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."

Comments

Pot / Kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Pot / Kettle

[jez9999]

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.

Re:Pot / Kettle

[Kierthos]

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

Re:Pot / Kettle

[Ravnen]

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).

Re:Pot / Kettle

[SwedishPenguin]

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.

Re:Pot / Kettle

[MrMr]

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

Re:Pot / Kettle

[geminidomino]

The UK: Europe's Own Quebec. :)

Re:Pot / Kettle

[Ravnen]

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.

Sounds like a plan

[niceone]

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

Hardly surprising

[tqft]

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

Re:EU protectionism

[Anonymous Coward]

>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.

Re:EU protectionism

[Elsapotk421]

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

Re:EU protectionism

[speaker of the truth]

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).