Slashdot Mirror


EU Broadens Probe of Search Engines and Privacy

Raver32 sends in word of a PC World article reporting that EU officials are looking beyond Google in their examination of the impact search engines have on privacy. Quoting: "A panel of European data protection officials called the Article 29 Working Group decided Wednesday to request information from Google's rivals amid concerns that search engines are holding onto information about the people who use them for too long, Hustinx said. Hustinx... declined to name the companies. However, they are believed to include Yahoo Inc., Lycos Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Live.com."

35 comments

  1. Even their own? by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Will they be checking that European search engine the French were pushing? The Google killer?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Even their own? by CriminalNerd · · Score: 1

      It wasn't around long enough like the others to warrant an investigation.

  2. Pot / Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the data retention being required of ISPs by countries like the UK how can they complain about Google etc. ?

    1. Re:Pot / Kettle by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Absolutely, I was about to post the same thing. This apparent concern for citizens' privacy from Big Bad search engines (oh god, they might be able to track what certain IPs searched for!?!) is hilarious from governments who have passed draconian legislation like the RIPA. It's probably an attempt to distract from what they're doing. Don't be fooled - Google is far less evil than your government in this regard.

    2. Re:Pot / Kettle by Kierthos · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not part of the mainland, but just what region would it be classified as part of? South America?

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Pot / Kettle by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Just in case anyone doesn't know, I'll confirm that the UK is indeed part of Europe and the parent poster is wrong.

    4. Re:Pot / Kettle by Ravnen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Google is far less evil than your government in this regard.
      The management of Google aren't elected, unlike my government. There are many things that are best left to the private sector, for example I don't like seeing the state trying to manipulate competition. However, when it comes to protecting citizens' rights, including privacy, that's one of the most important things the state is there for. I trust the state to protect my privacy rights far more than any private firm, particularly an advertising firm (and a foreign one at that).
    5. Re:Pot / Kettle by niceone · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? I thought it was a joke - made me laugh, it's funny because the UK really does think it isn't part of Europe even though it is.

    6. Re:Pot / Kettle by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I don't agree with the EU's data retention directive, there is a clear difference between the regulated retention of logs by ISP's and the unregulated retention of log by search engines.
      The logs of ISP's can only be released under court order, and the period of retention is regulated.
      The logs of the search engines however can be accessed by the companies owning the search engine as well as anyone the company decides to sell them to, and they can retain the logs for as long as they want, all without any kind of oversight.

    7. Re:Pot / Kettle by Jaidan · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I believe it should be up to the citizens themselves to protect their information. A few simple changes are all that are needed in any country imo, though I am most familiar with the US policies.

      I believe companys have every right to sell the information that you provide them. Being able to will drive up company revenue, which in many circumstances will lead to improved product, or reduced prices. However they should not be able to do this haphazardly. Privacy policies should be required to be clear, easy to find, and explicit. The default should be no sharing unless stated otherwise (meaning if a company provides no policy, then the policy is no information may be shared). Lastly, privacy policies should not be able to be retroactively changed. The statement "may be changed at anytime" should be forbidden, or more exactly any information collected pre change should stay under the previous rules until the customer allows the update.

      Basically I don't feel that the government of any country should be looking out for my privacy. My privacy is my problem not theirs. However, there needs to be enough oversight to provide the tools I need to be able to protect my privacy. Stopping retroactive changes, ambiguous privacy policies, and hard to locate and nonexistant policies should provide adequate tools for any consumer to guard themselves. The government getting in the way will just cause problems if they try to be my nanny or mother.

      Unfortunately right now...nobody is really doing it right as far as I'm concerned. The US is too lax on it's rules, and Europe has too much government regulation for my taste.

    8. Re:Pot / Kettle by MrMr · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought they wanted to be called the 'USS Great Britain', America's biggest and slowest aircraft carrier...

    9. Re:Pot / Kettle by janrinok · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point - either willfully or because you do not understand. The laws regarding data retention and its protection are far stricter in Europe than in the US. The law clearly specifies who may collect data, what information may be collected, how long it may be kept, how it must be used and how it must be protected. The example we see in the US of 'businesses' collecting, keeping and aggregating information is illegal in Europe. The fact that an ISP in the UK has been authorised to hold data does nothing to conflict with this law. The ISPs will know what they may collect, how long it must be kept, how it may be used and how it must be protected. However, it CANNOT be sold for business purposes, it CANNOT be used to help direct advertising and it cannot be 'lost', 'compromised' or otherwise misused without coming under the scrutiny of the law. Now does it make sense?

      --
      Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
    10. Re:Pot / Kettle by gravos · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they feel threatened. ISPs are forced to retain data for the government's benefit, and they are able to aggregate that data as they please. Due to their nature search engines also collect aggregate data on people's browsing habits and search queries. If I was in the government and I wanted to be the only entity with such data, you bet I'd be cracking down on search providers...

    11. Re:Pot / Kettle by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      The UK: Europe's Own Quebec. :)

    12. Re:Pot / Kettle by Ravnen · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I suppose the primary reason I disagree with this is that I haven't the time, expertise or resources to determine what all the people and firms I interact with are doing with any information I give to them, and I'd argue neither have most people. To me, privacy is no different to any other fundamental right: if I buy a plot of land, for example, I don't expect to have to enforce my own property rights, it's something I expect the state to do. It's the same with protecting my rights to free speech, privacy, et al.

      I can certainly see the problem with the state placing onerous burdens on the private sector, and care should be taken to ensure this doesn't happen, particularly where there's scope for abuse. If, for example, privacy concerns over Google were exposed as an attempt by its competitors to abuse the legal system because they're unable to compete on merit, I'd object to that. However, a lot of people have real concerns over their privacy rights being violated by firms like Google, and as far as I can tell, that's the basis of the EU's actions here. Moreover, the requirements being placed on these firms seem quite reasonable to me.

    13. Re:Pot / Kettle by 1.000.000 · · Score: 1

      Because it requires a court order to get access to the data stored by the ISPs. Do you see the difference?

      --
      This is a viral signature. You are now infected!
    14. Re:Pot / Kettle by hachete · · Score: 1

      very funny - and very true

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    15. Re:Pot / Kettle by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      How about Airstrip One?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Sounds like a plan by niceone · · Score: 2, Funny

    Round up the usual suspects, drag them down the station, knock a few heads together and see what falls out.

  4. Hardly surprising by tqft · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Hardly surprising - see here

    http://technology.guardian.co.uk/opinion/story/0,, 2107262,00.html

    "But arguing over whether discussion should focus on the worst offender, versus a general industry indictment, can be a distraction from the need to implement privacy protections which cannot be easily ignored."

    http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/archives/001218. html

    http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/mt-comments.cgi? entry_id=1218

    --
    The Singularity is closer than you think
    Quant
  5. Re:EU protectionism by freedumb2000 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    OMG, I wish I could mod you flamebait/troll so bad right now. No further comment.

  6. Re:EU protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >The EU started out as a common market, to make trade easier between European countries. Now it's turned into an anti-America machine. Now everybody loses.

    No, you're wrong, and your post is typical of many USians. You're used, as a country, to trampling all before you - but the EU is too big to push around. The EU is not anti-US but it does have its own point of view on many topics that may diverge from the States. You are confusing the normal free will of the EU with being specifically anti-US.

  7. Re:EU protectionism by Elsapotk421 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think it's funny how us as Americans have this mentality that, if you're not with us, you're against us. I personally don't think like that but it's certainly something that I see far too often these days. I'm an American who has been living in Italy for a little over a year and I've seen my share of things i don't like and that I do like and in the end it's just Apple's and Oranges. They're too different to compare and if one agenda steps over another than well hey someones gonna end up upset....in this case it's /.ers

    --
    We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass!
  8. Googling Considered Harmful Research Paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The following research paper (PDF) from September of last
    year might be useful:

    Googling Considered Harmful

    Abstract:
    "Virtually every Internet user on the planet uses the powerful free
    tools offered by a handful of information service providers in
    many aspects of their personal and professional lives. As a result,
    users and organizations are freely providing unprecedented
    amounts of sensitive information in return for such services as
    Internet search, email, mapping, blog hosting, instant messaging
    and language translation. Traditional security measures, such as
    cryptography and network firewalls, are largely ineffective
    because of the implicit trust paradigm with the service provider.
    In this paper, we directly address this problem by providing a
    threat analysis framework of information disclosure vectors,
    including fingerprinting of individuals and groups based on their
    online activities, examine the effectiveness of existing privacy
    countermeasures and clearly outline the critical future work
    required to protect our corporate, organizational and individual
    privacy when using these services."

  9. Re:EU protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are confusing the normal free will of the EU with being specifically anti-US

    Although you're feeding a troll, I can't resist seconding you.

    This one sentence pretty much sums up 95% of all the alledged 'anti-americanism' in Europe. What, we're somehow not your juggernaut in all thinkable aspects of life? Why, you must be anti-american.

  10. Re:EU protectionism by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1
    Okay, I'll bite...

    This is just another example of the EU trying to limit American companies so that they can force their own homegrown (and invariably inferior) products on their member states.

    So what *does* America actually produce over and above what Europe produces? The biggest company in the world, Walmart, is American and a major importer from China and the third world, no different to we European states.

    It's a real shame the EU doesn't fund innovation instead of lame copies, then it wouldn't have to spend so much money trying to keep outside products down.

    Again, copies of what? What does the US produce that the EC copies?

    This is why there are so many crappy films with half the crew being French, a quarter German and a quarter from Luxembourg.

    And if you look carefully, a lot of the blockbusting reasonably good movies are not being filmed in the US any more - The Bourne Supremacy/Identity were both filmed in Eastern Europe mostly. That makes you a hypocrite.

    The EU started out as a common market, to make trade easier between European countries. Now it's turned into an anti-America machine. Now everybody loses.

    Wrong. As the EU solidifies it becomes a *BIGGER* single market than the US and therefore cannot be pushed aroud so much.

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  11. Re:EU protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As the EU solidifies it becomes a *BIGGER* single market than the US and therefore cannot be pushed aroud so much."

    Ah, so the goal is to stop America "pushing around" Europe. I'd call this anti-American, wouldn't you?

  12. Re:EU protectionism by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 3, Funny

    Again, copies of what? What does the US produce that the EC copies? Operating Systems. Windows is far superior to Linux (which is why it has a far larger userbase) whereas everyone knows Linux was and is developed by Europeans and communists (and sometimes they're the same thing) and copies much of Microsoft's work (placement of the start button in either KDE or Gnome, can't remember which).
    --
    Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
  13. Re:EU protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, so the goal is to stop America "pushing around" Europe. I'd call this anti-American, wouldn't you?

    Yes. In the same sense in which the Boston Tea Party was Anti-British. I'd call this legitimate, wouldn't you?

  14. Re:EU protectionism by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 1

    I live in the U.S., and when all these lawsuits against U.S. companies came into the news, I also felt that they were basically working against U.S. corporations.

    Until I found out that the largest fines handed out by the EU has been to European companies.

    Make no mistake; I think the ruling against Microsoft in the favor of Anti-virus companies was a Bad Choice. Likewise, I think these lawsuits against Google are a bad idea, too. Frankly, I think the EU is doing a horrible job when treating companies - but it's their own as WELL as US companies. The U.S. only hears about the U.S. ones being hassled.

  15. Re:EU protectionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I wouldn't!

    Making tea with cold, salty water? It's a disgrace!

  16. Re:EU protectionism by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

    No... The goal is to stop ANYBODY pushing us around. Americans just seem to be the ones who are most visibly pushing, and most vocally objecting when the pushing doesn't work.

    --
    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.