Slashdot Mirror
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?"
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
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.
Wow! I now owe my friend 20 bucks! Damn, I never thought I'd lose that bet.
In the case of Google in particular, their retaining information about the search habits of users seems to have hurt no one.
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.
This whole question makes you aware of what a new medium the internet is. Should the content of a Google search be considered public or private information? My inclination is to consider it public. If people want a privacy friendly search engine, let them pay for one.
At any rate, as all this is evolving, why not give Google the benefit of the doubt. I say wait and see if there's actually a problem.
I am from Alberta. I we can take them Google up on a "Personal Information Protection Act" (PIPA) request to see what they are collecting on me and who they are sharing this with (my searches etc)... Google has to share all personal information they collect on me if they intend to use it or not(subject to a possible fee so I want to know what they charge for it first... and there is a complain process). Anyhow if you have paranoid concerns you can get some people to make some requests here in Alberta. I think having Google disclose information they are collecting here may be of interest to the people involved in this action. http://www.oipc.ab.ca/pipa/about.cfm
If i had one dollar for every brain you dont have, i would have $1.
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" shouldn't retain data about their customers? What? How about when two guys incorporate to form a landscaping company. Or a flower shop specializing in deliveries to business clients. Or an IT service shop. Never mind their obligation to keep all sorts of records in case they get audited seven years after a transaction - what about the degree to which retaining detailed information about their customers is the very thing that allows them to be valuable to those customers? If the customers would rather get less service in exchange for more privacy, they can shop for vendors and service providers that have to ask them the same questions every time the interact so they'll... feel better? 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.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, due to privacy concerns, the EU dislikes Google storing data on its users, but forces ISPs to retain data for two years? Under the catch-all excuse of 'terrorism' no less.
They could follow each others example: the EU could introduce laws to stop government snooping, whilst the US introduces laws to stop corporate snooping. Personally I find the EU government snooping worse than Google, at least Google is a product choice, government laws can't be worked around. Although the purchase of Double-click does make Google's tracking somewhat difficult to avoid when surfing around.
Failing that, just use Scroogle and/or Tor and/or an ad-blocker. :)
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
since when was my right not to be essentially spied on a violation of Google's privacy?
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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 ...
Google, as a corporation, doesn't have privacy. Unless they're working on some classified government projects, the only "privacy" they can have is spelled out in contracts with their employees. If some Google employee released all kinds of information about Google's inner-workings and financial information, the worst they could do is sue for breach of contract.
It just doesn't make sense for a corporation to have privacy because they're big collections of people working together. It's like saying "We should respect Chicago's privacy." WTF would that even mean?
Google does business in the EU.
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.
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?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Don't like a country's privacy laws? Don't do business there.
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 of the corporate world (data rentention, and right of rectification).
I would rather give my data to the governement than to a corporation, especially seeing how quick they are to sell/whore it off. And don't think A SECOND that if the governement is asking politely anyway the corporation won't give all the data they have on you. Since you have next to no way to block the governement getting the data, then the only bit you can protect is refusing to give the data to corporation to begin with, OR to force them to reespect the privacy of the data.
And before you start spouting off something about free market, think that for some stuff you cannot really avoid local monopolies (health, electricity, water....). Meaning that either you live out of society or you are screwed with US policy.
Hmm.. So a big collection of people don't have the same rights as a single person. Interesting.
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.
Move along, move along
A tadpole is a pollywog
Private data of others is not considered part of your private sphere. Whether Google is a real or a virtual person doesn't matter, if they hold onto the personal data of others they have to obey the regulations.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Personally, I find the libertarian approach to privacy too draconian, but I wanted to point out that it's really quite doable.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
TrackMeNot I am in no way affiliated with these guys but I think the concept is pretty elegant, in a brute force way. Essentially your real searches become invisible again in a sea of random searches.
Every person in that big collection has the same rights. What's your point?
Alright... so Google may be invading digital rights privacy policies? If this is the case, with how HUGE google is, they could probably in a matter of about an hour edit their information collection programming based on the actual google site visited, whether it be .com, .de, .co.uk, .nz, or any other country-based website extension. As for .com, I believe that's commercial, and since Google is based in California(I believe... I KNOW it's U.S.-based), then the laws on their .com /should/ be based on the commercial laws of the United States. I don't think Google has a habit of being lazy and doing nothing about this until it comes to court time. So we probably won't see them in court. Only thing I can blame Google for is buying out other companies, covering every square inch of digital medium they can find. Wait... if google uses Linux, then why do they only seem to distribute software for Windows? Oh well, that's another topic altogether.
hello shelley
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
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.
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.
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 entity. How does you have the right to privacy unless you invested money in some company sound to you?
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 there makes $36k.
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.
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 suggests that you misunderstand the principle. The EU has laws protecting individual's privacy, which corporations have to adhere to. Investing in a company would not only *not* take away any privacy rights, it would place restrictions on the data that company is allowed to hold about you in order to *protect* them. The principle also applies to the employees.
Corporations are allowed to hold some data private, but they also have obligations in all countries around the globe. They have varying disclosure requirements depending on whether they are publically or privately held, have varying degrees of public inspection e.g. for hygiene regulations. Again, yes they can keep a lot of their own information private - but they have no equivalent to the Bill of Rights. Corporations are constructs in law, and the formation of one should not be allowed to take away an individual's privacy.
From an American perspective, this is why the wording of the Constitution is so important. Phrases something like "Congress shall pass no law abriding the right of peaceful assembly" are all through it, guaranteeing the *inherent* rights of the people. Corporations cannot be granted exceptional powers of over the rights of individuals.
This story is about the EU ensuring that the privacy rights of individuals have not been breached. As a European, it is surprising to hear so many Americans argue in favour of giving up individual rights to an unaccountable group of people. Usually it's the other way around!
That said, it wouldn't be the first time I've seen the crowd on Slashdot make unconstitutional arguments when it's against the actions of a foreign power.
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 groups of people won't effect groups of other people. The GP post I was commenting on revolved around the Idea that corporations are fictional people in which they are not and they made the argument that because they are a fictional, they don't adhere to the same principles or rights that we have. I find this to be no different then not letting a black man vote because he is only 1/5th human. And I see no difference in this Idea that groups of people forming a corperation have less right collectively then a family unit would enjoy.
A corperation is just the legal construct that allow people to conduct business and organize rules and procedures of that business while limiting a person's liability for actions another person takes. It isn't some fictional person, it is a framework of sorts. And if you tell me you think you have a small penis, I tell everyone else, outside your embarrassment, no harm or right violation is being done. It is the same if you tell a corperation the same thing. The difference is that we have personal information that we expect to remain personal and this is already limited in what they can do with. Especially when it is a requirement of doing business with them. But your surfing habits or shopping purchases aren't in that line of stuff. When you buy something at the market, If I'm standing right there and tell everyone you bought a sixpack of condoms (extra large) and a spatula, I'm not violating any of your rights. Now if the store does the same thing, they aren't either. But when the store which is a corperation tells everyone you paid with a credit car numbered 66666666665, they crossed that line.
So, I think the type of information is just as important as the information. And when you choose to make me part of you conversation, Whether it is because you purchased something, used a service I offered or we have a casual conversation, anything you disclose with the exception of financial and medical information (maybe a few others)there is no expectation of privacy at all unless we already (or otherwise) agreed to make/keep it private. If the EU has laws to the contrary, Good for them. I don't believe it is the role of government to say what you can do with information someone else offered you. And I don't see any difference between a corporation and an individual. Especially when we want to define a corperation as a group of people.
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 want any of 150,000 people being able to call me at home, for instance, although of course the company has my details. Lack of respect for privacy enables people to do things like HP's identity theft scandal using Social Security numbers.
A corporation does not have an extension of all the individual rights of the people who comprise it. It is a legal construct. It does not have these rights because it is 0/5th human. Human rights are not *granted* by governments or legislation, they are *protected*. A restriction on the length of time Google can store data relating to individuals would have no impact on the rights of Google employees or shareholders; free reign to the corporation does however impact the rights of the individual. The individual has these rights, the corporation does not - fairly straightforward.
It does not follow that running web searches should be construed as giving the search company rights to your personal data. Why should this be the case? Clearly web searches from the home will contain personal information. Given a person's right to privacy and the corporations ready technical capability to respect those rights, why should there be a presumption of surrendering them?
One key reason you can pass on personal details of mine in the manner you describe is that you have a right to free speech. If I have chosen to share that fact with you, your rights also have to be respected. However, unless you've signed a loyalty card or similar, the supermarket does not have the share information about my individual purchases. If supermarkets had that right, the retail system would be forcing me to give up personal rights in order to buy essentials. To force me to use cash, or simply not use supermarkets, is an unreasonable imposition (particularly on a city dweller!). In the UK, many shops will ask for your details, partly for marketing etc but also because otherwise they have no right to track data about you, except as required for the financial transaction.
From the standpoint of protecting one's rights, the way privacy has been translated into law in the EU is that companies should store no more data than is necessary, shall share the information with the appropriate individual upon request, and shall store it for no longer than necessary. In this way, the rights of the individual to privacy and dignity are protected. Note that the definition of "necessary" (or whatever specific wording is used) can vary a lot e.g. banking records stay around for a long time. Chances are that with respect to the Google thing, they'll go for something like 6 months - a compromise between the individual's rights and the corporation deriving some value in exchange for the service provided.
Your automatic assumption of giving up those rights is, well, a shame. I've enjoyed working for this US firm for some years. The US is at its best when it is both hard headed about "business is business" but also "rights are 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 corperation and sell share to get equity out of the business so they can expand or whatever. Some people sell their personal shares and keep the money.
And it isn't that I'm weak on corporations, it is just hat I'm looking at them realistically. Large corporations can have more influence and cause more harm but it is still the same, someone owns that corperation and it is an extention of their rights.
No, that was lack of security that caused that. Andif your using the argument that it is your while still giving that information out ot anyone who asks, you will have the same lack of security and be hit one day by your own fault.
It is exactly an extention of an individuals right. The only difference is that a CEO or series of managers are making decisions and not you personally. This is why there is a protection. When the CEO embezzles the funds dry and the corporation has to file bankruptcy, the CEO goes to jail and the bankruptcy stops at the corporate level instead of taking everything you own too. The only legal protections afforded to corporations are the separations from the owners liability. Thats it, nothing else. It is done in law. Now there are laws concerning how the company spends money and discloses that, but that is only so the owners can fully understand what they are investing with.
Any time you involve a separate person to you information, they become privileged to it. They have a right to it. It is no longer just yours. Now some personal information like medical and financial records have limits on what a corporation can do with them. But if you tell them your horny by surfing for porn on their search engine, it is no different then you telling the girl at the pub you want to screw her. And the data isn't always yours. You telephone number isn't, the phone company publishes it. If the company you work for gave your number to any of the 15000 employies so they could call you, there is nothing wrong. If you have an unpublished number, then they have to restrict who can access it but it doesn't mean no one could and it shouldn't.
Ah, so we are debating another US problem.....
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
You do realise that we are debating the fact that the EU has challenged this - not the US. What is the point of quoting US law: it is irrelevant to this discussion - and the majority of the world's population!
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
You are looking at this with a US viewpoint? That isn't the thrust of this thread, which is based on something other than a US viewpoint (in this case EU). 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. Quoting the 15th amendment is also irrelevant in Europe. You have looked at a map of the world recently, haven't you? Try counting the countries on it - very few of whom are in the slightest bit concerned with US law. Google is NOT a US company. If it were, then my attempts to access www.google.com would not be diverted to www.google.co.uk, or www.google.fr, www.google.com.gi, www.google.de. Each of these countries are in Europe, in which case - it must OBEY OUR LAW.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
And BTW, Most US law is expressed by international treaty. This isn't because the US pushes it's laws but rather all treaties we make have to have the full force and effect of law. Now there are several treaties that make those other countries pay attention to US laws because we made the laws pursuant to the treaties. You can argue all you want about the people in those countries but it doesn't make it true. I remember some people says this about Pirate bay and the country they were located in until their servers were confiscated. So what you say or believe might not be the reality.
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 history, you would easily see that I was replying to the prospect that google isn't a person and isn't entitled to rights of privacy. They are and they do have privacy rights. This is very relevant to the discussion and the rest of the worlds population. You see, when foreign nations recognize American companies, they need to do so in the state the exist in america. This is in the treaties that these other countries signed and enacted. It works the other way too.
Google.co.uk, Google.de, Google.fr are NOT US companies. They are obliged to obey EU law. You may not like it. Sorry.
The title of this thread is based on an 'EU' perspective. Your law is irrelevant, unless we are discussing whether it should be changed.
Should the US change its laws? as suggested in the opening remarks? Your decision. But you cannot change ours...
I have over 1000 hours (yes, not a lot, I know) flying our nuclear deterrent. The 'West' won the Cold War, not the USA! And if that is your best counter then you have already lost this argument. (Is your dad also bigger then my dad?, is your house bigger than mine? have you got a big brother who will beat me up?)
Would you care to quote where your law is expressed 'by treaty' with regard to the European Law regarding the holding of data? No, I thought not.....
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
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 other domains do is allow them to deliver localized content, nothing more or less. If you think multiple domains makes a company separate from the same company, you are sorely mistaken in how the Internet works.
But don't believe me, follow the links involving Google corporate info and you will find the exact same thing.
No, the law isn't. Google operate in Europe because of international treaties. Most if not all of the EU countries have signed into law treaties that allow a corperation conducting business in one country to be available for business in another. The laws of the EU or Frances or any other country only matter in Google's actions in those countries. When you goto Google, You are accessing an American server for the most part and all the information obtained is stored in an American server. Not because they has a separate company. Google doesn't conduct operations in france or the UK or anything, they operate withing the confines of America. They have offices in those countries to deal with situations and employ coders but we are talking about them keeping search data not keeping coders employment information. This is according to Google's own corporate info page, privacy policy and so on, And it doesn't matter were you access it from, it reads the same if it is a Google site.
Your also missing the entire point of the post, I am not arguing they aren't subject to the retention laws, I'm arguing they are a US company incorporated in the state of Delaware and have the same rights as a normal citizen would. They have an expectation of privacy. Even in Europe, they have this too. I dare you to walk into any company and start looking at their financial data unannounced. You will be thrown out if not arrested. Why? because this is private and they have the same rights you would concerning keeping your checkbook secrete.
WTF are you talking about. Europe was perfectly happy with letting rusia run into a country recently liberated from the germans after WW2 and letting russia impose it's control over them. This is the same shit that that started WW2, they needed to defend their borders. I'm not talking about who won anything, I'm talking about who put a stop to it. The US did!. The UK and Europe never had a Nuke for a deterrent until the Americans gave it to them. A good majority of their military technology is of the same birth. SUre Europe has developed many things, they have even taken some of our stuff and made it better, the point isn't who is better at building something, it is about how the treaties came about and the mutual benefit of them. I think maybe you have some severe problems with either stating you points or understanding anything someone else says. Including the laws of your lands and how the Internet works.
No, I
The nuclear weapon that I flew with not made in the US. It was not under US control. That's why it was an independent nuclear deterrent. Please do not try to claim that everything positive that ever happened is because the US made it happen.
I'm arguing they are a US company incorporated in the state of Delaware and have the same rights as a normal citizen would. They have an expectation of privacy. Even in Europe, they have this too. And while they are in Europe, expecting to have their privacy honoured, they are obliged to obey European law. If they get stopped for speeding they will be charged under local law, not under US law. And, in Europe, companies do not have the same rights as individuals.I'm not quite sure what you mean by your penultimate paragraph. Honestly, this is a genuine confusion on my part. Are you claiming that European law is only enforceable in a US court?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
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.
Are you saying that an investigation endorsed by the board, the CEO, the security department and legal counsel would not be able to get access to an employee's Social Security number in a secure environment? I very much doubt it. Any security firm asked to implement a security system that would prevent access to employee records under such conditions would want a very carefully negotiated contract absolving it of liability if security were breached. And given this is a discussion about rights and principles, let us not forget about personal accountability and responsibility, which is indepedent of security measures. One root cause was clearly a lack of respect for privacy.
Well, I disagree and have given my basis for doing so, using your own constitution. I've never had reason to examine in any depth the law arounding incorporating as an S or C corporation. However, I'm fairly sure I would have noticed something as significant as statements regarding human rights. Mainly it was about tax rules and limitations of liability as I recall. Unless you can come up with evidence otherwise, I'm fairly sure you're wrong - no basis in fact, as I said.
No they don't. Prove they do - I believe you're making that up.
The choice between going to retailers, and going and making my own food and clothes, is rather an extreme one. In the context of the world in which we live, it is not a reasonable choice to force upon people. There is no need for a retailer to track my information to conduct an economic transaction. I've provided a specific example demonstrating that this principle has been enshrined in law. What's your counter example?
This entirely lacking in logic. Google can also make money without the data - by definition it is not necessary. Making money is also completely orthagonal to human rights. "As long as it benefits the corporation" is also directly against many of the principles of the US (the Sherman Act, for instance), and is presumably a misunderstanding of how consumers benefit from a healthy economy and the need for economic incentives to support business and entreprenuership.
How so? The EU also separates data. I've already mentioned the difference between banking records and web searches. Medical records are also considered separately, there are numerous variations of the Official Secrets Act, a separate Freedom of Information Act regarding government data, etc. Again, you don't seem to be basing your arguments on facts, but unsupported and inaccurate opinion.
It's nice that you haven't yet encountered any situations whereby individual's rights are in conflict with each other. This will happen inevitably as you grow up. In this particular case, however, as corporations do not have these rights there is no conflict and I am doing no such thing.
Not so. Information can be gathered improperly, can be used as an invasion of privacy, selective use of informat
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 this thread. I don't mind discussing things with you but at least comprehend what you are reading before posting a troll reply. And yes, An EU company who operates in the US is views as another EU citizen and when a US company operate in the EU, it is a US citizen. They don't lose any rights that any other EU or US citizen would lose. And that is all my argument except for showing beyond doubt that Google is a US company which for some reason your fixated on.
And were US law comes into play, All treaties America makes with other countries have to be made into law in the US. Any laws we would have that effect an American company working in the UK, france or any other nation would be there because of international treaty. If the EU or any of it's states pass a law that violates those treaties, the treaty law replaces the local law. This is why when an American citizen gets into trouble or is harassed, they announce their citizenship. It gives them limited additional remedies to whatever the problem is.
Again, I think you have a problem understanding a simple conersation. You wouldn't have had that nuclear weapon if it wasn't for the US giving it to the Europe. We gave them the science behind a working Nuke. Also we have over time shared secrete on the subject making the weapons as effective as possible. READ THIS CLOSELY, this has been a bidirectional effort and we have gained as much as we gave. But the Eropean communities were perfectly complacent watching Russia walk in and take over countries. It took the US to build a military presence and put a stop to it. It would have been WW2 all over with again except with Russia instead of Germany. And it was the US that convinced the allies (all but Russia) to give germany back to the people instead of making it a colony after WW2. Read up on some history about it. Europe would look totally different if it wasn't for this.
I never said anything different. All I said was that google or any US company does have rights while operating in any other country. You are the one who took this all out of context claiming US law doesn't matter (which it does) and that google was separated into several other companies because they have different domain names, Which is false. And a company or not, An American company has the same rights as an American citizen who visits a foreign country would. It isn't looked at as a company is coming to visit, it is looked at as a person is coming to visit.
However, We might find that like in the Brazil situation, the local google offices don't have anything to do with the servers and don't have any control over them. In this case, they would likely be directly under US law because the entire operation the EU is concerned with is inside the US. You goto google, it doesn't forces itself onto your computer, you have effectively went to America, surfed the Internet and then left in the split second it too
It is true. The only thing separating you from a corperation is a legal filing. If france is unbusiness friendly, then let them. It could account for their high unemployment rates and the riots that happen on a regular basis. Just because some countries are arcane and don't promote a healthy environment for business doesn't means anything. If you mow lawns for a fee, you have the same rights as you did before that. If you higher a person and become an llc, you didn't lose any rights. If you hire a few more people, take on a partner and open another office then change from an llc to a corporation, why do you all the sudden lose all your rights? err why should you lose them?
No, I ma saying that the people you employ are just as much a security concern as the locks on the door. If you hire someone who will abuse this access, then you let your security down. There is a reason they don't hire EX-cons to be a teller or security guard at a bank.
There is nothing in our constitution that giver anyone rights. Well, there is some things that gives the government rights but that a different story. Everything concerning rights in the constitution deal with specifically limiting government from taking them away. Any mention of a right in the constitution assumes you already have it and stops the government from removing it. Nowhere does it say a person _now_has_a_right_to_privacy.
A corperation is just a legal frame work to allow more people to be involved in a company with some taking an active role while others don't. When you turn your coding company into a corporation, you don't lose any of those rights. I cannot walk in and look at your books, I cannot walk in and look at your code, I cannot just walk in at any time and do anything you havn't specifically gave me permission to do. None of this changes when you become a corporation.
LOL. This is funny, Prove to me they have been taken away. A corperation can and does talk about competitors products, They talk about why they think their are better and sometimes they make claims that are very difficult to back up. If that isn't free then I don't know what is. But on the principle of showing they have these rights, A right isn't something givent to you. That is called a priviledge. In a free world, you automatically assume you can do something then some governing body takes that ability away fro
Son, you seem to be an intelligent person. I'm guessing the consistent errors of spelling, grammar and logic come from a lack of experience, most likely from being young. My advice is that you try and understand some of the truly important things about your nation's history, and the examples it has helped set for the rest of the world. With respect to debating, a strong recommendation is that when someone uses a set of facts to argue against you, particularly an older and more experienced person, you need to have some facts to back up your opinions. Otherwise, you put your credibility at risk, and put obstacles in the path of your own learning and development.
If you read back through the thread to the original article, you will find that I have not argued that corporations do not have any rights. They do not have an extension of the rights of every individual that works for or invests in them. Countless people have sacrificed themselves over the centuries for the concept of universal, inalienable, natural human rights. Good examples are those who died alongside your own founding fathers, for the truths they held to be self-evident. Corporations have many legal rights, property rights for example. They do not have inalienable rights, and they do not derive these from the people that work for them. If you think otherwise - find a reference to support your argument.
There's two problems here. One is that you are yet again stating an opinion without facts to support it. The second, which is rather sad, is that you clearly don't understand what makes your own Constitution such a wonderful, historically important document, much admired around the world.
One cannot prove that something that has never existed has been taken away. If this is the standard of proof you have set before you will admit that you're wrong, then you have either failed to understand my point, failed a simple exercise in logic, or simply decided that you are right and nothing can convince you otherwise.
If you hope to be taken seriously as you grow older and put in more responsible positions, you're going to have to wise up. Of course, if your goal is simply to make money then lacking logic and principles is not an issue.
This is rather sad, on two levels. On a classic Slashdot failing, you didn't understand (or perhaps even read?) the article, did you? The entire point is that there is a law! The EU has privacy laws based on inalienable human rights, hence this investigation. Second, inalienable rights cannot be taken away by any law. You do not appear to understand what inalienable rights are, which is particularly sad because it means you do not truly appreciate your own country.
Sorry kid, I've held in own in arguments with Nobel prize winners (e.g. Bruce Greenwald at Columbia). You're going to have to try harder than that if you want to be condescending instead of sounding like an idiot. How do you know I didn't understand the separation of data? You may recall I was simply pointing out that the EU also has a separation of data. It's broadly the same as you describe, although the example of choose of running down the street shouting (plus comments in other posts such as penis size, or considering someone hot) serves only to reinforce your immaturity. My point however was that you had stated the separation of data as some
Due to data retention Directive http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do? uri=CELEX:32006L0024:EN:NOT, ISPs are gathering the resources required to fulfill its requirements -office, staff, hardware and software. But that's all at their cost! So, it looks like they decided to do something about it, like sell the user profiles they will soon have on every subscriber of their services. That's much closer to every user in a country, so don't be alarmed next time you see an ad from someone you never met but it looks like you did.