’s courtroom for more amusing Google speak and the resultant misunderstandings.
“Expressly disclosing.” That is a good one. Where’s Jack Benny when we need him to work the phrase into a skit with Phil Harris?
Stephen E Arnold, March 1, 2021