Google Asking For Trouble With Its New Privacy Policy; EU Official Questions Legality
from the this-is-going-to-end-up-in-court dept
We've already discussed EPIC's silly attempt to legally force the FTC to punish Google for its new privacy policy, but it seems like it didn't need to bother. There is a fair bit of interest around the globe in smacking down Google for the new policy. Even the FTC (which fought EPIC's demands) has said that Google's new setup offers a "brutal" choice to users, in that they agree to the site-wide policy or cut off their Google accounts. But the biggest threat appears to be coming from the EU, where Justice Commissioner Vivane Redding has flat out stated that the new policies violate EU rules and regulations. The Canadians actually say the policy is a step in the right direction, but that the company hasn't been clear enough with users. Google, obviously, disagrees with these complaints, but there's no way this doesn't somehow end up in a legal proceeding on both sides of the Atlantic.For what it's worth, I tend to fall in the middle of these, leaning towards the same view as what the Canadian privacy commissioner said. There is actually some benefit for there being a single privacy policy across all sites, but giving users just over a month to process all of this, what it means, and how they want to deal with it does seem a bit abrupt. Also, as much as Google tried, it really failed in showing why this might benefit users, and may have crossed that "uncanny valley" line of suggesting that this would be used in somewhat creepy ways. Furthermore, it does feel like the new setup is a bit extreme in terms of the choices that people have. It would seem that a much more flexible policy would make a lot more sense.
There are ways to avoid having Google collect too much info on you, but they are a bit clunky, even if Google insists otherwise. It seems that a much better policy would have been to have given much more notice for such a change, along with much greater control for the users in terms of how it's implemented. I don't understand the gleeful cries of some suggesting that the new setup is a sign of "evil," but from a positioning standpoint, Google didn't do a very good job at all in explaining this to users.
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
Filed Under: eu, ftc, privacy, privacy policies, us
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
yes, there are, dont use them... how easy is that.
People are sick of the Goolag, and there are better alternatives.
Masnick needs them onside because he profits from their policies, it's called a vested interest. You cant be too critical of a company that is your lord and master, who PAYS you.. (cash for comments)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
I thought it was the advertising that's on the websites that makes them money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
Do they integrate well with my phone?
Am I just exchanging one master for another?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
yes, there are, dont use them... how easy is that.
Exactly. We agree.
So, er, why are you attacking again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
How devious! No wonder they won the Cold War.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
Again, all we're hearing is "FIRST!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
Best laugh I've had in a while, TY again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
Thanks for the reminder, darryl. Way to contribute to the discussion!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick MUST serve his masters, the Goolag
Yes: put fake information of yourself over the net. If you need to use it badly then put bad info about you.
Example: Google thinks I work in HAARP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So enough already, it's a non-issue. Google isn't collecting new data they are re-purposing data they already collect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough whining already
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Cpncerned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Cpncerned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Cpncerned
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not Cpncerned
Enough false data while not on TOR fixes my privacy issues. :)
[ 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 ]
Much ado about nothing
It is called ADblock Plus for Firefox, look into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Much ado about nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Much ado about nothing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Much ado about nothing
It is called ADblock Plus for Firefox, look into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Much ado about nothing
For everything else,of course, there's TOR and I2P.
Oh, and VPN and 7 proxies... LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://support.google.com/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=54057
http://www. google.com/policies/privacy/ads/#toc-optout
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
i love how doing that is actually illegal here.
or at least, there are laws which prevent the creation of systems that would make it viable to do so (in NZ, there is no equivalent of the social security number. if you have the same number in two different entity's systems (including government departments) it's by coincidence. or it better be, or they're breaking some laws.
meaning the only common identifier is your Name.
you create a new account for anything significant they'll want multiple forms of identification proving you are who you say you are, generally speaking at least one of which must contain your photo, though they'll usually accept a birth certificate and a couple of extra different ID documents instead, depending.
so, yeah, if you're getting junk mail it's either regular circulars or it's because you've signed up for something. the real problem is that once you sign up for mail order catalogs or whatever, the companies seem willfully incompetent when it comes to taking you OFF their lists. still, you don't get on there without your own input.
makes identity theft trickier too. (that's Actual identity theft, not the banks trying to weasel out of their responsibility to deal with bank robberies). it is possibly easier to convince One system that you're someone else.... but doing so doesn't unlock all the others for you as well. the person who's identity you're taking will probably notice before you're done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insular browsing
Were I interested in more colourful search results, I'd make a seperate VM for that, if only for the higher risk for infection on those predominatly flesh-coloured sites.
It's not something to be desired, but might be a reccomendation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google is no different than the Government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think there should be an easy opt-out button for any data collection. But you see, Target is doing that in real life and it seems you can't opt out.. Weird times we live ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security concerns
And I have been pulling off info from Facebook each time they change what they do with the data. There have been blatant abuses with Facebook and my account, so I don't trust the company in the least. (For example, asking me for my mobile phone number as a security protection and then publishing it in my contact info without my permission.)
What you end up with, when users start to doubt the safety of the system, is that people begin changing how they use it, thereby bringing it all down eventually.
More Facebook users are hiding their friends to protect themselves | Internet privacy - InfoWorld
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Security concerns
For many other people, the privacy debate is eroding trust on the Internet."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gOOGLE is to Privacy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did it take them this long?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well gosh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Biggest problem is changing the terms after you've paid for something.
That's bad enough when you are using what's essentially a free service; search, gmail, etc. The bigger problem I see is changing things on you after you've bought something. If I'm paying for Google Docs,Gmail, etc. then what gives Google to change the terms of my contract unilaterally?
If I bought an Android phone and am locked into a two year contract with my carrier based in part on Google's privacy policy at the time, what gives them the right to unilaterally change it?
I still haven't seen an answer to these two situations. Telling people that they can just stop using Google doesn't really cut it in these cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Europe has always had stricter laws about data collection than the US. So companies have had to modify their policies to do business in Europe. This isn't really a new thing. But the scope of Google's data collection (the many different ways it can collect data and then put it altogether to create profiles of people) especially puts it on the radar. That's what happens when companies want to work their way into people's lives at every level and then want to monetize that ubiquitousness. That's why I have a huge problem with Facebook's goals and refuse to play along. I won't run all my web activities through Facebook, though the company keeps trying to find ways to encourage people to do that.
I didn't sign up for Google+ because I was unsure of Google's privacy policies for that, and now I am glad I didn't. As data collection becomes more aggressive, I am modifying my web usage.
Between companies wanting to create massive files on you, and hackers continuing to find ways to break into servers, it does make you want to retreat and live as much of your life off-line as possible so it isn't all up for grabs.
Yes, we've lived with cookies for a long time, but when they started, the pitch was, "We've just linked it to your machine, not to you personally." Now, there's no pretense that this data collection is anonymous. Companies want to know every detail of your life: what you buy, where you go, who you know, etc. And the benefits returned aren't always that useful to you. In fact, if anything, it just becomes a way to bombard you with more commercial messages that you'll probably not want. If you aren't buying (either because you are trying to save money or because you want to consume less), then you don't want messages about buying no matter how targeted they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]