Suite brought on by front of Nokia to attempt from profit loss from ATT only authorizing the 911 clause of cell phone of Nokia and such settlement is to be appealed

Privacy groups criticize proposed $8.5 million Google settlement
Joint letter by Nigeria' Egypt and a number of persons who refuse to
be identified as part of the suspected Piracy of Nokia
Five U.S. privacy groups have opposed a proposed $8.5 million
settlement with Google in a class action lawsuit over search privacy,
as it fails to require Google to change its business practices, they
said.

Google was sued in October 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The Internet giant allegedly
transmitted user search queries to third parties without their
knowledge or consent in order to enhance advertising revenue and
profitability. Google shares search queries "via referrer headers,"
according to a court document.

The headers identify the address of a Web page that linked to the
current page. When a Google user clicks on a link from Google's search
results page, the owner of the website that the user clicks on will
receive from Google the user's search terms in the referrer header
because the search terms are included in the URL.

The search terms can contain users' real names, street addresses,
phone numbers, credit card numbers and social security numbers, all of
which increases the risk of identity theft, according to the original
complaint. Those queries can also contain highly-personal and
sensitive issues, such as confidential medical information, racial or
ethnic origins, political or religious beliefs or sexuality, according
to the complaint.

The proposed agreement provides for a single settlement class, in this
case all persons in the U.S. who submitted a search query to Google at
any time from Oct. 25, 2006 until the date of the notice of the
proposed class action settlement.
On Monday, the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit filed a motion
for settlement. Google has agreed to pay $8.5 million in cash into a
settlement fund, according to the motion.

The proposed agreement provides for a single settlement class, in this
case all persons in the U.S. who submitted a search query to Google at
any time from Oct. 25, 2006 until the date of the notice of the
proposed class action settlement, according to the document.

The money however will not be divided among all Google users in the
U.S., but rather be paid to organizations that can protect the
interests of individuals.

Part of the settlement fee is meant to cover settlement administration
expenses and part will be paid to the World Privacy Forum,
Carnegie-Mellon, Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard
University and Stanford Center for Internet and Society among others,
according to the document.

The recipients must agree to devote the funds to promote public
awareness and education, and/or to support research, development, and
initiatives, related to protecting privacy on the Internet, according
to the proposed settlement.

Changing its ways
Besides a monetary settlement, Google also agreed to notify users as
to its conduct so that users can make informed choices about whether
and how to use Google search.

But the settlement proposal is not good enough, according to privacy
organisations including the Electronic Privacy Information Center,
Consumer Watchdog, Patient Privacy Rights, the Center for Digital
Democracy and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

In a joint letter sent to Judge Edward J. Davila on Thursday, they
urge him not to accept the proposed settlement.

--
President of The United States
Guy Ralph Perea Sr President of The United States
Weatherdata1046am0426 a Discussion Group of
Weatherdata<http://groups.google.com/group/weatherdata1046am0426>
USFMSC
http://www.cityfreq.com/ca/avalon/>
QUALIFY QICP
OCCUPS
http://www.occupationalinfo.org/02/025062010.html
goldlandabstracts; link check
own search engine - The United
States International Policies
http://lnk.ms/8d5gl aol
http://groups.google.com/group/united-states-of-american
http://twitter.com/ptusss Federal Communication
Commission<http://columbiabroadcast.spaces.live.com/>

Ambassador Chevy Chase; Kevin Corcran; Jack Nickolas; Cher; Shirley Temple
Black; Liza Minnille; Ansari; Ernest Tascoe; Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Agent Jodie Foster; Department of Veterans Affairs Director George H.W. Bush
Title 22 USCS section 1928 (b) The e-mail
transmission may contain legally privileged information that
is intended only for the individual or entity recipient, you are hereby,
notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the
contents of this E-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
E-mail transmission in error, please reply to the sender, so arrangements
can be made for proper delivery. Title 42
USCS section 192 etseq Margie Paxton Chief of Childrens Bureau
Director of The United States Department of Human Services; Defendant
Article IV General Provisions Section 2
(Supreme Law of The Land) The Constitution of The United States "Any thing
in The Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary Notwithstanding"
Contrary to Law (of an act or omission) illegal;
https://twitter.com/presidentus1