FTC Reminds EPIC That Suing The FTC To Get It To Investigate Google Might Not Be The Best Idea
from the standing? dept
If you're unfamiliar with EPIC, it's an extremist "privacy" rights group. We've called the group out in the past for its rather ridiculous position on privacy issues. EPIC has particularly had it in for Google, which it appears to think is the evilest of evil sites and the government has to step in and stop it from collecting information to make your search experience better (even if users can block such data collection themselves). What I hadn't realized was that EPIC has such an infatuation with Google that it actually sued the FTC (pdf) to try to force it to investigate Google for its recent privacy policy change. No matter what you think of Google's privacy policy issues, it's ridiculous for EPIC to go that far, and the FTC is making that clear to the overzealous organization, pointing out that it has absolutely no standing whatsoever in terms of making the FTC do anything at all. The FTC may still investigate, but EPIC should have no part of that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's too easy to pass up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It just might have to
Regardless of what you think of Google or EPIC, Google was recently called out for it's sometimes questionable privacy practices (Buzz roll out I believe). The FTC ordered and Google supposedly agreed to be bound to a Consent Order (CO) regarding to it's privacy practices. All that EPIC is doing is asking that the FTC actually enforce that Consent Order. From what I've read of the CO, what Google is planning on doing come March 1st seems to fairly blatantly go against that Consent Order.
We can't with a straight face complain about government agencies not enforcing the rules against unsympathetic companies (RIAA/AT&T/Comcast/etc.) while at the same time giving favored companies a pass.
Can we?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It just might have to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The FTC really does need to have a better and closer look at Google, especially with their current merging of user information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Replace Google search with DuckDuckGo (or something similar).
- Dump GMail. Spend like one buck a month and get professional grade mail hosting for you and your family.
- Stop using Google plus. In fact, just stop using social networks.
This should drastically minimize your exposure to Google's snooping. Remember: Google isn't unique. There are others that can provide the same service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing the point (Re: )
"Simple solution for EPICs problem: STOP using Google."
You've missed the point. EPIC realizes that people aren't forced to use Google. What EPIC is complaining about is that the FTC is _supposed_ to be actually _enforcing_ Consent Orders. Why bother having an FTC if it doesn't actually _do_ anything?
So how would EPIC switching away from using Google's products solve their problem of getting a government agency to actual enforce it's own rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Missing the point (Re: )
I get notifications nearly every day about the imminent policy changes. I don't see how warning all of your users for at least two months before a policy change can be construed as misrepresentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Missing the point (Re: )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An epic battle between the FTC and Google?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
Your comment indicates your of the group "I have no Ideas and I don't want to work for my money so give it to me anyway." My wife and I work 5-6 days a week, we have no children and we are barely making bills. Any one of these change and we are in trouble, yet we are not looking for a handout from anyone, we are not bitter toward those that are succeeding more and at the end of the day we know we earned our money and paid our debts.
The law in this country is not "if you succeed you must be doing something wrong so we are going to send the FTC in to investigate." It is and always should be "if you are willing to put in the effort or can develop the next great idea you should profit from it.
There are generally three types of money people, those that work for their money, those that take advantage of others for their money, and those with family money or are otherwise content with "simple life." The third category doesn't work and doesn't look for or expect money from others. The first category, is the vast majority of people in America, they work or develop ideas to generate money, some harder then others, but their money comes form a paycheck, with unreasonable bonuses or not. the second category is the most troubling and the fastest growing in the US. They are the ones willing to take unreasonable (lets face it, if you work, your employer sees your benefit as greater then your cost) advantage of the system or others. These people reside everywhere on the income scale, but most troubling is that the majority are in the bottom 50% not the top 5%. These people are the ones stealing from us everyday to line their pockets through government programs designed to help those with true need. Someone getting assistance from the government should not have a big screen TV, or a leather couch while their children sleep on the floor. These are the people that hurt us everyday as they burden us through increased taxes. Yet we are focused on the top 5%, who may avoid some taxes through planning or other loopholes but don't have the net negative impact that leechers have on us. Note, these remarks are for those taking advantage of the system, not those that rightfully need the assistance.
As for Google, what have they done? They develop ideas that people want. If you are unhappy with giving them money, use a different service. If enough people switch, Google will cease to exist or change to adapt to opinion. However, Google is not the only company offering these services and consumers have a choice as to which service to use. The FTC should only be involved where a company with few or no competitors is taking advantage of consumers with little or no choice. Google does not fall into this category. In fact if Americans should be upset, it should be at the fact that the US government if focused on taking down American companies providing jobs in America and paying taxes in America. The FTC should be looking into the unfair practices of foreign companies doing business in the US who use child labor, underpaid employees, despicable working conditions or have moved their headquarters offshore to unfairly compete against US companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
Enjoy it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
I think EPIC should expect an FTC investigation of EPIC real soon now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
The fact that Google _used_ to keep information about you siloed but now won't _is_ a material change.
The fact that Google will take all of the data you agreed to share with them under one set of privacy promises and _reuse_ them under another _less_ private policy is another.
Google _won't_ let you delete or otherwise remove _all_ the data you've already shared with them under the previous policy. Even Google admits that they'll keep logs and *other_data* to 'improve their services'. Even if you ask them to delete it. So just stop using them doesn't help with the historic data.
Finally, the 600 pink elephant in the room, Android users. What are you supposed to do if you purchased an Android phone and are locked into a contract, based on Google's prior privacy policies? Are you suggesting that you should just 'stop using Google'? And do what with your phone? Throw it away? Keep paying your monthly statements?
Google's already backtracking on the changes for it's government contracts. A group with someone in power to look out for them. That's what the FTC is _supposed_ to be doing of the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I hate people that make money cause I cant
You agreed to let Google use your data in order to provide its services. That's axiomatic. All the new policy says is that the services can share with each other. There are no new humans that can see your data (which, for those following at home, means the number of other humans who can see your data is still zero).
The thing about not deleting your data is more worrying, if true. However, I think you're misstating the facts a little. Sure, Google will keep general activity logs that include records of things you did, but that's just common sense. Do you expect them to comb through the vast amount of anonymous data to delete the few entries that are yours?
As for your personal data, anything linked to your account, and anything with your name on it, that goes away shortly after you delete your account. Of course it does. Google has zero interest in creepily stalking ex-users; you leave, they burn your stuff. Why not? What would they gain by keeping it? I mean, aside from lawsuits. They'd get lots of those. But profit? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Name me one successful corporation that isn't run by billionares. That's how the free market works, you idiot. You prefer to shop with companies run by broke losers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But a Koch-purchased candidate doesn't strike me as a better alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]