Jjjjia
2021-12-28
Like pls
Google's settlement of Street View privacy case OK'd on appeal
免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。
分享至
微信
复制链接
精彩评论
我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白
打开APP，发表看法
APP内打开
发表看法
1
1
{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":696693975,"tweetId":"696693975","gmtCreate":1640675709337,"gmtModify":1640675709711,"author":{"id":4087709618925430,"idStr":"4087709618925430","authorId":4087709618925430,"authorIdStr":"4087709618925430","name":"Jjjjia","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/25215d9b4b22838734cba07948cafe46","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":35,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Like pls </p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Like pls </p></body></html>","text":"Like pls","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/696693975","repostId":1140269941,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1140269941","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1640673931,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1140269941?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-12-28 14:45","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Google's settlement of Street View privacy case OK'd on appeal","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1140269941","media":"Reuters","summary":"(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday upheld Google's settlement of a long-running class action","content":"<p>(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday upheld Google's settlement of a long-running class action over allegations that it illegally collected Wi-Fi data from an estimated 60 million people with its Street View program.</p>\n<p>The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Google's agreement to pay $13 million to internet privacy advocacy groups was unfair because it didn't pay the class members themselves.</p>\n<p>Several groups of plaintiffs filed class actions against Google in 2010 after the company said that its Street View vehicles, which capture panoramic images of city streets, had been inadvertently collecting sensitive data including emails, passwords and documents from Wi-Fi networks.</p>\n<p>The 9th Circuit rejected Google's attempt to escape the claims in 2013.</p>\n<p>In 2018, Google settled in San Francisco federal court with a class of nearly 60 million people, agreeing to give $13 million to nine internet privacy advocacy groups in cy pres payments, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Digital Democracy.</p>\n<p>Two purported class members and several state attorneys general objected to the settlement last year, arguing the funds should be distributed to class members instead. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved the settlement last year, and objector David Lowery appealed.</p>\n<p>Identifying and paying all of the class members directly wasn't feasible, U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget Bade wrote for a three-judge panel in Monday's decision.</p>\n<p>She wrote that the payments to advocacy groups combined with Google's promises to take actions on data protection were a fair alternative.</p>\n<p>Bade also authored a separate concurring opinion which said that the district court ruled correctly. But she wrote that there is a \"compelling argument that class members receive no benefit at all from a settlement that extinguishes their claims without awarding them any damages\" and directs money to groups \"they have likely never heard of or may even oppose.\"</p>\n<p>Lowery's attorney Adam Schulman of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness said they were \"contemplating their options for further review, especially in light of Judge Bade's concurrence.\"</p>\n<p>Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, who represented the class, called the court's majority opinion \"thorough and cogent.\"</p>\n<p>Google and its attorney Brian Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.</p>\n<p>The case is In re Google Inc Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-15616.</p>\n<p>For the class: Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and Jeffrey Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff.</p>\n<p>For Lowery: Adam Schulman of the Center for Class Action Fairness</p>\n<p>For Google: Brian Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Google's settlement of Street View privacy case OK'd on appeal</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nGoogle's settlement of Street View privacy case OK'd on appeal\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-12-28 14:45</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday upheld Google's settlement of a long-running class action over allegations that it illegally collected Wi-Fi data from an estimated 60 million people with its Street View program.</p>\n<p>The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Google's agreement to pay $13 million to internet privacy advocacy groups was unfair because it didn't pay the class members themselves.</p>\n<p>Several groups of plaintiffs filed class actions against Google in 2010 after the company said that its Street View vehicles, which capture panoramic images of city streets, had been inadvertently collecting sensitive data including emails, passwords and documents from Wi-Fi networks.</p>\n<p>The 9th Circuit rejected Google's attempt to escape the claims in 2013.</p>\n<p>In 2018, Google settled in San Francisco federal court with a class of nearly 60 million people, agreeing to give $13 million to nine internet privacy advocacy groups in cy pres payments, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Digital Democracy.</p>\n<p>Two purported class members and several state attorneys general objected to the settlement last year, arguing the funds should be distributed to class members instead. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved the settlement last year, and objector David Lowery appealed.</p>\n<p>Identifying and paying all of the class members directly wasn't feasible, U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget Bade wrote for a three-judge panel in Monday's decision.</p>\n<p>She wrote that the payments to advocacy groups combined with Google's promises to take actions on data protection were a fair alternative.</p>\n<p>Bade also authored a separate concurring opinion which said that the district court ruled correctly. But she wrote that there is a \"compelling argument that class members receive no benefit at all from a settlement that extinguishes their claims without awarding them any damages\" and directs money to groups \"they have likely never heard of or may even oppose.\"</p>\n<p>Lowery's attorney Adam Schulman of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness said they were \"contemplating their options for further review, especially in light of Judge Bade's concurrence.\"</p>\n<p>Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, who represented the class, called the court's majority opinion \"thorough and cogent.\"</p>\n<p>Google and its attorney Brian Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.</p>\n<p>The case is In re Google Inc Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-15616.</p>\n<p>For the class: Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and Jeffrey Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff.</p>\n<p>For Lowery: Adam Schulman of the Center for Class Action Fairness</p>\n<p>For Google: Brian Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GOOGL":"谷歌A","GOOG":"谷歌"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1140269941","content_text":"(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Monday upheld Google's settlement of a long-running class action over allegations that it illegally collected Wi-Fi data from an estimated 60 million people with its Street View program.\nThe 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Google's agreement to pay $13 million to internet privacy advocacy groups was unfair because it didn't pay the class members themselves.\nSeveral groups of plaintiffs filed class actions against Google in 2010 after the company said that its Street View vehicles, which capture panoramic images of city streets, had been inadvertently collecting sensitive data including emails, passwords and documents from Wi-Fi networks.\nThe 9th Circuit rejected Google's attempt to escape the claims in 2013.\nIn 2018, Google settled in San Francisco federal court with a class of nearly 60 million people, agreeing to give $13 million to nine internet privacy advocacy groups in cy pres payments, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Digital Democracy.\nTwo purported class members and several state attorneys general objected to the settlement last year, arguing the funds should be distributed to class members instead. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer approved the settlement last year, and objector David Lowery appealed.\nIdentifying and paying all of the class members directly wasn't feasible, U.S. Circuit Judge Bridget Bade wrote for a three-judge panel in Monday's decision.\nShe wrote that the payments to advocacy groups combined with Google's promises to take actions on data protection were a fair alternative.\nBade also authored a separate concurring opinion which said that the district court ruled correctly. But she wrote that there is a \"compelling argument that class members receive no benefit at all from a settlement that extinguishes their claims without awarding them any damages\" and directs money to groups \"they have likely never heard of or may even oppose.\"\nLowery's attorney Adam Schulman of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness said they were \"contemplating their options for further review, especially in light of Judge Bade's concurrence.\"\nDaniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, who represented the class, called the court's majority opinion \"thorough and cogent.\"\nGoogle and its attorney Brian Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.\nThe case is In re Google Inc Street View Electronic Communications Litigation, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-15616.\nFor the class: Daniel Small of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll; Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein; and Jeffrey Kodroff of Spector Roseman & Kodroff.\nFor Lowery: Adam Schulman of the Center for Class Action Fairness\nFor Google: Brian Willen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":1575,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":7,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/696693975"}
精彩评论