The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ordered Uber-owned delivery company Drizly to revamp its data-handling practises following a major 2020 data breach.

Drizly, an Uber subsidiary, fell under FTC scrutiny following its alleged mishandling of a breach that saw the data of almost 2.5 million customer records compromised and the FTC highlighted a range of inadequacies related to its approach to data protection.

In its complaint [PDF], the FTC claims that Drizly neglected to implement appropriate security practises, stored Drizly login credentials in the company’s GitHub repository against the guidance of GitHub and security best practises, failed to properly oversee sensitive data, and opened up its customers to crimes such as identity theft.

Under the terms of the FTC order, Drizly is required to destroy all personal data collected that is unnecessary to its business proceedings, limit its future collection of personal data unless it meets criteria set out in an FTC-defined retention schedule, and implement a full information security program.

To this end, employees must be provided with security training, and be required to use multi-factor authentication to access sensitive databases. Controls must be also implemented to access personal data and a dedicated role in the company will have to be created to oversee this.

The order applies to both Drizly and its CEO James Cory Rellas to whom the FTC complaint ascribed “authority to control” the acts alleged.

“We take consumer privacy and security very seriously at Drizly, and are happy to put this 2020 event behind us,” a Drizly spokesperson told IT Pro.

As he is included as an individual defendant in the complaint, and in light of the nature of executives to move between firms, the FTC voted that Rellas will be required to follow the order even if he leaves Drizly.

In detail, Rellas must implement the above information security program if he takes on a majority-owner, CEO, or senior officer role at any company that collects the information on more than 25,000 individuals.

“Our proposed order against Drizly not only restricts what the company can retain and collect going forward but also ensures the CEO faces consequences for the company’s carelessness,” said Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.

“CEOs who take shortcuts on security should take note.”

The FTC appears to be making an example of Drizly, as well as Rellas, in order to set a precedent for the future of data handling.

In July, the agency published a warning against sensitive data misuse, and has been moving to sanction not only companies that fail to comply with data privacy regulations, but also single out individuals involved as a deterrent.

If a company violates an FTC consent order, it is subject to a civil penalty of up to $46,517 per violation.

What happened in Drizly's data breach?

The timeline of Drizly’s handling of data includes several standout incidents. In 2018, it was discovered that a Drizly employee had published the company’s AWS login information on their public GitHub repository.

These were quickly exploited to use the company’s Amazon Web Services (AWS) servers to mine cryptocurrency, until the company took note and changed the credentials.

Despite the company putting out a notice warning against exposing credentials, and urging for employee security policies to be implemented, sensitive credentials continued to be stored in the company repository.

The same year, a company executive was given access to the repository for a hackathon event, and this access was never revoked despite there being no need for it to be maintained.

This came to a head in 2020, when a threat actor used credentials from a previous breach to access the executive’s GitHub account and specifically target a repository containing Drizly source code, alongside AWS and database credentials.

The credentials allowed the threat actor to modify the company’s AWS security settings and access the firm’s entire production environment containing. Among other sensitive data, Drizly’s User Table was also exfiltrated.

As a result, the information of nearly 2.5 million consumers was compromised, including IP addresses, phone numbers, and geolocation data.

Data was listed for sale on dark web forums which claimed that financial data was included in the records. The FTC complaint alleges that Drizly did not detect the breach itself, but instead learned through social media reports on the incident.

This article was updated to include a statement from a Drizly spokesperson.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has banned a company from making software known as stalkerware. The software secretly tracks a phone user’s location and activities.

According to an FTC announcement, the company in question, Support King LLC, the makers of SpyFone, is banned from the surveillance business, as is its CEO Scott Zuckerman. The software secretly harvested and shared data on people’s physical movements, phone use, and online activities through a hidden device hack.

The company’s apps sold real-time access to their secret surveillance, allowing stalkers and domestic abusers to track the potential targets. The FTC said SpyFone’s lack of security also exposed device owners to hackers, identity thieves, and other cyber threats.

In a complaint, the FTC alleged that Support King, LLC, which did business as SpyFone.com, and its CEO sold stalkerware apps that allowed purchasers to surreptitiously monitor photos, text messages, web histories, GPS locations, and other personal information from the phone the app was installed on without the owner’s knowledge.

As well as banning Support King and Zuckerman from offering, promoting, selling, or advertising any surveillance app, service, or business, the proposed settlement requires them to delete any information illegally collected from their stalkerware apps. It also orders them to notify owners of devices on which SpyFone’s apps were installed that their devices might have been monitored and the devices might not be secure.

Samuel Levine, acting director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said SpyFone’s name was a “brazen brand name for a surveillance business that helped stalkers steal private information.”

“The stalkerware was hidden from device owners but was fully exposed to hackers who exploited the company’s slipshod security,” he said.

“This case is an important reminder that surveillance-based businesses pose a significant threat to our safety and security. We will be aggressive about seeking surveillance bans when companies and their executives egregiously invade our privacy.”

The FTC said this was the second case against stalkerware apps and the first where the FTC obtained a ban.

FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra called the complaint, which passed 5-0, “a significant change from the agency’s past approach.”

“In addition to the surveillance ban, affected individuals will receive notifications that someone may have been surreptitiously monitoring their mobile device, as well as information to seek help if they may be in danger.3 The Commission welcomes public comment on these provisions,” he added.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) sent a letter of protest to Facebook, warning the company should not have used its consent decree with the FCC to justify banning three researchers’ accounts this week.

The social media platform disabled three New York University academics’ accounts who worked on Ad Observer, which uses browser extensions to watch ads that Facebook and YouTube show users. The project attempts to understand how social media platforms decide which advertisements to show people, especially political content.

The extensions, which only look at what is inside an ad frame and do not collect data about comments or other user details, are installed and used with user consent.

In an August 3 blog post, Facebook accused the researchers of scraping data and said the project violated its terms of service. "We took these actions to stop unauthorized scraping and protect people’s privacy in line with our privacy program under the FTC Order," it said.

Facebook's consent decree with the FTC stemmed from 2012 when the two parties settled over claims the social media giant misled users over its privacy protections. Last year, the FTC amended the privacy order to include additional provisions from a $5 billion settlement that the two parties reached in 2019 over the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Facebook later clarified its position to Wired magazine, explaining that the violation was of its own privacy terms created in response to the FTC order rather than the FTC order itself.

However, Samuel Levine, acting director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, still took issue with Facebook's original statement citing the FTC privacy order. In a letter to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, he said the company's insinuation that the FTC's consent decree required an account ban was inaccurate.

"The FTC is committed to protecting the privacy of people, and efforts to shield targeted advertising practices from scrutiny run counter to that mission," he said. "While I appreciate that Facebook has now corrected the record, I am disappointed by how your company has conducted itself in this matter."

He added Facebook had failed to check with the FTC before making its statement. "Had you honored your commitment to contact us in advance, we would have pointed out that the consent decree does not bar Facebook from creating exceptions for good-faith research in the public interest," he said. "Indeed, the FTC supports efforts to shed light on opaque business practices, especially around surveillance-based advertising."

Other organizations, including Mozilla, criticized Facebook's justification for the move. The organization reviewed the open source Ad Observer code twice before recommending it and was happy it did not violate user privacy.

"It does not collect personal posts or information about your friends. And it does not compile a user profile on its servers," Mozilla said this week.

A collection of 48 civil rights groups has written to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking it to clamp down on corporate surveillance, focusing on Amazon as an example of bad practice.

The letter calls for the FTC to ban corporate use of facial recognition technology and continuous surveillance in public places. It asked the Commission to make rules to stop the corporate sharing of such data and warned of potential discrimination if surveillance information was used irresponsibly.

The letter called out the e-commerce giant for privacy and security infractions in several products and services. These include Alexa, its Ring connected cameras, and its recently announced Sidewalk service, which connects an owner's Amazon devices with other peoples' devices on an opt-out basis.

"Though many companies sell connected devices, Amazon provides a perfect case study on how monopolistic power compounds unfair practices, and why the FTC must act to prevent further abuses wherever they occur," the letter said.

The groups pointed to Ring as an example of privacy violation through facial recognition. These security cameras routinely spy on people without their consent, creating a vast surveillance network police departments can access.

The letter expressed concern that video data could be paired with facial recognition algorithms.

"Facial recognition is a discriminatory and experimental technology with a bias that harms people of color, women, and gender-non-conforming people" the letter read, also referring to violent policing in black communities. "Even if the prejudicial inaccuracies of this technology were somehow fixed, facial recognition would still pose a danger to everyone, not just customers," it added.

Ring gathers video data without the subject’s consent, warned the letter. Even the owners of Amazon devices cannot give meaningful consent because they can't know or judge far-reaching future harms of data collection, it pointed out. It listed identity theft and sharing data with third parties as possible dangers.

The camera system has also proved insecure in the past, the groups warned, pointing to incidents where people have hacked cameras to watch and speak to children, and others where cameras have leaked Wi-Fi passwords.

Amazon, which paused its sale of facial recognition software to police departments last year, isn't the only corporation to use surveillance technology. Banks also use facial recognition to monitor customers.

One of the signatories of this week's letter is the Open Markets Institute, for which FTC chair Lina Khan has worked in the past.

Antitrust researcher Lina Khan has been sworn in as the chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a move that has been welcomed by legislators who are keen to clamp down on big tech’s market power.

President Biden named Khan, a Democrat, to a term on the commission that expires on 25 September 2024. She was confirmed by the US Senate on Tuesday.

Before becoming chair, Khan was associate professor of law at Columbia Law School. She has also served as counsel to the US House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, as legal adviser to FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra, and as legal director at the Open Markets Institute.

“It is a tremendous honour to have been selected by president Biden to lead the Federal Trade Commission,” said Khan. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect the public from corporate abuse.”

US senator Elizabeth Warren called Khan’s appointment “tremendous news”.

“Giant tech companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon deserve the growing scrutiny they are facing, and consolidation is choking off competition across American industries,” she said.

“With chair Khan at the helm, we have a huge opportunity to make big, structural change by reviving antitrust enforcement and fighting monopolies that threaten our economy, our society, and our democracy."

In 2017, Khan published an article in the Yale Law Journal titled “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” which claimed the current framework in antitrust is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. It suggested two potential regimes for addressing Amazon’s power: “restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles or applying common carrier obligations and duties”.

“As a commissioner, Khan will take on corporate barons in Silicon Valley and throughout our economy,” said Alex Harman, competition policy advocate at Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer advocacy organisation.

“Greedy and abusive corporations should be on notice that the FTC will no longer look the other way as they amass power to hurt consumers, treat competitors unfairly, and take advantage of workers.”

Khan’s appointment comes after a bipartisan group of legislators in the House of Representatives introduced five bills earlier this week aimed at reining in the power of big tech, with the potential to break them up. Judiciary Committee chairman David Cicilline stated that this agenda was being implemented to level the playing field and ensure the most powerful tech monopolies “play by the same rules as the rest of us”.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched a wide-ranging investigation into nine social media and video streaming services’ privacy practices.

On Monday, the FTC sent orders to Amazon, ByteDance (TikTok’s parent company), Discord, Reddit, Snap, Twitter, WhatsApp, Facebook, and YouTube. The orders required the companies to provide data on how they collect, use, and present personal information.

They companies also had to explain their advertising and user-engagement practices and how their operations affected children and teens.

The FTC issued the orders under Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, which permits it to conduct wide-ranging studies, even if there’s no direct link to an enforcement order.

The orders, which demand the information within 45 days, go into considerable detail. The companies must provide monthly figures relating to their social media and video streaming services since January 2019, separated into desktop and mobile.

This data includes the number of registered, daily, and monthly active users, the time users spent on the service, and the number of sessions users launched in aggregate. It also includes the number of unique posts made separated by content category. They must also provide information about the number of views, likes, shares, and comments made on each service.

Companies must also provide the number of messages and status updates sent and their overall social graphs. They must report their advertising engagement across each advertising format and the average revenue per user, along with a catch-all "any other measure of user traffic, density, engagement, or activity used by the Company in the ordinary course of business."

The FTC also requires the tech firms drill down to provide these figures by individual user groups, defined by age, whether or not they're Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish, and what country they're in.

The orders also call for companies to identify the user attribute they track for each separate service offered, along with the top 1,000 attributes most frequently used. They must explain how they share personal information and who with, along with policies governing those agreements.

A laundry list of other requests includes detailed information about advertisers, such as the number of bids in advertising auctions, and advertisers' return on investment.

Notable sections demand information about how the services moderate and promote the content users see, which has been a focal point for critics who worry about disinformation on social media sites.

The FTC's commissioners approved the order 4-1. In a joint statement, three commissioners said, "Policymakers and the public are in the dark about what social media and video streaming services do to capture and sell users’ data and attention. It is alarming that we still know so little about companies that know so much about us."

Voting against the order was Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips, who called it "an undisciplined foray into a wide variety of topics, some only tangentially related to the stated focus of this investigation." He also criticized the dissimilarity of the recipients.

Over the next few years, Google will face a massive uphill battle as it fights an antitrust lawsuit filed by the US Department of Justice in October. It stands accused of a range of antitrust violations.

In a court filing, the DoJ described Google as a “monopoly gatekeeper” and accused it of behaviours that “deny rivals scale to compete effectively”. Officials say legal action will ensure the company doesn’t use “anticompetitive and exclusionary practices” to dominate the search engine and online advertising sectors.

But while the allegations outlined against Google are serious, this court case will likely take several years to reach a verdict. However, there is already a great deal of debate about the lawsuit's outcomes and how they’ll affect Google in the long-term.

‘Damning’ investigations

Google, along with other large tech companies, is facing increasing scrutiny over the way it operates. In October, the US House Antitrust Committee released the results of an investigation into the dominant and anti-competitive behaviour of Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook.

Jonathan Compton, partner at law firm DMH Stallard, tells IT Pro: “The Sub-Committee was damning in their findings which included charging exorbitant fees, imposing oppressive contract terms, buying out potential rivals and predatory pricing, to name but a few.”

He points out that the US government has several laws in its arsenal to rein in dominant corporations, and these could be used against Google in the future. “The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has powers under the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the FTCA of 1914 to regulate market abuses. In the 1980s, AT&T was broken up. In earlier years we saw Standard Oil, American Tobacco and Microsoft all broken up (the last – Microsoft – reversed on appeal),” explains Compton.

Sean Wright, application security lead at Immersive Labs, agrees that the break-up of Google is a possible outcome of the lawsuit. He says: “My suspicions are that Google’s Search arm could be separated from the rest of its business. This would help address some of the concerns raised in the antitrust case. Hopefully if this does happen, it would help greater competition, and allow others to enter the market.”

While it’s not clear how the case will conclude, Google should be concerned that companies found guilty of breaking antitrust laws can face enormous consequences. Gerard Pérez Olmo, a competition lawyer, explains that this issue is taken very seriously in the US.

He says: “In any case it is true that antitrust investigations in the US seem to be more dangerous for companies due to possible criminal penalties, and also subsequent collective actions for damages by affected companies, which sometimes are very aggressive.”

Jonathan Osborne, partner at corporate law firm Gunster, explains that a positive outcome for the US government could undermine Google’s dominance in the search market and enable new search engines to compete with it for the business of tech companies like Apple, LG, Samsung, AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon.

“This could further affect the market by encouraging innovation by Google’s competitors and enhancing competition on advertising prices, privacy protections, and features among service providers,” he continues. “As for tech giants, the government’s lawsuit sends the message that the executive branches of the US and some state governments share the concerns that have been expressed by members of Congress and the governments of other countries around the world.”

Reputational damage

But it’s not just the legal results of the DOJ case that could be damaging to Google. After being accused of unfair business practices, its reputation has come under fire. Consequently, the firm has a lot of work to do if it wants to convince the world that it's still a fair and ethical business.

Jennifer Crowley, client partner at digital transformation firm Kin + Carta Connect, says the search giant should return to its earlier Don’t Be Evil principles. “What’s meant by this of course was ‘do the right thing’ and that’s exactly what Google needs to do if it’s to emerge from the antitrust hearings (relatively) untarnished,” she says. “This means [it] should look inwards at how it can balance people, profit and planet.”

If Google doesn’t take practical steps to improve its public image, the reputational damages could be vast and irreparable. “Gen Z has been the first generation of consumers to grow up willing and able to open the hood of a brand and see the rusty mechanics within. Increasingly, these customers put stock on brand purpose and consequently, Google faces public scrutiny, as well as the Justice Department,” she says.

“As one of the most successful brands in the world and one with more scale to do good than nearly any other, Google has too much to lose not to take a leadership position on ethics and sustainability. The business has already demonstrated it has the will to put its money where its mouth is through its carbon offset initiative. Now it’s up to Google to convince us this stems from its ethos, rather than corporate necessity.”

Google will survive

As one of the world’s most influential companies, Google is unlikely to go out of business due to this antitrust case. Jake Moore, a security specialist at ESET, says: “Google is sued multiple times a year but this particular case is slightly more unusual than what we normally see. Antitrust is currently a huge problem but it will still take a lot more than this to begin the end of the technology giant’s reign.

“They are big enough to withstand even the most powerful attacks, which [is why it] has the largest share of the market. If fines are required, whatever the value will be a drop in the ocean to parent company Alphabet’s pot of cash.”

However, although Google will likely survive the case, holding large tech companies to account is still important and will benefit the whole tech industry. Moore explains: “When companies take a clear monopoly in a market, the inevitable response from others is to try and take it down a peg or two.

“This will no doubt be a good stab when trust is a favourable buzzword of current times, but I don’t think we will see Google taking much of a damaging impact. The most positive outcome will see laws change on how information is delivered and what we usually see is when Google starts to change direction, other companies are quick to follow suit.”

The US justice department’s lawsuit against Google is undoubtedly an extraordinary moment in the tech industry. While Google should pull through at the end of the case, it will undoubtedly face several years of vicious court battles. Whether Google is broken up, slapped with a huge fine or let off the hook, the case will still have lasting effects in the broader tech industry.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is reportedly readying itself for a potential antitrust lawsuit against Facebook by the end of this year, according to The Wall Street Journal's sources.

Preparations follow a yearlong FTC investigation into whether Facebook has used its powerful market position to stifle its competition and is part of a broader antitrust investigation into big tech’s conduct. According to those familiar with the matter, the FTC hasn’t decided whether or not to move forward with a lawsuit against Facebook.

Regardless, Facebook continues to make its case to the commission, including FTC staff taking testimony from CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

For a lawsuit to move forward, a majority of the five-member FTC would need to vote in favor of the suit. Currently, the commission includes three Republicans, including Chairman Joseph Simons, and two Democrats.

Details of the potential lawsuit remain unclear. Facebook disclosed it was under FTC investigation last year. However, reports claim the probe’s focus of the FTC probe concerns Facebook’s past acquisitions, which Facebook has argued aren’t anti-competitive and have improved both its products and user experiences.

The FTC also gave Facebook the go-ahead for its past acquisitions. Though some on the commission worried about the implications of Facebook acquiring Instagram, the company ultimately was able to do so in 2012. In 2014, the FTC also allowed Facebook to purchase WhatsApp. Since then, Facebook has continued to acquire a broad selection of companies, including Oculus VR, GIPHY and more.

The FTC now has two options if it moves forward with a lawsuit against Facebook: sue Facebook in federal court or file a complaint using its in-house legal system and go before an administrative law judge.

Should the case against Facebook move forward, Facebook risks the FTC restricting its operations or breaking up the business.

American authorities are cracking down on fake tech support scams that fool users into believing their computers are infected and charge them for the unnecessary solution, taking legal action against four more companies and their subsidiaries.

"Operation Tech Trap" has the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) working with local and international authorities - as well as Apple and Microsoft - to prevent such scams and take action against the criminals profiting from them.

Such tech support scams have been running for years, tricking less tech savvy users into paying out for unnecessary repairs and antivirus. Sometimes the scammers cold call victims, other cases see online advertising used to show fake warnings.

Most of the Operation Tech Trap targets followed a similar pattern that will be familiar to many hit by such scams over the years. They show advertisments designed to look like pop-up alerts from Microsoft or Apple, warning that their computers are infected and offering support via a telephone number. " Some of the pop-up ads even included a countdown clock, allegedly representing the time remaining before the computer hard drive would be deleted," the FTC noted.

Call the number, and the person on the other end will outright claim or suggest to be affiliated with Microsoft or Apple, and ask for remote access to the computer to run fake diagnostic tests, which the FTC noted "inevitably revealed the existence of grave problems requiring immediate repair by one of their 'certified technicians'." That would cost hundreds of dollars, and the FTC said such tactics have been used to scam consumers out of millions of dollars in the US alone.

"Tech support scams prey on consumers' legitimate concerns about malware, viruses and other cyber threats," said Tom Pahl, Acting Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

In earlier efforts to crack down on such support scams, the FTC has filed four complailnts against support companies using such tactics in Ohio, Alabama, Florida, and Colorado. "In three of the cases, the FTC has already obtained temporary restraining orders (TROs) to halt the practices, freeze assets, and appoint a temporary receiver to take control of the businesses," the FTC said.

The FTC has also said it reached settlements with two others. Seven people have been charged, with two pleading guilty already, and the FTC is working with authorities in India to crack down on such support scams operating there.

Main image: Bigstock

Smart TV manufacturer Vizio has been fined $2.2 million for spying on 11 million people, after a US consumer watchdog complained it had installed data tracking software on devices without the consent of its customers.

The automated content recognition technology is able to track what is being watched at any given time, which Vizio exploited to store "as many as 100 billion data points a day from millions of TVs", according to the complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Monday.

"On a second-by-second basis, Vizio collected a selection of pixels on the screen that it matched to a database of TV, movie, and commercial content," the complaint read. "What's more, Vizio identified viewing data from cable or broadband service providers, set-top boxes, streaming devices, DVD players, and over-the-air broadcasts."

Vizio, which is one of the world's largest manufacturers and sellers of smart TVs, began fitting devices with tracking technology as far back as 2014, and even retrofitted older models remotely, which were capable of transmitting data back to company servers, according to the complaint. At no point were customers informed that their viewing data was being harvested, the FTC alleged.

The firm even sold this "mountain of data" to advertisers and third-party companies, the FTC said. Importantly, this was not just superficial information, but included a host of personal details. "The company provided consumer's IP addresses to data aggregators, who then matched the address with an individual consumer or household," explained FTC senior attorney Lesley Fair, in a blog post summarising the complaint.

Vizio said the scheme did not match viewing data with people's names or contact details, however.

Fair added: "Vizio's contracts with third parties prohibited the re-identification of consumers and households by name, but allowed a host of other personal details - for example, sex, age, income, marital status, household size, education and home ownership. And Vizio permitted these companies to track and target its consumers across devices."

The FTC also alleged that Vizio made no attempts to inform customers this was happening, and although the technology had a settings menu labelled "Smart Interactivity", its program description was deliberately misleading.

"The ACR (data collection) program never paired viewing data with personally identifiable information such as name or contact information, and the commission did not allege or contend otherwise," said Vizio general counsel Jerry Huang, in a statement. "Instead, as the complaint notes, the practices challenged by the government related only to the use of viewing data in the 'aggregate' to create summary reports measuring viewing audiences or behaviours."

"Today, the FTC has made clear that all smart TV makers should get people's consent before collecting and sharing television viewing information and Vizio now is leading the way," added Huang.

Vizio were charged with engaging in unfair trade practices that violated the FTC Act and were unconscionable under New Jersey law. Vizio agreed to settle the matter on Monday by ceasing all collection of user data and promising to create transparent guidelines on future collection practices. The company was also forced to pay $1.5 million to the FTC and a civil penalty to New Jersey of a further $700,000.

Google denied that it intentionally buried the search results of rivals Yelp and TripAdvisor and claimed the problem was the result of a coding "glitch", it has emerged.

The denial comes after executives from Yelp and TripAdvisor noticed that Google searches for the businesses had suddenly sunk below that of Google's, leading to claims that Google was using it as a move to edge out competitors.

A Google spokeswoman told Re/code that far from being a nefarious plan to silence rivals, the whole debacle was down to a hiccup.

"The issues cited were caused by a recent code push, which we're working quickly to fix," she said.

However, Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman told the same publication that this was "far from a glitch" and more a "pattern of behaviour".

In a Tweet, Stoppelman demonstrated how a search on Google for "Yelp Ozumo" saw Google's own results pushed to the fore and not Yelp's. He alleged that there was "no limit to how far @google will go, tricking consumers when they ask for Yelp or Trip. Everybody loses."

A Tweet by TripAdvisor CEO Stephen Kaufer said that a search for "TripAdvisor Hilton" puts the TripAdvisor link "so far down you can't see it".

Complaints such as these have been the backbone of an investigation by the European Commission's competition watchdogs for around a year. Both TripAdvisor and Yelp are complainants. Google has denied that it has boosted its own results over that of rivals and said that search results are driven by user needs.

Stoppelman made a further Tweet doubting the problem was down to a bug. "Google sounding about as truthful as Trump, web search becoming a dirty business of burying your competition," he alleged.

Travis Katz, CEO of travel website Gogobot piled in with support for Stoppelman's misgivings.

"Google not burying Gogobot or 4sq [FourSquare] for same queries, making it unlikely this is a bug," he alleged in a Tweet.

Documents leaked to the Wall Street Journal have drawn attention to the fact that "co-occurrence signals were used in many vertical areas" to generate search results for Google's own products.

Apple has agreed to cough up a minimum of $32.5 million in refunds to US customers who faced huge bills when their children made in-app purchases without permission.

The complaint was brought forward by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It alleged that Apple failed to notify customers that when they entered a password to approve a single in-app purchase, the login details remained active for 15 minutes allowing children to continue racking up an unlimited amount of charges.

Many children's games in the App Store offer in-app purchases to unlock additional functionality and charges range from as little as 99 cents up to $99.

As part of the settlement, Apple will change its billing procedures to make sure it has the express permission of the bill payer before an in-app purchase is authorised.

"This settlement is a victory for consumers harmed by Apple's unfair billing, and a signal to the business community: whether you're doing business in the mobile arena or the mall down the street, fundamental consumer protections apply," said FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez.

"You cannot charge consumers for purchases they did not authorise."

In an internal memo to employees Apple CEO Tim Cook stated he wants to draw a line under the issue so the firm is not embroiled in a long legal battle.

"It doesn't feel right for the FTC to sue over a case that had already been settled. To us, it smacked of double jeopardy," Cook said in an internal memo.

"However, the consent decree the FTC proposed does not require us to do anything we weren't already going to do, so we decided to accept it rather than take on a long and distracting legal fight."

In the UK, a six year old named Will Smith ran up a 2,000 bill on his grandfather's iPad when he bought virtual food and coins in a game called Tiny Monsters. The situation was explained to Apple, and a full refund was awarded.

Google has confirmed its purchase of social navigation firm Waze is to be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The web giant has declined to comment further on the investigation, but reports suggest the FTC may have asked Google not to integrate with Waze, pending its review.

The FTC will investigate whether Google's purchase of Waze is anti-competitive and was done only to keep its rivals from getting hold of it the technology. Google Maps already dominates the mapping landscape and the FTC will also look into whether Waze had the potential to become a rival.

Other digital mapping companies include Nokia Maps, TomTom (which also helps to power Apple's Maps app) and the non-profit OpenStreetMap.

Google shelled out $1.1 billion in June to purchase the Israeli start-up, after a bidding war with Facebook. Apple was also rumoured to be interested in purchasing the firm, but it is not known if it made a bid.

After the deal closed, Google confirmed the Waze product development team would remain in Israel and operate separately "for now".

The plan is to incorporate the traffic update features from Waze into Google Maps, and add Google's search capabilities into Waze's standalone platform.

Waze claims it has a user base of nearly 50 million globally and when acquired, the firm claimed it had evaluated many options and felt Google would be the best partner.

This isn't the first time a Google acquisition has been subject to regulatory approval. The firm splashed out over $12 billion for Motorola Mobility in a deal that closed in 2012.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued its biggest ever fine to an app builder, accused of accessing customers' private data without permission.

Path, a social networking app that lets mobile device users share photos and instant messages, was ordered to pay $800,000 (509,517) by the FTC after it found the company had misled customers.

According to the commission, the app offered users "no meaningful choice" about the collection of personal data from their phone and would upload the names, email addresses, phone numbers, and Facebook and Twitter usernames to its servers, regardless of whether the customer had given it permission to.

The app offered users no meaningful choice about the collection of personal data

The issue was discovered almost exactly a year before the fine was issued, by action.io developer Arun Thampi.

Dave Morin, co-founder and chief executive of Path defended the move, saying: "We upload the address book to our servers in order to help the user find and connect to their friends and family on Path quickly and efficiently as well as to notify them when friends and family join Path. Nothing more."

However, in a blog post, Morin then claimed the company had deleted "the entire collection of user uploaded contact information from [its] servers".

Moreover, the app is also understood to have allowed children under the age of 13 to sign up to the service without parental permission, which is illegal in the US. The FTC said approximately 3,000 children did sign up to Path, which currently has around 6 million users.

Morin defended his company, saying in another blog post: "As you may know, we ask users' their birthdays during the process of creating an account. However, there was a period of time where our system was not automatically rejecting people who indicated that they were under 13.

"Before the FTC reached out to us, we discovered and fixed this sign-up process qualification, and took further action by suspending any under age [sic] accounts that had mistakenly been allowed to be created."

Nevertheless, Jon Leibowitz, in his last day in charge of the FTC, said: "This settlement with Path shows that no matter what new technologies emerge, the agency will continue to safeguard the privacy of Americans."

The agency also warned all app developers and handset makers to improve data security, adding that a "rush to release may result in dangerous security oversights".

Google-owned Motorola Mobility has asked a trade panel to drop two key patents from an infringement complaint it filed against Microsoft, according to a filing at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

The ITC has been considering accusations by Motorola Mobility, which has since been purchased by Google, that Microsoft infringed on its patented technology to make its popular Xbox.

Google filed a motion with the ITC on Tuesday, asking that two patents be withdrawn from the case. One patent remains, according to the filing.

We're pleased that Google has finally withdrawn these claims for exclusion orders.

The withdrawal was required under an agreement that Google made with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last week settling a pair of long-running antitrust investigations.

The FTC, US Department of Justice and US Patent and Trademark Office assert that companies should not request sales bans when filing patent infringement lawsuits based on patents that are essential to a standard in most cases. Standard essential patents ensure that devices are interoperable.

Microsoft identified the two patents withdrawn from the ITC case as standard essential patents.

"We're pleased that Google has finally withdrawn these claims for exclusion orders (sales bans) against Microsoft, and hope that it will now withdraw similar claims pending in other jurisdictions," David Howard, Microsoft's deputy general counsel, said in an emailed statement.

Google did not immediately respond to requests for a comment.

Microsoft said that standard essential patents had been asserted in cases in Wisconsin and Washington district courts, both of which have been stayed. Sales bans, or injunctions, were requested in both cases, Microsoft said.

The ITC is a popular venue for patent lawsuits because it can bar the importation of infringing products and because it issues decisions relatively quickly.

While the focus of last week's agreement between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Google was search, the deal's restrictions on how the internet giant uses its patents could affect the whole technology industry.

Under the deal, which ended an antitrust investigation by the FTC and disappointed many critics, Google will make only minor changes to its search business.

But Google is also now limited in when it can seek injunctions against products from rival companies that use certain patents.

We know in today's world, defendants are getting more aggressive.

Throughout recent smartphone wars and other major patent litigation, holders of so-called standard essential patents have been accused of using them to bully competitors into paying high licensing rates or as leverage in patent disputes.

The FTC's deal with Google clarifies the uncertainty over how standard essential patents can be used, said Colleen Chien, a professor specialising in patent law at Santa Clara University School of Law in California.

The deal set out a process by which technology makers can avoid injunctions and patent holders know they are going to get compensated, Chien said. "The FTC has deflated the power of the injunction and also the incentives to not pay that have existed."

In its case against Google, the FTC claimed that Google and its subsidiary Motorola Mobility had breached commitments to standard-setting bodies to license its patents on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

As part of the deal, Google agreed to drop claims for injunctive relief against competitors in certain patent disputes around the world. It also agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court or arbitrator when disputes over payment rates arise.

Throughout the FTC's investigation, Google was represented by Susan Creighton of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and John Harkrider of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider. The FTC retained Beth Wilkinson of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

Template

The FTC said the threat of injunction by a holder of an essential patent hurts competition. The agreement with Google could be used as a "template" for other patent disputes, it said.

Unlike a court decision, the FTC's agreement with Google is not binding on other companies. But it could give leverage to defendants in disputes with essential patent holders that could be used in court.

"We know in today's world, defendants are getting more aggressive," said Matthew Woods, an antitrust and patent attorney at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi. "Defendants will seize on this and tell courts that injunctions are something the court should not even countenance."

But the agreement with Google may not be all good news for patent users, according to Jay Jurata, an antitrust partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who said that it could have unintended consequences.

The elaborate agreement allows Google to seek injunctions against companies that are unwilling to pay for a license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

But the question of when a company is considered an unwilling licensee is one that the FTC may have unwittingly allowed holders of essential patents to manipulate, said Jurata.

"They provided a road map for other standard essential patent holders to engage in opportunistic behavior to paint otherwise willing licensees as unwilling licensees," he said.

Internet giant Google has not manipulated its web search results to hurt its rivals, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation has concluded.

The US regulator ended its investigation into the firm yesterday, and in the process won assurances from Google that it would end the practice of "scraping" reviews and other data from rivals' websites for its own products.

Google also agreed not to request sales bans when suing companies which infringe on patents that are essential to ensuring interoperability, also known as standard essential patents, the FTC said.

Microsoft and other Google competitors have pressed the FTC to bring a broad antitrust case against Google similar to the sweeping Justice Department litigation against Microsoft in the 1990s.

People would like us to bring a big search bias case, but the facts aren't there.

Meanwhile smaller internet companies such as Nextag have complained about Google tweaking its web search results to give prominence to its own products, pushing down competitors' rankings and making them more difficult for customers to find.

At a press conference, FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz anticipated criticism of the agency's decision not to pursue Google further on the so-called subject of search bias.

"Even though people would like us to bring a big search bias case, the facts aren't there," he said.

"The changes Google have agreed to make ensure that consumers continue to reap the benefits of competition in the online marketplace and in the market for innovative wireless devices they enjoy," said Leibowitz.

The commission voted 4 to 1 to settle the patent investigation into Google's injunction requests. It voted 5 to 0 to end the probe of Google's search practices.

"I never saw any real likelihood that the feds were going to insert themselves between one of the most popular brands in the world and the constituency that adores it," said Whit Andrews, an analyst for Gartner.

Disappointed rivals

Yelp, which operates the social networking/user review website yelp.com, had complained about scraped reviews, and said it was disappointed with the result of the FTC probe.

"The closure of the commission's investigation into search bias by Google without action...represents a missed opportunity to protect innovation in the internet economy," wrote Yelp spokesman Vince Sollitto in an email.

"We look for the regulatory bodies continuing their investigation to have greater success."

Gary Reback, who represents a group of Google's critics including Nextag, said he thought the investigation was inadequate since the FTC failed to respond to his clients' assertions that they had been hurt by Google and asked few questions in its civil subpoenas.

"They talked about how thorough and exhaustive the investigation was but that's really rubbish," said Reback, who is with the law firm Carr & Ferrell LLP and is best known for his work against Microsoft in the 1990s. "I've never seen anything as shallow and incomplete as this was."

Microsoft was embroiled in antitrust probes and litigation from 1990 when the FTC began an investigation until 2011, when the final consent decree finally expired.

Leibowitz defended the commission's investigation into Google, saying the agency had scoured through some 9 million pages of documents and taken sworn testimony from key Google executives. "This was an incredibly thorough and careful investigation by the commission, and the outcome is a strong and enforceable set of agreements," he said.

Google's David Drummond, the company's chief legal officer, said the FTC announcement on Thursday meant "Google's services are good for users and good for competition."

Thomas Rosch, who is leaving the commission this month, suggested the investigation fell short.

"After promising an elephant more than a year ago, the commission instead has brought forth a couple of mice," said Rosch, a Republican.

The FTC broke with its usual practice of requiring a consent decree to settle an investigation. Instead it allowed Google to write a letter pledging to implement the agreed-upon changes in the search portion of the probe.

That prompted some sharp questions about whether Google would live up to its pact.

"I have no reason to think that Google won't honor their commitment; I think they will," said Leibowitz, noting financial penalties if Google failed to do so.

One Google competitor seemed to think the FTC agreement with Google would be a small boon to competitors.

"The concessions that the FTC extracted on review scraping, patents, and data are real, but not game changers by any means," said Oren Etzioni, co-founder of Decide.com, a product website that advises shoppers when prices may change or new versions of gadgets may come out.

Some of Google's critics, anticipating a weak conclusion to the FTC's investigation, said in December that they may be ready to take their grievances to the Justice Department.

The European Union, based in Brussels, is conducting a parallel probe of Google. It announced on December 18 that it was giving the company a month to come up with proposals to resolve its probe.

The European Commission has been examining informal settlement proposals from Google since July but has not sought feedback from the complainants, suggesting it is not convinced by what Google has put on the table so far.

Google is also being looked at by a group of state attorneys general, led by Texas.

In August, Google was forced to pay $22.5 million to settle charges it bypassed the privacy settings of customers using Apple Inc's Safari browser. The practice was in violation of a 2011 consent decree with the FTC over a botched rollout of the now defunct social network Buzz.

Facebook's shareholders are preparing themselves for further losses when the ban on early investors selling their shares begins to lift on Thursday 16 August.

One of the first shareholders that will have the opportunity to divest will be Accel Partners, a technology focused venture capital fund based in Silicon Valley. It bought shares when Facebook was valued at just $98 million (62 million). Ttoday its holding is worth $3.3 billion (637.7 million).

Other high profile early backers, who bought into the company during its initial public offering (IPO) in May, include Goldman Sachs and Microsoft.

The ban's rollback will peak in November, with industry watchers suggesting that half of the 268 million shares eligible for sale from 16 August could be auctioned over the coming months.

"It remains a real risk that shares will be sold on to the market and temporarily depress prices as the market could struggle to absorb an expanded float," said analyst Brian Wieser of Pivotal Research Group.

Facebook has also found itself at loggerheads with app developers, after the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused the company of deceit.

The social networking site was reportedly paid up to $95,000 (60,600) by developers who entered their apps into its verified apps programme. However, an investigation by the FTC showed that Facebook did nothing to verify its security, despite stating it would be subject to a "detailed review process".

"[Facebook] took no steps to verify either the security of a verified application's website or the security the application provided for the user information it collected, beyond such steps as it may have taken regarding any other platform application," the FTC said.

Google has launched a revamped search page designed to promote more of the its services.

For the limited number of users who can see the changes from this week, a new side panel includes links to Google products like Gmail, Maps, YouTube and Google News.

The black bar running horizontally across the top of the page has been shifted to the side.

The changes were announced in 2011, revealing some of the most significant aesthetic changes to the search service thus far.

Making navigation and sharing super simple for people is a key part of our efforts to transform the overall Google experience.

At the time, Google said it was making the changes to help users "navigate quickly between our services, as well as share the right stuff with the right people on Google+.

"Making navigation and sharing super simple for people is a key part of our efforts to transform the overall Google experience, which is why we're very excited about this redesign," said Eddie Kessler, technical lead at Google, in a blog post last year.

The move comes at a time when Google is facing scrutiny from regulators over alleged breaches of competition rules in the search market.

The Federal Trade Commission has been called on to probe Google over whether it was steering users to run Google services rather than those of competitors.

In September last year, Google chairman Eric Schmidt said the company had not "cooked" its results to favour its own products.

The Financial Times reported in December that the European Commission had narrowed its investigation into Google practices, in what may mark a build up to a formal complaint.

The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has given Intel the green light to complete its acquisition of McAfee.

However, the chip maker could still come unstuck in Europe where a the $7.68 billion deal remains under review.

"The Federal Trade Commission has concluded its review of the proposed McAfee transaction and has cleared it," a brief note from Intel vice president of investor relations Kevin Sellers read.

"We are continuing to work with the staff at the European Commission as they continue their review."

Sources close to the matter in Europe have suggested the EU's anti-trust regulator had privately raised concerns during a preliminary review, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

The EU appears to harbour worries that if McAfee were to have access to Intel technology, then McAfee rivals would find it hard to get in on the process of designing chips with embedded security, the sources indicated.

One questionnaire sent to Intel from the EC posed questions around how security could be embedded into its chips and whether any processors could be designed to work solely with McAfee software, the WSJ reported.

Intel agreed to acquire McAfee in August, shocking the security world and leading to questions over the future of the security firm's software.

Earlier this year, Intel indicated the first fruits of the deal will emerge in the first half of 2011.

This week the UK's privacy watchdog concluded its investigation into the Google Street View scandal, when the search giant collected personal details during its mapping operation.

In this country it is the end of what Google will consider a forgettable saga, but the company still faces cases across the world.

But where did it all start? And where did it all go wrong? IT PRO takes a look back at the history of this intriguing scandal.

March 2009

The Street View service was launched across 25 cities in the UK, amid privacy concerns.

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) ruled it was not a threat to personal privacy and allowed it to continue. This would not be the first time the ICO would OK Google actions.

March 2010

Google Street View went live across the UK, covering nearly all of the country's roads.

May 2010

The Street View case burst into life in May when a fleet of Google cars were found to be soaking up data from unprotected Wi-Fi networks in as many as 30 countries during its rounds in 2006.

Google admitted it had taken payload data but had done so by accident. It then insisted the data was not used by the company and said it had contacted the relevant authorities in each country.

Google then missed a deadline for submitting data to German regulators as the storm surrounding the case began to intensify.

June 2010

In an interview with the Financial Times, chief executive (CEO) Eric Schmidt admitted the firm had "screwed up" by taking the data. He said Google would be handing over data to German, French, Italian and Spanish regulators, after the UK's information commissioner said he was happy with Google's promise to delete the data as soon as was reasonably possible.

In June, the firm also tried to explain how the data had been taken. Google said an engineer had written a piece of code in 2006 for an "experimental Wi-Fi project." This was then unwittingly employed in software used by the organisation's mobile team when it was collecting "basic Wi-Fi network data" a year later. Basically, Google reiterated it was a mistake.

Privacy International came out and slammed Google for what happened, suggesting the company intentionally broke the law when collecting the Wi-Fi data.

In the same week Google released an independent report on the software involved in taking the information, showing Google had collected and stored payload data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks. The search giant did not confirm what kind of data was taken, as it later would.

Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal announced his office would lead the biggest investigation to date into the case, labeling the actions as a "deeply disturbing invasion of personal privacy."

The ICO decided the data Google took in the UK did not amount to anything significant, and so concluded its investigation without any action. Of course, the commissioner would start up another case later in the year.

Earlier in the month, Google had confirmed its Street View cars would be heading back out on the road.

Attorney General for the State of Connecticut Richard Blumenthal returned to threaten Google with legal action if "complete, comprehensive answers" were not given.

August 2010

Google's Seoul office was raided by South Korean police as they continued their investigation around data collection by Street View cars.

October 2010

Google came out and admitted that among the data collected during the Street View operation were passwords, emails and URLs. Subsequently, the ICO reopened its investigation and said it would consider using its "enforcement powers."

The Federal Trade Commission decided to drop its own investigation into the search giant, which is let off the hook once again. Federal regulators agreed Google had done enough in addressing privacy concerns. Google still faces cases from more than 30 US state prosecutors.

At a parliamentary debate, minister for culture Ed Vaizey confirmed the ICO would not be able to issue a fine against Google and the search giant had escaped an investigation from the Metropolitan Police.

November 2010

The ICO said it will not be pressured into making a snap decision over Google, stressing it "must take a calm and measured approach." The watchdog also noted it needed to "remain evidence based."

The body came out two days later to say Google would not be fined, but instead would have its data protection practices audited by the ICO and sign an undertaking to ensure data protection breaches do not happen again.

Privacy groups were not impressed. Open Rights Group's Jim Killock said the ICO was "behaving like a lapdog, not a watchdog."

Microsoft has launched a new Internet Fraud Alert service that will quickly inform businesses when details from the firm have been accessed without authorisation.

The alert service is available immediately, with Microsoft claiming it is an industry first. According to the Redmond giant, there has never been a simple way for security researchers to inform service providers or affected companies when an attack hits.

The Internet Fraud Alerts will be effective in allowing researchers to report stolen data, such as credit card information or login details, directly to the organisation running the account, the tech giant said.

Microsoft has now donated the new tool to the National Cyber-Forensics and Training Alliance (NCFTA), a non-profit organisation that seeks to unite industry, law enforcement and the academic world on cyber security issues.

"The NCFTA is honored to manage this one-ofa-kind program as it is vital to the interests of our partners and consistent with our mission. This program will enable the expeditious identification of current and emerging threats, which is key to the mitigation of compromised data," said president and chief executive of the NCFTA Ron Plesco, in a statement.

Microsoft has hooked up with a number of other big names for the project, including the Anti-Phishing Working Group, eBay and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

"Internet Fraud Alert is a promising and innovative approach to help financial and online institutions discover hijacked accounts and close them or inform the affected consumers," added Chuck Harwood, deputy director of the FTC.

"We hope that someday there won't be a need for a secure database of stolen account credentials."

The news comes just days after a British security researcher discovered a zero-day flaw in Microsoft's Windows XP operating system, which could have allowed hackers to take control of PCs.

An ISP that distributed malicious content has been permanently shut down by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

The 3FN service, which operated under numerous aliases such as APX Telecom and APS Communications, sent out spam, spyware and child pornography, along with other illegal content.

The operation has been ordered to pay $1.08 million (750,000) in illicitly-gained funds to the FTC. Computer servers and other assets owned by the ISP have now been seized and will be sold off.

According to the commission, 3FN advertised its work in "the darkest corners of the internet, including a chat room for spammers".

Back in 2009, the FTC had alleged that 3FN had been cooperating with criminals in distributing a variety of harmful content such as trojans and viruses.

The body claimed the ISP ran botnets as well, hosting the command-and-control servers and recruiting bot herders who initiated the botnets. Instant messages filed with the district court had shown the defendants' senior workers talking about the configuration of botnets with these herders, the FTC said.

More than 4,500 pieces of malware capable of stealing passwords and other data were also run by command-and-control servers hosted by 3FN, according to the consumer-protection body.

The FTC also said 3FN was able to hide its criminal operations either by disregarding take-down requests from the online security community or moving its illegal work to other internet addresses that the ISP controlled.

An outgoing Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner has called Google "irresponsible" for ignoring consumer privacy data in its development of Google Buzz.

In strongly worded remarks to an FTC roundtable discussion on privacy this week, Harbour berated a number of technology firms for their approach to privacy, but singled out Google for specific criticism in its launch of Buzz.

At the time of its launch last month, the social networking add-on to Gmail was widely criticised for how it handled users' personal data, with Google twice having to revise the setup process after waves of complaints.

Harbour pointed to the controversy is just the latest example of technology companies' seeming willingness to publicly expose consumer data, particularly when launching new products also mentioning the controversial rollout of Facebook's new privacy settings last year.

"Protecting consumer privacy is of utmost importance," Harbour said. "Unfortunately, many of the companies that consumers look to as leaders and that we expect to be leaders still have not taken this message entirely to heart."

Referring directly to Buzz, Harbour who is leaving the FTC on 6 April said Google's heavy-handed launch of its first foray into social networking was "irresponsible conduct" from a company considered "one of the greatest technology leaders of our time".

Harbour argued that it was inappropriate for Google to assume implicit permission for it to reveal Gmail user data given that social networking barely existed when a large percentage of users had signed up and agreed the company's usage terms.

"Based on my observations, I do not believe that consumer privacy played any significant role in the release of Buzz. In the rush to compete with Facebook, FourSquare, Twitter, FriendFeed, Loopt and a host of other companies, it appears that Google really did not think through the privacy implications of this launch."

She stressed that consumers should be given the choice whether to opt in for any features that might expose their data when companies introduced a new service.

After being roundly criticed for its approach to privacy in launching Buzz, Google reaffirmed its commitment to protecting its users' data and remaining as transparent as possible, conceding it had learned some hard lessons from the Buzz experience.

"We quickly realised that we didn't get everything quite right. We're very sorry for the concern we've caused and have been working hard ever since to improve things based on your feedback. We'll continue to do so," Gmail product manager Todd Jackson said in a statement after the second round of tweaks.

The FTC roundtable discussion was the last in a series of three such meetups as the organisation explores the evolving challenges posed by how technology products and companies interact with consumer data.

It has clarified that Harbour's remarks reflected her own views expressed in a private capacity and not those of the FTC itself.