Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google EU Privacy Security Your Rights Online

Google Privacy Policy Could Violate EU Law 135

Posted by samzenpus
from the do-not-want dept.
judgecorp writes "Google's new unified privacy policy could violate EU law, according to objections. The French data regulator warns that the policy will infringe users' privacy by building a single online profile. Commission Nationale de L’informatique et Des Libertes (CNIL) has expressed “deep concerns” about the policy and its adherence to the European Data Protection Directive."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Privacy Policy Could Violate EU Law

Comments Filter:
  • by Eraesr (1629799) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @06:37AM (#39206607) Homepage
    Hasn't MS done the same with MSN passport, where you use one login for Hotmail, MSN Messenger, XBox Live and various other services?
    • by mvdwege (243851)

      Passport has already been under investigation by the EU. Perhaps not coincidentially, none of Microsoft's grandiose plans of a complete identity solution for the entire web panned out.

      Mart

    • Exactly why I don't understand why "everybody" seems to be afraid of Google's new privacy policy. As far as I understand it, it's normal. Yahoo has a Yahoo profile for all Yahoo services, & MS does the same. To me, it seems 100% reasonable that a company should let a use have 1 profile for all that companies services. It would be annoying to have several or several logins. That's why everybody does it -- before Google's done it. It's more efficient for the user & the company. We must be missing some
  • by zippo01 (688802)
    They act like Google doesn't already know everything about everyone. I see nothing wrong with Google doing whatever they want with the information I voluntarily provide them in exchange for their services. If you don't want them to have it, use another service.
    • by Lennie (16154) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @06:47AM (#39206645) Homepage

      Most non-technical users don't understand these things. Kids usually don't fully understand the impact/ramifications.

      Atleast that is some of the arguments I've heared.

      Most politicians also fall in the first catagory.

      • by zippo01 (688802) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @06:50AM (#39206661)
        ignorance never makes good justification.
        • by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:46AM (#39206855)

          ignorance never makes good justification.

          You're right, it doesn't. But, ignorance is a fact of life in many (if not most) areas of "technology". Don't know how to fix your own car so you got an expensive repair bill? Are you sure all those parts really needed to be replaced? How about fixing your own electric or plumbing or computer? Just because these are "physical" objects doesn't make it that different. If you knew how they worked you could (and hopefully would) make a more educated decision about them.

          Yes, Google is trying to become 'Big Brother' without all those pesky restraints put upon governments by their citizens. The more information Google, Facebook, et al can harvest the more useful they become to other large entities. We're all ignorant of the true intent of these types of companies, but I'm pretty sure they intend to move "profit!" up to position #1 if at all possible.

          • by Shazback (1842686)
            Ignorantia juris non excusat (or for our civil law country friends : nemo censetur ignorare legem).

            So the state/EU/politicians are saying that they need to protect me from wilfully giving my information in exchange for a service, on that basis that I'm "ignorant"... And at the same time they believe I'm perfectly knowledgeable of every facet of law?
          • by ciderbrew (1860166) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:33AM (#39207041)
            No this isn't the same. Having a person fix a broken object and getting ripped off may be ignorance but it doesn't stop a person getting a job 20 years down the line.
            If a teen wrote on facebook "first gay kiss, love that person / just tried drugs / want to vote for party X", that bit of information is there to haunt them. Being gay, trying drugs or voting x is not the issue, not being able to "un-share" it, should the need arise is.
            The enlightened in this case, should work to protect the ignorant. Being a decent engineer, being a sysadmin (xkcd style) means you are the powerful. And with great power ... Help the ignorant by default.
          • by Cabriel (803429)

            Two different Toyota dealerships in my city gave me wildly different recommendations for repairs:

            DealerA said I needed to change my brake fluid, power-steering fluid, and that my brakes were at 50%, so they should be replaced with new ones.

            DealerB said everything was dandy, and assured me that I shouldn't need to change my brakes until they were around 20%

            I understand that there are Best Practice recommendations, especially where brake fluid and power-steering are involved, but many people keep a car for te

        • by xelah (176252)
          Dispelling ignorance is costly. You're expecting consumers to investigate (or even just read) the privacy policies and practices of the operator of every website they use, to monitor them for changes, to monitor for compliance, to complain and switch suppliers when necessary.....just to enforce some basic standards of decent behaviour? Including consumers who may happen to be 10 years old? And this is assuming that there is sufficient diversity in the marketplace to make it possible to begin with.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        Kids and most of the adults usually don't fully understand the impact/ramifications.

        There, fixed that for you. Hell, there are even people which are able to technically understand the situation but don't see it as a real problem.

      • by zevans (101778)

        In terms of personality, and approach to weighty matters of individual freedom, you will find that politicians fit into BOTH categories.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by azed9 (1124933)
      Use another service? Not possible with an android device as most useful functions require a Google login. Google should offer an opt out option. Or a refund.
      • by Robert Zenz (1680268) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:19AM (#39206735) Homepage

        So? Don't buy an Android device then, if you did not know that beforehand, send it back. If you just figure that out after months...well, go figure.

        You know, you're not exactly forced to use an Android device (no I won't accept corporate stuff as excuse), you can buy a simple not-so-smart-phone...or a Windows phone *snickers*.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          Why can't they simply have an option such as "don't track me, I don't need that personalized results shit anyway"?

          • by errandum (2014454)

            No one's forcing you to use their services. They offer you great value in and a lot of options and all they want is to track you in order to serve publicity tailored to you.

            And the sad part is that you're typing this here and most likely have a facebook account (that is 1000x worse)

            Just shill and cancel your account if you don't want to be tracked. Or stop using it. Anything works...

          • by Bengie (1121981)

            When I signed up for G+ there was a check box to track me for personalized results and it defaulted off. When checked it, I got this huge warning that was in regular English(non legalese) that I had to OK before it accepted my option.

            • by symbolset (646467) *
              If you don't like the terms don't use the service. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and making you use Google+. They didn't sneak a change of terms in on you here. Nobody lied to you. They didn't cheat you. They didn't steal from you.
        • by Hentes (2461350)

          What about the people already owning a phone who are now affected by Google's change of the licence?

      • by poetmatt (793785)

        Really?

        You can use other browsers. It's not simply "use stock browser or nothing".

        Google already enforces (not simply advertises) brute honesty in app installs as well.

        You can be logged into any google login you want, and access the other one through another mail program if that's all it's for.

        Google does offer an opt out function, but what is exactly the refund for free?

    • by ledow (319597)

      Great, so you don't mind them telling all their advertisers (adult or not) that your IP surfs porn sites that use Google Analytics then?

      The problem is not the EXISTING privacy policy, it's the new one where all the information can be tied together and used in ways it couldn't before.

      Like with UK ID-card debacle. The problem is not the ID card. The problem is the associated (and unnecessary) tying of separate databases and allowing *ALL* that information to propagate through entities that never had access

      • by errandum (2014454)

        It's YOUR choice. Don't want google to track you while you watch porn, don't use their services. And I don't think they tell advertisers anything, they use your information to show you the adds themselves.

        • Parent's point is that the one "using their services" is the porn website (using Google Analytics), not the user, who will be tracked even though he isn't using any Google service.

          • by errandum (2014454) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @08:56AM (#39207147)

            Well, if he's worried about the cookies, he can use a feature present on most modern browsers to go incognito or private or whatever. That works if they track with cookies. Most modern browsers will also let you delete things selectively (as in, "last hour").

            If they track by IP (Which I doubt) then, good luck since most of the world is behind dynamic IP's that change every 4 days or so.

            If they're going by your addon signature or any shady tactic like that (which I doubt, since they seem to be under a whole lot of scrutiny lately), simply don't install all your stuff on a "porn browser, creating a bogus signature.

            Even chrome is getting a "do not track" button, so there is also that.

            Either way, the only thing they are doing now that they didn't do before is sharing the info throughout your account. If he doesn't have an account, what's his problem? Because every ad company will track you.

            And furthermore, I highly doubt that everyone complaining doesn't have a social network account or something like that. Those are far worse because, since google uses the analytics themselves, they won't be sharing anything relevant with no one else in order to get a competitive edge. Facebook is not on the advertising business, so they DO share the info of their users with others (which, in my opinion, is way worse).

            • Well, if he's worried about the cookies, he can use a feature present on most modern browsers to go incognito or private or whatever. That works if they track with cookies. Most modern browsers will also let you delete things selectively (as in, "last hour").

              If they track by IP (Which I doubt) then, good luck since most of the world is behind dynamic IP's that change every 4 days or so.

              If they're going by your addon signature or any shady tactic like that (which I doubt, since they seem to be under a whole lot of scrutiny lately), simply don't install all your stuff on a "porn browser, creating a bogus signature.

              What if they track by ETag? Wait, you didn't know it was possible? Yeah, that's exactly the problem.

              Even chrome is getting a "do not track" button, so there is also that.

              Assuming the service respects it. Safari and IE already had a "do not save third-party cookies" and many services, including Google, were evading it.

              Either way, the only thing they are doing now that they didn't do before is sharing the info throughout your account. If he doesn't have an account, what's his problem? Because every ad company will track you.

              Canceling your account now doesn't mean they'll delete all the information they already have on you, it just means they won't show it. Oh, and "everyone does it" is not an excuse.

              And furthermore, I highly doubt that everyone complaining doesn't have a social network account or something like that. Those are far worse because, since google uses the analytics themselves, they won't be sharing anything relevant with no one else in order to get a competitive edge. Facebook is not on the advertising business, so they DO share the info of their users with others (which, in my opinion, is way worse).

              First, that doesn't excuse Google.

              Secondly, some of us do NOT have Facebook accounts

              • by errandum (2014454)

                1- ETags are used for cache control. See the "delete last hour" bit, that'll clear your cache too.
                2- The safari one was a bug and corrected, the IE one was microsoft not blocking when they got a wrong response, making the default value to accept if something was there. Google did wrong when using something a machine can't "see", but IE sucks by not making the default behaviour when it gets a wrong response to block it.
                3- If you're not logged in and with no cookies from before, good luck to google tracking t

                • 1- Deleting the last hour only helps if the file with the tracking ETag was planted in the last hour. And besides, why should the user have to do that?

                  You said: "Don't want google to track you while you watch porn, don't use their services.", but now he needs to be an expert in tracking technologies?

                  2- We're talking about Google, not IE.
                  3- Google puts cookies even if you're logged out.
                  4- I'm not saying Facebook is better - on the contrary, I still trust Google way more than I ever trusted FB. But the fact t

                  • by errandum (2014454)

                    1- You have one hour, 2, a day. The time you were watching porn and didn't want to be tracked. Sigh... You clear your cache so you don't get tracked! What's your point, really? You can also use an adblock and simply blacklist everything google.

                    There are two kinds of tracking at play here. The one they associate with your account (what I meant when I said you shouldn't use their services) and the sudo-anonymous data that they collect when you enter a certain website. They don't know who you are, where you li

                    • 1- You have one hour, 2, a day. The time you were watching porn and didn't want to be tracked. Sigh... You clear your cache so you don't get tracked! What's your point, really?

                      Deleting the content *after* accessing the porn websites is useless: you're already logged by their servers! You need to delete anything that may identify you *before* you go to the porn website.

                      There are two kinds of tracking at play here. The one they associate with your account (what I meant when I said you shouldn't use their services) and the sudo-anonymous data that they collect when you enter a certain website. They don't know who you are, where you live and very easily you can hide from it, it's just anonymous statistics.

                      Wrong. Even if you're not logged in, they still build a profile on you - that's why they need Anonymous identifiers [google.com]. And uniquely identifying someone is extraordinarily easy - you only need 33 bits of information [33bits.org].

                      But you can also opt out of it... if you see a page with google ads, don't go there if you don't want to be tracked by google...

                      Even if they don't have Google ads, they probably have Google Analytics, which is invisible to the commo

                    • by errandum (2014454)

                      1- You clearly have no idea of how ETags work, do you? They can track you when you're there, but then you leave and delete what might make it possible to recognize you again. Instead of spouting technical terms as if you know what you were talking about, you should read on the real use of ETags and why, for example, if there is a cache server inbetween you and the site there is no tracking possible. Just stop already, it's embarrassing.

                      And do you even know what anonymous identifiers are? Anonymous statistic

                    • 1- You clearly have no idea of how ETags work, do you? They can track you when you're there, but then you leave and delete what might make it possible to recognize you again. Instead of spouting technical terms as if you know what you were talking about, you should read on the real use of ETags and why, for example, if there is a cache server inbetween you and the site there is no tracking possible. Just stop already, it's embarrassing.

                      I got to a random website - let's say, Slashdot - and I get a file from Google Analytics with a certain Etag. Then the next day I go to a porn website which also uses Google Analytics, so my browser requests the same file, sending the ETag in the headers. Pow, they have my unique identifier associated with both Slashdot and the porn site.

                      Now, pray tell, how exactly does deleting the cache *after* visiting the porn website helps?

                      And do you even know what anonymous identifiers are? Anonymous statistics. They even go as far as, if by any chance they go past some personal information, like device ID, they ignore it and generate a random anonymous identifier. As I said in your quote, anonymous statistics. That's it. From those links you gave me, it still is browser based. Just change your browser, computer, or simply don't go to google supported sites.

                      Truly anonymous statistics don't need identifiers - you just log whatever inform

                    • by errandum (2014454)

                      1- Because if you're worried you can clear your cache anytime? And you're even more worried, it is possible to disable caching. Also, see the part where I mention incognito mode or private browsing that makes, for example, firefox not use any temporary internet files, cookies or whatnot. Either way, I'm quite sure google analytics doesn't even use the ETags to track you. Lastly, if there is a caching server anywhere inbetween you and the webserver (common pretty much everywhere), the ETag method does not w

                    • 1- First one only had to not use their services. Now one needs to disable caching or use private browsing.

                      2- "They just know that someone, somewhere goes to the websites" EXACTLY. If it was truly anonymous, they couldn't know that you're the same person that visited two unrelated sites! I

                      And as I said twice already, having a list of the websites you visit is more than enough to uniquely identify you. Not to mention GeoIP, that gives them a lot (no, it's not perfect, but it cuts down a whole lot).

                      And if you're that worried about analytics, google themselves released a blocking addon

                      First, you

        • by oreaq (817314)

          It's also Google's choice. No one is forcing them to offer their services to EU citizens. If they don't want to comply with our laws they can simply stop offering their services to EU citizens. I'm sure someone else will fill that gap pretty quickly.

      • by Bengie (1121981)

        Don't you browse porn in Privacy mode anyway?

        They don't track your IP for personal results because dynamic IPs break that. They track IPs for regional results, like local news.

    • The problem with trying to use another service is that pretty much everyone does the same thing to different degrees. What if I where a hypothetical social network bloke who was willing to pay actual money to avoid that ads and info selling. I know Slashdot has such an offer. But what about Google, or Facebook. If I, as Joe Facebook, was to put my money where my mouth is, where would I even go to pay. How much would it cost per month, $5, $10, $50? How many people like that would it take to make it worthwhi
    • I see nothing wrong with Google doing whatever they want with the information I voluntarily provide them in exchange for their services. If you don't want them to have it, use another service.

      There are multiple problems with your post:
      1. Obviously Google could do you very wrong with the information that you voluntarily provided, e.g. by making them public.
      2. The issue here is that Google consolidates and joins the data over multiple services - so it's email and search and G+ and YouTube services. Before each service had its own privacy clauses that were service specific and - at least legally - Google could not merge and match this information across those services.
      3. Changing to a different ser

  • by Escogido (884359) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @06:40AM (#39206621)

    and Facebook is not? What is it that Facebook is doing that Google has not done? Reading the FA didn't reveal anything other than an impression that "will continue their investigations with Google’s representatives" essentially means "will see if this gives us a good chance to treat Google as an ATM".

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:15AM (#39206723) Journal
      Facebook only provides a single service: to collect all of your information and provide it to advertisers. Google provides a number of unrelated services and shares data about you between them. This sounds like it would easily contravene the EU data protection directive which says, basically, that you can't transfer personal information to third parties without explicit consent and can't use personal information for anything other than providing the service that the user asked for.
    • by Carewolf (581105) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:21AM (#39206743) Homepage

      Cross-referencing databases. I guess facebook is in the clear because they only have one database. The problem is cross-referencing personal data from multiple databases.

      It sounds a bit odd in technical ears, but the idea is that users can control how much they reveal about themselves and to whom. When data is cross-referenced, then data them only meant to reveal in a specific context is suddenly available in a context where it was not meant to be revealed.

      • by Escogido (884359)

        OK, that makes sense.. sort of. But still falls somewhat short of explaining what is so different about Facebook. After all, the non-tech-savvy people even don't understand the concept of a database, for many it is just "in the internet" somewhere.

        On Facebook I chat with people, I use apps, I post things, I click on videos, I use search (very little, but who knows how many people treat their search essentially as a Bing portal). The only difference between this and Google services is in that activities at G

      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        Its more about transferring data to third parties or using it for things other than what the user signed up for, which is why Facebook needs permission when you want an app to have access to your information.

      • Google DOES allow everyone to opt out of everything, if you want you can most of their services nearly anonymous.

        Try that with Facebook.

    • Viviane Reding, the EU commissioner with responsbility for this area, was interviewed on BBC radio about this today and acknowledged that indeed they have concerns beyond Google and Facbook was mentioned specifically. However she also indicated that the advice she had sought (up to now it was mostly a French legal process) was that Google's new policy was in conflict with European law.

      If there'd been any intention to "treat Google as an ATM", the commissioner would not have gone out of her way to warn Googl

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      Who said Facebook isn't? [slashdot.org] Facebook has already been sued a number of times in the EU.

  • Not a bad thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @06:47AM (#39206649) Homepage

    To be honest, having different terms and conditions for every service that Google runs must have been quite confusing for a lot of people*, so consolidating them into one package does make sense.

    I can however understand the problem with Google now being able to use data collected from one service and now using it in another, but if all they're doing is using it to target us with more specific ads then I don't really care.

    * I've never read the T's and C's and to be honest I reckon only a very small number of Google users have.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      decide. either it confused "a lot of people", or "a very small number" even read them.

      it's just PR-speak for "hey, isn't this exciting, we did this for YOU!", which is of course pure bullshit.

      • by Muad'Dave (255648)

        It is not an either/or proposition. A large number of those who have never read the T's and C's can still be confused about what T's and C's they're bound to by using the service.

        • But they'd not be confused by there being so many different ones, duh! Being confused about X doesn't equal being confused about Y just because it both involves being confused. So yes, it very much is an either/or proposition, try reading it again mayhaps.

          • by Muad'Dave (255648)

            I did read it, thank you.

            Try this thought experiment.

            Ask 100 google users this question:
            "Are you confused by the Terms and Conditions that you are bound to when using Google services?"

            Followed by this question:
            "Have you read the Terms and Conditions that you are bound to when using Google services?"

            IMHO you have a high probability of getting more than a few Yes/No answer pairs.

    • It's one thing to have a uniform set of conditions for a number of different services -- and potentially a good thing, if the conditions are fair and well-designed.

      It's quite a different question whether that should also be associated with data aggregation or consolidation . Is this actually some kind of attempted cover for data aggregation, to distract attention from simultaneous data aggregation in the hope of reducing or de-fusing objections to an unpalatable plan? After all, there's no real need for u

    • by errandum (2014454)

      I'm not bothered by the change, but no one ever read the Terms and Conditions, so no one was confused at all with the fact they were different. Most likely
      no one ever noticed.

      This was marketing speak, pure and simple.

    • To be honest, having different terms and conditions for every service that Google runs must have been quite confusing for a lot of people*, so consolidating them into one package does make sense.

      I do not think so. I rather think that is quite confusing to see that Google uses my Gmail login and data to "improve" my search results or stores my search strings persistently. I did not sign up for this feature.

      It makes a lot of sense to have different T&C for a serach engine, an email service, a video sharing board, and a social network.

      I can however understand the problem with Google now being able to use data collected from one service and now using it in another, but if all they're doing is using it to target us with more specific ads then I don't really care.

      The question is not whether you care. The question is whether it is legal to join those databases without explicit user consent. And there is a high probability

  • Ok, I don't have time to read the new and older policies. Anybody interested in summarizing what changed and its implications?

    • Summary: You use our services, we make money with whatever information we get from/about you.

      No, I did not read it, why do you ask?

  • Given that the EU has been making noises about some grand anti-terrorist/anti-pedophile/gets-the-monster-under-your-bed 'data retention directive' for some time now, they could make this small problem go away by simply agreeing to Google's new 'privacy' policy and then purchasing their little panopticon direct from the source rather than bothering with all that messy legislation.

    Efficiency! Progress!
    • You don't understand, what is going to become of all the contractors and tenders paid with the taxpayers' money? Have you thought about that, you insensitive clod!? It's the wrong commission that is going after Google; it shouldn't be the one for Privacy and Freedom but the one for Competition ;)
      • You don't understand, what is going to become of all the contractors and tenders paid with the taxpayers' money?

        Those people will all simply apply for a job at Google ;-)

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:27AM (#39206769)
    If the services had started out integrated this would not be an issue. On Facebook you can do a search, look at someone's photos, post comments etc. and everyone knows they all share data. Should Google be treated differently just because google brought in picassa, added blogging, etc. rather than implementing them all in one go?
    • by garatheus (993376)
      Not that I'm a Facebook user (any more), but I don't remember Facebook implementing all of it's features all at once. Not that I'm on the Google-friend-bandwagon, but just saying...
    • by MrMickS (568778) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:57AM (#39206893) Homepage Journal

      The key issue is where the control lies. On Facebook the user has to explicitly allow the information to be used by the various applications etc. In Googleland they are just tearing down the barriers without giving the user the chance to say that they don't want their information from the different areas to be included in their meta-profile.

      If Google had thought about it a simple acceptance screen allowing people to opt in and out their information from the meta-profile would probably have addressed the privacy concerns. It would also highlight to the users what information Google has collected and what services it is providing. Google steers by its own moral compass and doesn't really care what anyone else thinks as long as it's happy with what its doing.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Shazback (1842686)
        How can I get FB to not use my information in photos? Oh wait. I can't. How can I get FB to not use my information in events? Oh wait, I can't. How can I get FB to not use my information in chat? Oh wait, I can't.

        Google has the same controls regarding third party access to information as FB. The only difference is that Google doesn't really rely on many third party applications, whilst FB has created a complete ecosystem in that respect.

        >>If Google had thought about it a simple acceptance screen
        • by Tim C (15259)

          How can I get FB to not use my information in photos? Oh wait. I can't

          You can set your profile so that you have to approve tags people add of you to photos.

          How can I get FB to not use my information in events? Oh wait, I can't.

          Reject the event invitation - though admittedly that fact will show up in the list of people who rejected the event.

          How can I get FB to not use my information in chat? Oh wait, I can't.

          I'm not even sure what you mean by that, but you can safely leave chat switched off (as I did for a number of years).

          • by Shazback (1842686)
            If you have to approve tags people add of you to photos, Facebook still has the personal data that you *were* tagged in that picture. If you reject the invitation, not only does it still show up, but FB still has the data you were invited. I have chat switched off (as far as I can tell, it definitely doesn't show up for me), but I still appear in the "friend shortlist" that FB serves up to my friends in the right-hand panel. I never consented to FB sending me chats by text message (I did however initially a
      • by frinsore (153020)

        I agree that the key issue is where the control lies. And from everything I've seen from google they've wanted to ensure that the user has as much control as possible. Want to modify the search history attached to your google account? you can do that. Want to migrate your emails out of gmail? you can do that. Want to download and then delete your google+? you can do that.

        For every service google provides they also provide a mechanism for migrating the data and deleting it. If you want the separate serv

    • If the services had started out integrated this would not be an issue. On Facebook you can do a search, look at someone's photos, post comments etc. and everyone knows they all share data. Should Google be treated differently just because google brought in picassa, added blogging, etc. rather than implementing them all in one go?

      Yes. You signed up for different T&C and to switch services now - after you trusted 1000s of emails to Google and created 100s of G+ networks - is very expensive. So, how can you NOT accept the change and still use the service?

  • What about NSA? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by curious.corn (167387) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:36AM (#39206805)
    Listen guys, privacy is toast anyway... if anything Google is making us acknowledge this and move along.
  • No doubt, that there will be negotiations for the Protect Our Privacy in Europe Law (POPEL) behind everyones backs and rogue states such as former colonies bullied into ratifying them...
  • by MrMickS (568778) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @07:59AM (#39206909) Homepage Journal

    Google's motto is 'do no evil' which is laudable. It has to be asked though, "who defines what is evil?".

  • Google violates human decency.
  • EU vs. US on privacy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by yankexpat (629763) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @09:02AM (#39207181)
    Having worked for many years in digital security in Europe, I believe that I have some understanding of this issue. It all boils down to the presence (US) or absence (EU) of private credit rating and consumer data collection industries. In Europe, banks are required to do their own risk assessment. If any data collected about a consumer falls in the wrong hands, the collecting party is liable for any damages UNLESS the consumer has given formal (i.e. written) consent for that information to be passed on. In the US, the entire credit industry is predicated on the ability to collect large amounts of data about consumers and then to create risk profiles based on that data.
    • It all boils down to the presence (US) or absence (EU) of private credit rating and consumer data collection industries. In Europe, banks are required to do their own risk assessment.

      Germany has credit reporting agencies just like the US, for example SCHUFA. (Where do you people come up with this kind of nonsense?)

      If any data collected about a consumer falls in the wrong hands, the collecting party is liable for any damages UNLESS the consumer has given formal (i.e. written) consent for that information to

      • by yankexpat (629763)
        I lived and worked in France. Am not sure about the situation in Germany. In the U.S. information from retail outlets, credit card companies and any entity to which you must make payments gets aggregated by the big data aggregators such as Choice Point or Lexus Nexus. No consent is requested to consumers to collect, aggregate and reuse that data. EU law requires explicit consent before consumer data and be shared with a third party. The CNIL (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés) is c
  • a: They collect a LOT of information: not just search, but effectively every web page you visit which includes an add from Doubleclick or +1 or youtube video, plus all the google services: gmail, calendar, docs, are all open season. Not only can Google data-mine your email to show adds on Gmail, but can datamine your email for whatever purpose they want!

    b: The privacy policy is amazingly broad. Basically its "We can do anything we want other than sell the raw data to others", and it covers everything

  • Then we can see what happens. :)
  • by l2718 (514756) on Thursday March 01, 2012 @02:41PM (#39212053)

    As far as I know, Google is a single company. That it offers "mail", "calendar", "youtube" and other services doesn't mean it is different companies.

    Can EU customers of department stores insist that the department not combine information from their shopping at the furniture department and clothing department but treat it separately? If that's what you want you should simply get several loyalty cards and use them separately -- which Google already supports.

    In fact, if you don't want to be tracked by Google then simply don't sign in to a google account when you search. Alternatively, have several google accounts -- one for each service.

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...