EU Questions Google Privacy Policy

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?"

That is just ignorant

[MonGuSE]

What you use or don't use is irrelevant as to what a company does with your data. Ever heard of information clearing houses? Basically huge databases set up just to collect individuals private data from everything the IRS, Criminal records, news reports, previous addresses, published papers, bank account info, credit accounts, investments everything. You can't keep companies from actively doing that without living completely off the grid.... Think about your statements next time.

Re:

[Raydome777]

The United Kingdom has a law (Data Protection Act (1984)) whose main point is to prevent companies from building those sort of databases. If you hold personal data about an individual you are under a legal obligation to to allow access to that individual access to that data so that they can check it is accurate, guarentee its security and you have have a good story on the information's relavance.

Obviously, this was all put in place before the Internet so its all a bit pointless, but I guess where the BBC i

Re:

[nevali]

No; the only real purpose of the Act is to make sure that the information in these massive databases is correct, under the auspices of doing some sort of favour to the public. It does nothing to stop them collecting information that you unwittingly make available, directly or otherwise.

There is a relatively ineffective legal framework governing how collected information can be disseminated, but it's not really stopped the likes of, say, the credit reference agencies from doing what they've always done--whic

Re:

[nevali]

That does nothing about information in the public domain...which is all of the interesting stuff anyway. Beyond that, pretty much every company has a clause in its T&Cs that says it will merrily share any information you give with selected partners, even if they're not allowed to use it for marketing purposes. Plus it's not like anybody reads the agreements anyway, especially outside of online services. The way that modern business works means that getting goods and services isn't just about paying mone

Re:

[nevali]

I think you'll find there is information about you in the public domain, you'd be in a distinct minority if there wasn't--good luck finding out who's got it, though! Beyond that, note that the likes of banks, credit reference agencies, etc., have special permission to go rifling through the hidden part of the electoral roll.

The simple fact is that unless you close your bank accounts, break the law by not registering on the electoral roll or the council tax register, live in accommodation in somebody else's

Re:

[nevali]

The UK was an example close to hand; to the best of my knowledge no country in the EU fares any better.

Re:

[harmlessdrudge]

Name ONE European govt that stores massive amounts of private information on people. You can't because there isn't one. There isn't a single govt. in Europe that has at its fingertips unified access to all of the information it holds about its citizens, just as the US doesn't. Do you usually invent such things? Credit reference agencies like Experian operate legally in Europe as do many other services that provide information about people. All operate subject to laws about what they can and cannot do. They

Re:

[VON-MAN]

We spawned you, hahahahaha!

Re:

[VON-MAN]

PS No one will probably see this since /. is the most censored forum I have ever seen in the many years I have surfed the net.
Then don't be an AC, you stupid ass.

A government concerned with it's citizens privacy?

[kungfujesus]

Wow! I now owe my friend 20 bucks! Damn, I never thought I'd lose that bet.

No.

[ScentCone]

Don't like a company's privacy policy? Don't patronize them. Don't like the lack of companies providing a particular service in a way that you DO like? You're probably not alone. Start one, using the money that you'll no doubt be able to attract, just like the Google guys were able to attract the money to start theirs. Think that some Evil US Corporation is operating on the internet in a way that you just can't stand? Unplug it from your country - your citizens surely won't mind.

Think "corporations" shou

Re:No.

[martin-boundary]

That's not so easy. If you have a friend who uses gmail, then whenever you send your friend an email, Google will keep *your* email for god knows how long. And they certainly didn't ask *you* about it. So your simplistic solution "don't patronize those kinds of companies" doesn't work.

Re:

[ScentCone]

If you have a friend who uses gmail, then whenever you send your friend an email, Google will keep *your* email for god knows how long. And they certainly didn't ask *you* about it. So your simplistic solution "don't patronize those kinds of companies" doesn't work.

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:

[martin-boundary]

Uh, it's not like you can tell if they use google or not. Your friend might have a vanity email with redirection to his gmail account, or his ISP might use a google backend, etc.

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:

[Liquid-Gecka]

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:

[martin-boundary]

When I email a personal friend, I am not blogging on some random website, so I don't see how the two are supposed to be the same.

Also, have you ever read Googles privacy policies?

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

Re:

[This is outrageous!]

Concerned about that? Encrypt your emails. Expecting email to be "private" is a joke.

It's not about them reading your messages.

It's about them using the headers to link your email address(*) with all searches, cookies and ad-sense carrying sites browsed from your IP.

(*)Hence really your identity, if a message with you professional address, say, ends up forwarded to one of their accounts. )

Great idea in theory

[Infonaut]

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.

Re:

[VON-MAN]

"all companies will err on the side of making more revenue"

Yes, I agree. I find it disturbing that this must be explained so often. Also, I would like to add that this behavior should be fully expected from a company. And that is exactly why government should protect the general populace (and companies) from companies with law.

Libertarian approach to privacy

[elwinc]

Here's a libertarian approach to privacy: treat personal information like material property. And give each individual absolute property rights over his or her personal information. If you wanna do anything with my personal information, even just stamp it on a magazine sticker to mail me a subscription, you gotta get my permission. Just like if it was a trademark, or an article I copyrighted. And I, only I, have the right to rent out my personal information. Just like if it was my car. See? Libertar

That goes both ways

[Rix]

Don't like a country's privacy laws? Don't do business there.

Re:

[CaptainZapp]

Don't like a company's privacy policy? Don't patronize them.

Don't like European laws? Don't do business there.

Re:

[ScentCone]

Why should businesses have the right to store information about me indefinitely?

Because you grant them that right. That's what terms of use are all about... it's part of the bargain you strike when you elect to do things like use their FREE EMAIL HOSTING, or make money by running ads they serve up on your web site.

[Personally, I like the fact that the franchise that changes my vehicle's engine fluids is already pulling up my service record when they see my license plate roll into their queue lane.]

Interesting

[jeevesbond]

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.

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?

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:

[martin-boundary]

Personally, I find the US policy worse. With government snooping, there is parliamentary oversight in principle and the ability to change laws later, which is a lot better than trusting greedy investors and holier than thou companies to not sell my data to third parties, like crazy marketers, credit reporting and insurance companies, or front companies for organized crime.

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

Re:

[VON-MAN]

"EU government snooping"??? There is NO such thing. There are, however, EU laws regarding "snooping". But that is really something different. (You were thinking of the British government that's snooping, CCD cams come to mind).

"Personally I find the EU government snooping worse than Google, at least Google is a product choice, government laws can't be worked around."

Let's just straighten this remark out: "I can stop using Google, and with the next elections I can send my government home." these are you

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Well, given that the British are more video monitored than any country in the world, I think the idea that somehow there is no government snooping there is pretty confused. And have you ever examined how the Value Added Tax records can be used to monitor private business dealings and personal purchases?

Re:

[VON-MAN]

I really don't know what those "Value Added Tax records" are, but I do know of many reduction cards used by bigger stores that are used for all kind of demographic profiling. And really, this is the choice you are given, convenience and better pricing against privacy concerns.

Re:

[malsdavis]

"Personally I find the EU government snooping worse than Google,"

This is the difference between USA and EU citizens' privacy worries. On the most part, very few people in Europe worry about what government agencies do with their personal info, but are extremely worried about how corporations use it. As opposed to the USA where it's the opposite way around.

It seems to be related to wider cultural differences. Europeans tend to trust public institutions a lot more than they trust large corporations whereas Am

What about retention?

[McGiraf]

What about the other laws? The ones about data retention by the ISPs so governments can subpoena it when they want to? Emails, Proxy logs etc? no privacy concern there? sheesh ...

There is a big gap

[Anonymous Coward]

The governement is beholden to respect the privacy law, and justify (with a judge signed document) getting those ISP kept data. Sure you can argue that they can abuse the power, but this would then be illegal. On face value the governement also cannot resell your data to somebody else. On the other hand corporation can do whatever they want including reselling your data to the most shaddy part of the world. This is partially why there is a privacy law in the EU because it is recognized of the possible abuse

Re:

[VON-MAN]

Yes. What about them? The EU is harmonizing data privacy laws in the whole of Europe. Google, when operating in the EU, isn't exempt from these laws. And yes, absolutely, there are enormous privacy concerns with those retention laws (and I doubt that it'll be a big problem for the real terrorists).

It should be noted that not the emails themselves a kept, but the logs of the mailservers. Just as mobile phone records are kept and not the actual conversations. The differences there should be obvious.

The EU? The European Union?

[Opportunist]

The same EU that requires its ISP to store every connection you make, complete with timestamp and endpoints involved, for at least 6 months, but for however long the governments in the member states deem appropriate? The same EU that wants this information to be easily accessable by everyone who has a "vested interest" to hunt down legal offenses? Without describing too closely what a "vested interest" could be or whether only other governments or even some private organisations can access that information at will.

We're talking about that EU, yes?

Re:The EU? The European Union?

[da_matta]

The important difference in this is that the data stored by ISP's is for law enforcement purposes and requires a court order for access. There are also very strict regulations about who/why/when can access and how to log that access. Google and other companies store and use data to make profit with very little regulation.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Tim C]

And when every search engine collects similar data from their users and uses it in similar ways, do you simply stop using search engines?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Ravnen]

In theory, yes. In practice, most users aren't perfectly informed about what data is saved by a search engine, how long it's saved, how it's used, whom it's shared with, etc.

Re:

[asninn]

Yes, that's the same EU.

Has it ever occurred to you that the world is not black and white? Just because an entity does SOME bad things doesn't mean that EVERYTHING it does is bad. You'd think that people from the USA of all places would understand that.

Re:

[Opportunist]

No, honestly I was thinking more along the lines of "do as I say, not as I do".

Re:

[VON-MAN]

The same EU that wants this information to be easily accessable by everyone who has a "vested interest" to hunt down legal offenses?

No.
With 'everyone who has a "vested interest"' you mean the judge and secret services, don't you?

Without describing too closely what a "vested interest" could be or whether only other governments or even some private organisations can access that information at will.

No.
It is in fact exactly the other way around. These things are very precisely described.

Good for them!

[Guppy06]

If they get to take the "We have to abide by local laws" in the case of China, they'll be similarly obliged to change their ways in Europe as well. Unless, of course, they want to reveal themselves to be two-faced, scum-sucking bastards.

Re:Absolutely not.

[Frosty Piss]

Not everyone is a Libertarian. Some people are Socialists.

Re:Absolutely not.

[daeg]

While I generally concur, something at least needs to be done to simplify the legal system. There is no reason a privacy policy cannot be a short, concise, two sentences.

"[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.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Absolutely not.

[VON-MAN]

Simplify the legal system? Are you totally mad?

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.

Re:Absolutely not.

[AuMatar]

No, it isn't my job and it shouldn't be. I have a *right* to privacy. Corporations have no right to keep, much less distribute, most of the information they store.

Re:

[TodMinuit]

The right to privacy is the right to be free from outside intrusions into your personal matters. Willingly giving up private data by, say, searching the Internet is in no way a violation of your right to privacy.

Re:Absolutely not.

[dwater]

IMO, it's not at all obvious that the act of searching for something gives up an private data.

Re:

[sumdumass]

This is the Internet, it is the new century. If there was one thing we should have learned by now is that nothing is free. You have to assume the have something to gain by letting you use their services free of charge.

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:

[dwater]

Why should we trust google?

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:

[sumdumass]

Why shouldn't we trust Google?

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:

[dwater]

Trouble is, we don't really know what Google does with this.

It's more like going to a steak restaurant only to find that they serve BSE.

Re:

[sumdumass]

As far as I know, this information can't directly link you personally. IT is IP addresses looking for X or Y. So even if they did do something with the information, it isn't likely you could gain much from it. Well, that is unless you goto goggle saying I have an IP and a court order, gimme everything on them. But then the courts have been involved and the only chances the government has to violate your privacy is when the courts are involved.

There might be more to it then just an IP. They might have a user

Re:

[sumdumass]

I'm not sure cookies shows anything. But even if they do, you have the option of deleting them. And if you don't, it just means you gave that term of privacy up.

If you don't close the curtains before getting dressed and someone merely walking down the street sees you naked doesn't mean they violated your privacy. So because of an action you would have neglected to do, on purpose or by accident, you would have gave up that notion of privacy. I don't see why Cookies and the notion of not deleting them should

Re:

[sumdumass]

They can track computer id23345956340929 went here or there. Then can't track Jerome who lives at this address searched for free porn and went to these sites on this date. This has little to no difference then having the search data and the ip address.

The difference is in saying jerome walked through that door or the fifth person to walk through that door today. And unless you are always the fifth person, your not directly identified. Now, it is my understanding that google with your permission will associa

Re:Absolutely not.

[siddesu]

_willingly_ giving up privacy data is the key. willingly implies knowlingly. do you _know_ what kind of data google collects from all its services and how it uses it to track you? if you don't _know_, then you're not willingly giving up your privacy, you're being conned into giving up your data.

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.

Re:

[General Wesc]

_willingly_ giving up privacy data is the key. willingly implies knowlingly. do you _know_ what kind of data google collects from all its services and how it uses it to track you? if you don't _know_, then you're not willingly giving up your privacy, you're being conned into giving up your data.

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.

[siddesu]

Good for you. I certainly don't know what data they have about me, where are they getting it from, and how are they putting it together. 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.

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.

Re:

[VJ42]

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:

[VON-MAN]

"so long as they don't violate an agreement I made with them, they aren't conning me"

Yes, that is very "insightful". However, since you have no way of knowing what google does, you don't know if google is conning you.

Re:

[siddesu]

meeting someone isn't the same thing as your information being retained by a corporation, and in a context in which you aren't even aware of them collecting. it is more like you meeting someone, while at the same time someone else behind the door is sitting quietly and taking notes of your meeting.

thankyouvermuch, but I don't like it ;)

Re:

[hcmtnbiker]

Google should effectively has part ownership to everything you do on their servers. And therefore they have the right to what to do with it, if you don't like what they do don't share information with them, it's that simple.

Re:

[zzatz]

No, Google does not have the right to do whatever they like with everything on their servers, and neither does anyone else. You may have heard of copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Google has copyrighted information on their servers. The law gives them limited rights to use that information, but they need permission from the copyright holder to do other things with it.

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:

[AuMatar]

Using a search engine is not willingly giving up my data. Unless you have a signed contract by me saying I give it up, I haven't given you permission to take any data from me.

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:

[AuMatar]

You aren't a corporation, and you aren't storing the information in a database for later data mining. There's a world of difference.

Re:

[LynnwoodRooster]

What if I ask for that information up-front, and the right to take a picture of you, and to use that information as I see fit? Because that's what is happening here with Google... They don't get your e-mail address unless you give it to them. They don't get ANY personal information unless you give it to them.

Re:

[Ravnen]

Firstly, you're assuming the average Google user realises that whatever they search for will be saved, and can be personally linked to them for 18-24 months, and perhaps longer depending on how effective the 'anonymising' is. This is not a reasonable assumption.

Secondly, in the EU at any rate, we have this idea that there are certain rights that cannot be given up. One cannot give up basic rights to freedom by signing a contract agreeing to become someone else's slave, for example. This is the same sort o

Re:

[zzatz]

You've made an assertion without providing any supporting evidence, explanation, or argument. The only value such unsupported assertion holds is as a litmus test to demonstrate that you belong to a group with a certain idealogy. Why isn't it the government's job to play a role in protecting the right to privacy? Arguably, government's most important job is to protect the rights of all people, such as life, liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom to associate with whoever you choose, and so on.

Corporations c

Re:

[sumdumass]

The constitution describes the government's job or role in america. Along with the declaration of independence and such that led us into the country we are. I don't see anything in the constitution that says protecting people privacy from everyone else. Now state or local governments might have something but none that I'm familiar with.

Arguably, government's most important job is to protect the rights of all people, such as life, liberty, freedom of conscience, freedom to associate with whoever you choose,

Re:

[zzatz]

Perhaps I did express myself clearly. Rights are not entitlements. For example, you have a right to publish your thoughts, but you are not entitled to a printing press.

The basis of the Constitution is that people have inalienable rights, and it specifies one form of government derived from those rights. It enumerates certain rights, but in no way claims that the list of rights is exhaustive. Courts can and have held that other rights are inalienable and thus covered by the Constitution. These are not privil

Re:

[sumdumass]

Ok, I think maybe we are closer in agreement then I originally thought.

Law is made where rights collide and conflict. As often put, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. In the US, privacy is a right, but one that is poorly defined and with unknown boundaries. I think that European laws provide good guidance, and would like to similar laws here. My image and voice cannot be used without my permission, outside of fair use exemptions. How is other personal information any different?

The courts have

Re:

[sumdumass]

Actually, your misinterpreting events. Equifax isn't libeling you, someone or something else reports this information to them and whoever done it is the one who libels you. And Equifax has a process to challenge their claims and make the report correct. Similarly, If you libel Disney, and then make the assertion that the information you printed was wrong, then they cannot sue you anymore. Well, they can but it won't be as effective.

This is like you printing a statement I said and then you being sued for it,

Re:

[someone1234]

Yeah, but your own government is run by private companies, so what do you do.

Re:

[h2g2bob]

The largest part of the data laws is this:
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:

[martin-boundary]

Utterly nonsensical. Privacy is like security, it's the job of the government to provide it to everybody, period.

Re:

[babbling]

I actually see the current state of things in the US as a loophole. As long as the government outsources their spying, they can go unregulated. They can subpoena companies at any time and gain access to any data that those companies have.

Re:

[jlarocco]

Why exactly they would want to keep and associate search records with individuals for two years or more seems an absolute mystery to me, and perhaps it's slightly creepy. But to my knowledge there's not a single instance of this data having been abused for blackmail, investigation for sedition, investigation for drug use, etc. All of these are clearly possibile, however.

<sarcasm>I agree 100%. We should wait for it to become a huge, entrenched problem first. Then, when this information is being lo

Re:

[Andrew Kismet]

As far as I can tell, they use the data to generate trend information, work on localisation, and generally find out where they need to focus the 80% of their 80/20 time.

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:

[siddesu]

How, pray tell, do you know what google uses this data for? Are you on their board or something? Unless you have no access to that kind of information, you don't know. There is still this case of American phone companies providing phone call data _willingly_ to the US government. Did you know about that before someone blew the whistle? And this happens in a country in which government abuse of private information is very much under control, compared to the rest of the world.

Don't be so naive, every large co

Re:

[wizardforce]

do no evil just became do slightly less evil than otherwise.

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:

[wizardforce]

Are you saying we should violate Google's right to privacy on the notion that it is *possible* that there is a problem?

since when was my right not to be essentially spied on a violation of Google's privacy?

Re:

[sumdumass]

They are a corporation. In America a corporation is a substitute person and we have extended them most all of the rights persons have.

You can debate the right or wrongness of this. But until the laws and rules are changed, prepare to be disappointed a lot.

Re:

[sumdumass]

Nobody said they don't have to obey regulations. But it isn't as if they are subclass or anything. The point is, legally there are little differences between a corporation and a person and the rights they both hold.

Re:

[sumdumass]

Are you reading the posts your replying to or just trolling through my comments page and replying to anything? You hit this comment twice and offered nothing different either time.

But reinforcing or restating things that are wrong only make you look more wrong. Google is a US company and they store their information inside the US. In effect, they are a US citizen. Now they have offices in other countries and such but the laws on multinational corporations are pretty clear on it.

And if you read the post hist

Re:

[sumdumass]

Hmm.. So a big collection of people don't have the same rights as a single person. Interesting.

Re:

[ContractualObligatio]

Every person in that big collection has the same rights. What's your point?

Re:

[sumdumass]

The point is, a big collection of people should equal the same rights expected by an individual person. You family should have the same rights to privacy as you do. It shouldn't be restricted or deliminated because you have a mother, father, a couple of siblings, and possible another relative living in the same house.

A corporation as a collection of people is no different. When you remove the rights of an entity because of it's size, you have removed the rights of all the individuals that comprise that enti

Re:

[ContractualObligatio]

That big collection of people does have the same rights, each and every one of them. My family has the same rights to privacy as me. It wasn't restricted or "deliminated" when I still lived with my family, nor will it be when I get married.

The many and various individuals in a corporation do not lose their rights to privacy for being part of that corporation, nor do the shareholders or customers of that corporation. In particular, your suggestion that you might lose your rights for investing in a company su

Re:

[sumdumass]

I could agree but the construct of a corporation is just an extention of all the individual right the people who make it up have. The legal entity of a corporation doesn't create a fictional person, it just defines and limits liabilities on people involved based on their actions and in essence separate parts of individuals to act as one.

I'm not arguing against regulating corporations and I'm not arguing against regulating what they can do to some extent. HOwever, I am apposed to the idea that laws effecting

Re:

[ContractualObligatio]

Unfortunately what you say has no basis in fact. Many would argue it has no ethical basis either, certainly most of the EU. Again, it's strange to hear someone from the US comparatively weak on an individual's rights.

Defining a corporation as a group of people might be your idea, but it's simply not the case. I've got nothing against corporations, I'm paid a very nice sum of money by a major US multinational. But I'm not confused about the idea of us being a group of people with rights to my data. I don't w

Re:

[sumdumass]

Unfortunately what you say has no basis in fact. Many would argue it has no ethical basis either, certainly most of the EU. Again, it's strange to hear someone from the US comparatively weak on an individual's rights.

What has no basis in fact? DO corporations auto-magically appear over night and then people auto-magically have a job afterwards? No, People decide to start a business and there is a legal structure to protect them from fraud and actions of other people in the business. They make this a corp

Re:

[sumdumass]

Google is a US company. They are structured under US law. When we talk about a corperation and their rights, they have the same rights a US citizen would enjoy.

A business does NOT get to decide what is 'necessary': they must obey the law and convince a judge when someone decides that the law has been contravened. It might not be the American way - but fortunately most of us do not have to accept the American way.

You never said what is necessary. Who decides that or who defines that. At least in America,

Re:

[sumdumass]

Google.co.uk, Google.de, Google.fr are NOT US companies. They are obliged to obey EU law. You may not like it. Sorry.

Google.co.uk and all the others you mentioned are mere domains owned by google. They aren't separate companies in any sense. Google, or "Google inc." is a Delaware based company. They incorporated under Delaware law in the united states. If you follow the links about google it will take you to the same incorporation certificate whether you start from Google.com or Google.co.uk. All the othe

Re:

[ContractualObligatio]

What has no basis in fact?

Corporations are not extensions of the rights of their owners and employees. You repeatedly make this statement, but it is not true. France, for instance, is particuarly tough on this, whereby in many cases there is a presumption of guilt until a company can prove that it's actions were not malicious.

No, that was lack of security that caused that

Are you saying that an investigation endorsed by the board, the CEO, the security department and legal counsel would not be able to get

Re:

[sumdumass]

Doesn't seem to matter where you argue that Google is based, the DPG believes that EU laws are being broken. That, and asking whether US laws could benefit from being changed, is what this thread is about.

This thread is about the idea that a group of people all the sudden lose their rights when they form a corperation. Follow the progression of the conversation. I never said that Google wasn't subject to EU laws, I even clarified that in the previous post as well as in other posts along the succession of

Re:

[sumdumass]

Thats totally apples and oranges. If you make $36 k a year and I say someone make $36 k a year, I haven't pointed to you in any way. Only the people who you have informed of this fact wold know. It is the same if I say people in Westchester earn $36k a year on average. It is in no way reflecting a statement of the person AC make $36k a year.

Similarly, a collection of people have the same rights as an individual. The difference is that saying an average of $36k is less identifying then saying one person over

Re:

[dunkelfalke]

hello shelley [shelleytherepublican.com]

Re:the obvious question:

[julesh]

Google is a US corporation. Of what concern are European privacy laws to it?

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.

Re:

[aslate]

Google redirect UK users to their google.co.uk site automatically. Infact, the only way for me to use google.com is to directly query google.com (In the way Firefox search does). If i go to google.com i get the .co.uk search. Makes sense, better targeted advertising. This happens in other countries too (Ever Google'd with Tor? I've ended up with Polish and German google pages).