Slashdot Mirror
Google Calls for International Privacy Standards
HairyNevus writes "The Washington Post has an article detailing Google's request for international privacy standards. Google is taking this matter all the way to the U.N., arguing that a hodge-podge of privacy law unnecessarily burdens Internet-based companies while also failing to protect consumers. Although Google is currently under investigation by the EU for its privacy practices, the company claims it has been a crusader for protecting consumer privacy. Google's privacy counsel Peter Fleischer called America's privacy laws 'too complex and too much of a patchwork,' and the European Union's laws 'too bureaucratic and inflexible.' The alternative? Something closer to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation's framework which 'balances very carefully information privacy with business needs and commercial interests', according to Fleischer."
The problem with international standards for privacy is that some cultures have to give up the privacy rights, and right now, it is too early to attempt an international solution until we know locally what we want our rights to be.
We Americans might decry European standards and European "bureacracy", but they are Europe's to define. Similarly, whatever consensus we come to about privacy in the USA is our consensus. Until Europeans and Americans nail down what their rights and standards are, it makes little sense to try and adopt an international framework.
This is my sig.
will be defined as broadly (for Google, etc.) as possible. You won't recognize it after they're done, and you won't have any recourse because it's the "international standard" -- just like copyright restrictions.
Dog is my co-pilot.
Privacy information can easily be bought from Google
... anyway ...
FTA: "To target their advertising, both Google, which specializes in text ads, (...) collect information on which sites users visit."
As if it was just about visited sites, not about emails, searches, IMs, youTube, blogspot, orkut, user profile,
If you need data collected by Google just set up adwords for your needs (location, subject) redirecting to a brand new url. Where you can, for example, see if the redirected users have one of yours two-years-google-style cookie, and relate that cookie with profile data filled by users of your free-as-in-lunch services or with the e-mail addresses of webreaders of your crossite html embedded spam.
Later you can bomb those people's email addresses with specialized phishing/scams/advertisement.
And Google is still no evil, they just provide the circus which is distracting people from reality and hidden disclaimers.
"If we can't index it, it's private... until we figure out how to index it."
I won't go into the issues surrounding [Any Corporation] pushing for a change in not just national laws, but international laws. Suffice it to say that it isn't something I like.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Who do you trust more, Google or the government you live under? That is the root question.
There have been many recent breeches of information security in government and corporate computers. (esp. banking/credit/health sectors) Does a company like Google, who's bread and butter is information, have a naturally more trustable position from the end-user's perspective? Is it possible for Google to create a firewall to protect users from all data intrusion?
Google briefly had a market cap higher than Lockheed. They represent much more than just a search engine.
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Nah. The government only has two real ways to control its citizenry: policing, and sabotage of the education system. The latter takes some time (years upon years) to take effect, so to affect any sort of short to mid term control there is only the option of sending cops as your henchmen to do your dirty work, either brutal suppression of speech, or just regular enforcing of asinine laws.
No, indeed, the government doesn't control its citizens, corporations do. Or rather, the two work in tandem, but it is the corporation that interacts directly with the population, rarely the government. Want to project a pro-war message? Movies, music, toys, books, all influenced by the government, but in the end produced by corporations.
We need a new word for this, because really it isn't the people controlling government controlling corporations, no, government and corporation are now more or less the same thing. Look at the executives in the American government, all of them in cahoots with all sorts of private enterprise. "Govcorp" is more like it. So in the end it is Govcorp controlling the citizens.
Now we shall see the slow opening of what's been happening for years. Corporations telling governments what to do, and getting it. Google is no different than any other corp, except they are laying their cards out on the table for all to see.
"Governments of the world...this is what we want you to do (because it will help our bottom line)", instead of the standard backroom deals.
If Google, a company whose main business model is to know everything about everyone, thinks that the European privacy laws are 'too bureaucratic and inflexible', the EU commission and the European parliament must be doing something right.
We need a new word for this, because really it isn't the people controlling government controlling corporations, no, government and corporation are now more or less the same thing.
Fascism comes to mind.
Infuriate left and right
Commercial interest should have nothing to do with my right to privacy. NOTHING.
The laws do differ in Europe, but even the least common denominator is considerably stronger than what the US has. (Obligatory Wikipedia citation for background)
The problem with this whole debate is that it is often presupposed that supporting commercial interests is a good enough reason to allow the arbitrary collection of personal data in the first place, and the question asked is only to what extent this should be regulated. I submit that by the time you get that far, you've already made an irrecoverable error: the only long-term safe position is that by default everyone has a basic right to privacy and collection of any personal data is illegal, and then you codify the exceptions to this principle. Unfortunately, even the EC legislation currently makes this mistake — which might explain the numerous unsavoury business practices based on involuntarily collection and profiling of personal data that are fast becoming commonplace here, and the consequent reduction in general quality of life for everyone affected (except those who own the businesses concerned, of course).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
AFIAK, even in Europe you still do not have the rights to demand that a company delete personal data about you or to prevent them from collecting it in the first place. You only have the right to see (for a fee) what they're holding about you, and to require them to correct it if it's wrong. Some countries impose more restrictions than this, but they're not universal. This is a major part of the privacy problem, IMHO.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
If the owners of a business don't posess enough common sense and concept of decency to protect their users, then they don't deserve and should not be permitted to run the business - no matter their corporate might! As posted on our news page, all that is required is that web portals finally start putting the well being of their users ahead of their shareholders because the silent majority of people will soon tire of being fodder for generally worthless 'advertising' that often relies upon breaches of our most sacred asset. And another point, with all the amazing technology and intellectual capital out there, isn't it about time that the industry begins to devise alternative methods with which to monotise their services? Thinking never hurt anyone. /Rant over. Let the common sense begin!
O'WONDERWe're working on it.
When you have an international standard, everything you need to do is clear and straightforward. What Google wants is a standard they can apply universally rather than having to worry about breaking the law when someone in a very privacy-protective country accesses a system designed for a region with less-stringent requirements.
This is obvious, and people are overreacting.
This is obvious, and people are overreacting. No shit it's obvious, which is exactly why people are "overreacting".
Here are the only possible scenarios:
A) International standards are made consistent with the countries that have the highest levels of privacy protection
B) International standards are made consistent with the countries that have the lowest levels of privacy protection
C) International standards are set somewhere between A & B
Now whatever answer you pick, countries are going to get screwed:
A) Low standard countries have to pay lots of money to meet the highest standards
B) Citizens of countries with high standards get the shaft as standards are lowered
C) A combination of A & B
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!