Slashdot Log In
EU Questions Google Privacy Policy
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri May 25, 2007 10:25 PM
from the they-seee-youuuu dept.
from the they-seee-youuuu dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is running a piece noting that the EU is scrutinizing Google's privacy policy this month. The company's policy of keeping search information on their servers for up to two years may be violating EU privacy laws. A data protection group that advises the European Union has written to the search giant to express concerns. The EU has a wide range of privacy protections that set limits to what information corporations may collect and what they may or may not do with it. In the US on the other hand privacy laws generally cover government actions while the business sector remains largely unregulated. Is it perhaps time to follow the European example and extend privacy laws to include corporations?"
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: Privacy Group Gives Google Lowest Possible Grade 260 comments
The Washington Post is reporting on a finding by London-based group Privacy International. In a new report, they find that Google has some of the worst privacy-protection practices anywhere on the web, giving them the lowest possible grade. "While a number of other Internet companies have troubling policies, none comes as close to Google to 'achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy,' Privacy International said in an explanation of its findings. In a statement from one of its lawyers, Google said it aggressively protects its users' privacy and stands behind its track record. In its most conspicuous defense of user privacy, Google last year successfully fought a U.S. Justice Department subpoena demanding to review millions of search requests."
[+]
Microsoft's Ballmer: Google Reads Your Mail 264 comments
Anonymous writes "A piece of video has emerged in which Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says of Google, 'they read your mail and we don't.' Evidently, it was part of a lengthy discussion on the future of the software business model, and whether advertising could support free consumer software. Ballmer said it doesn't work, at least when it comes to email. '"That's just a factual statement, not even to be pejorative. The theory was if we read your mail, if somebody read your mail, they would know what to talk to you about. It's not working out as brilliantly as the concept was laid out." Ballmer isn't the first to fire salvos at Google's Gmail privacy policy. Privacy advocates have been critical over the policy almost since the beginning, but the popularity of the service has skyrocketed nonetheless.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
That is just ignorant (Score:2, Insightful)
A government concerned with it's citizens privacy? (Score:4, Funny)
No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Think "corporations" shou
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it does. Don't send e-mail to people who are supporting a business you don't trust. If you have actual, persuasive, sensible reasons to think that Google is Officially Evil, then you should have absolutely no trouble convincing an actual
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Finally, if I say something in private to my friend, I don't see what business it is of Googles (or any other company) to snoop on what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with Google being Evil(TM) or not, it's just common sense. In fact, it would be silly to say that nearly everybody in the world is Evil(TM) just because I don't
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So then tell your friend you won't email him at GMail. I am sorry, email is NOT something you can easily protect based on the very nature of how it is delivered and how much control there is at every point along its delivery route. Concerned about that? Encrypt your emails. Expecting email to be "private" is a joke. Its just like saying that your posts on a blog are private because you turn on some control lists.
Also, have you ever read Googles privacy policies? Its the only company that doesn't blanket st
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to read Google's privacy policy, since I'm not a gmail user. I'm not asking them for a service, they're the ones who insist on snooping on my words if I email a certain friend.
BTW, privacy policies don't protect customers over the long run. When a company wants to modify their policy, they phase it out with ol
Great idea in theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like a company's privacy policy? Don't patronize them.
This libertarian idea is wonderful in theory, but not so easy in practice. If all of the companies in a given market have economic incentives to make use of your private data, they will all err on the side of making more revenue, not protecting your privacy. In a publicly-owned company, the profit motive will always beat out any concerns that are considered secondary. Even where a company knows that privacy is important to users, they also know it is not *the* most important determining factor for customers. Therefore, even though it might be high on the list of customer concerns, all the companies in the market will still ignore it.
For an example of this in action, look at those obnoxious watermarks all American TV channels now display. Nobody likes it, but it's not enough of a detriment that people won't watch whatever ABC, CBS, NBC, et al, is showing. The fact that they all do it makes it impossible to show your displeasure by switching channels anyway.
Your example of the landscaping company records is a red herring. These sorts of customer service businesses only gather information related to the work they do for you, while search engines gather a much broader range of information. The fact that small service businesses get audited is irrelevant as well. Nothing in the audit records is going to provide anything beyond transaction dates and amounts. Generally speaking, Mom & Pop's Garden Service doesn't get routinely attacked by ambitious hacker networks, either.
I understand that you enjoy the benefits of companies using your personal information to provide better service. So do I. So do the vast majority of people. But I think it's a gross simplification to say that as a practical matter we really have much choice in the matter.
Parent
That goes both ways (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't like European laws? Don't do business there.
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
So, due to privacy concerns, the EU dislikes Google storing data on its users, but forces ISPs to retain data for two years [slashdot.org]? Under the catch-all excuse of 'terrorism' no less.
They could follow each others example: the EU could introduce laws to stop government snooping, whilst the US introduces laws to stop corporate snooping. Personally I find the EU government snooping worse than Google, at least Google is a product choice, government laws can't be worked around. Although the purchase of Double-click does make Google's tracking somewhat difficult to avoid when surfing around.
Failing that, just use Scroogle [scroogle.org] and/or Tor [eff.org] and/or an ad-blocker. :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Politics aside, as a rule I think that whichever solution limits more the spreading around of my data is the solution I prefer, at leas
What about retention? (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a big gap (Score:2, Insightful)
The EU? The European Union? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about that EU, yes?
Re:The EU? The European Union? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Interesting)
"[Company] collects information which you may wish to remain private. [Company] retains the information for up to 2 years, and information may be made available to outside vendors without your consent."
Almost everyone can understand that. It's still a high reading level (generally), but far simpler than the 8 page privacy policy most companies have.
Parent
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is better of with simpler laws! Not big business, not politicians and not the lawyers. Just imagine, someone from the general public reads your policy or the law, and really understands it. Do you understand the potential dangers there?
No, simpler laws is in nobodies interest. At least not somebody who has something to say about it.
Parent
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
However, I'm not aware Google sells this information to anyone rather it does marketing research for it's advertising departments. Storing the search information to let them analyze the in for and turn an extra dollar from the advertising could mean the difference from paying a service fee to
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer they just don't collect the information in the first place, though I'm not sure how we can be sure that they don't. They can still put up adverts, if they want.
In any case, I don't see any option for me to pay for a google service without adverts.
Re: (Score:2)
And why would you think they need an alternative to their current business model if you don't like it? Your option is to find another search engine or whatever you use Google for. When your hungry for steak, you don't necessarily goto a fish shack for dinner complaining you couldn't get steak, you goto a steak house instead.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like going to a steak restaurant only to find that they serve BSE.
Re: (Score:2)
There might be more to it then just an IP. They might have a user
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one want to know very much how are they using the data from the web stats service google provides. I see that everyone and their dog have the scripts, and while I agree to disclose some statistics to the sites that I'm visiting, I don't remember ever agreeing to disclose the same information to google.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I certainly know what information I'm giving them. What I don't know is how much they store and how effectively they piece it all together. Why do I need to know what Google is doing with my data? I gave them my d
Re:Absolutely not. (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to live in a society in which detailed files on people were customarily kept, and used to make people behave. From my experience, allowing any company (or organization, for that matter) to have data files on people without any option of the people to control what's in those files and who's accessing them isn't the smart thing to do.
But to each their own.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I much rather have a legal mechanism that requires them to tell me what data they have about me if I ask, and enables me to have it removed, then not
Say what you like about privacy here in the UK, but we have the data protection act, which does exactly that (if I give them aproximate times and places, I can even make people trawl through CCTV footage and show me any pictures of me they have). And if I don't want info x to be on the database of company y, then I can tell them to remove it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A case can be made that I hold copyright to information about me, or a right to privacy which may work like copyright. That is, Google is f
Re: (Score:2)
And truthfully, I disagree even with your premise. Unless you have the ability to do the same transaction without giving up your data, it isn't a willing exchange but coercion.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The courts have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Tell people what data you are collecting from them
2. Keep the data you collect safe
This allows you to "look after your privacy", as you suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
<sarcasm>I agree 100%. We should wait for it to become a huge, entrenched problem first. Then, when this information is being lo
Re: (Score:2)
As long as I know what data they're storing, I have no problem with them keeping my data for up to two years. Maybe I'll regret that two years from now, but it's very unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be so naive, every large co
Re: (Score:2)
that was meant in reference to google's earlier stance on google china where it was decided that refusing to cooperate with china's censorship of its people was not worth it. it was in fact voiced on slashdot on more than one occasion on slashdot that this wasnt very good thing for google to do it. it was not meant as a flame in any way shape or form, just a comment on google's history and how it reflects on the current topic.
Re: (Score:2)
since when was my right not to be essentially spied on a violation of Google's privacy?
Re: (Score:2)
You can debate the right or wrongness of this. But until the laws and rules are changed, prepare to be disappointed a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the obvious question: (Score:4, Informative)
The concern is over the fact that they trade with people in the EU. US corporations that trade in the EU are required to follow EU laws; if they aren't, they may be fined by the EU (e.g. Microsoft), and if they do not pay their fines to the EU then they face having any of their property that is within the EU confiscated. This would include any money in transit from their European customers to them.
Parent