EPIC Sues FTC Over Google's Planned Privacy Changes

angry tapir writes "The Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, asking a court to force the agency to take action against Google over planned changes in the company's collection of personal data. EPIC, in briefs filed Wednesday, asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to require the FTC to enforce a 2011 privacy agreement between the agency and Google over the company's fumbled rollout of its Buzz social networking service."

Comments

Re:Slashdot is dead

[leoplan2]

Tl;dr: If you don't like this site, stop visiting it. Go and read WMPowerUser, Microsoft News, Gizmodo, Macrumors, Cult of Mac, etc. There is a lot of choice out there

EPIC

[Narcocide]

What on earth... why are all these trolls so angry?

Re:EPIC

[leoplan2]

You're right. All this astroturfing (read the comments) is simply EPIC

Re:EPIC

[NeutronCowboy]

Ok, I don't understand. On the one hand, Google is forced to implement a comprehensive privacy program. On the other hand, EPIC complains that Google's new privacy rules are.... too comprehensive? Can someone point me to what is actually changing in the privacy terms that is actually so bad? As far as I can tell, everyone's just complaining that the policies are going to be merged. So instead of having 20 separate privacy policies, now each service is governed by the same. How is that bad?

Just wondering, cuz I seriously don't get the outrage.

Re:EPIC

[c0lo]

What on earth... why are all these trolls so angry?

Maybe it is not because Google will combine the privacy policies into a single one, but also all the users data across all its services?

Perhaps the move will no longer let you share individual services data, like sharing your Google+ data but withhold your Calendar?
If so, would you still be considering trolls the guys at EPIC?

Re:EPIC

[martin-boundary]

So instead of having 20 separate privacy policies, now each service is governed by the same. How is that bad?

Well, IANAL but a priori, it's rather obvious that if you have several privacy policies that aren't exactly the same, then when you replace them all with a single one, you must lose some rights that you had for some services, and possibly gain some other rights that you had for some other services. So you end up with a different mix from what you initially signed up for in a given service. If you were happy with the original policies, you may not like the new ones.

Aw crap! That reads like a lawyer's explanation. When I die, I'll go straight to Hell, and the only computer languages allowed will be Javascript....

Re:EPIC

[buback]

Meanwhile: Facebook changes it's privacy policy for the 20th time since the announcement of google's policy change.

Re:EPIC

[NeutronCowboy]

How is that a surprise? I thought that was already done. Especially considering you log into the calendar and G+ service with the same username.... again, how is that a friggin surprise, or a problem?

Re:EPIC

[c0lo]

How is that a surprise? I thought that was already done.

Wow... just wow... I mean: you thought that it was already done and this is reason enough not to come as a surprise for anyone?

Re:EPIC

[basotl]

You can opt out of data sharing globally on Google. This seems the best policy for those concerned with privacy. I really don't see the benefit to privacy of opting out on one service and not another. I would also imagine that would become a tangle to code around.

Re:EPIC

[mgiuca]

Maybe it is not because Google will combine the privacy policies into a single one, but also all the users data across all its services?

Yep, that's certainly the idea. Note that most of Google's existing privacy policies already did give them the ability to share user's data across all its services. For example, YouTube already shows videos that your friends share on Google+. The problem was that they were inconsistent. Google cannot currently share data from YouTube with other sites. Their new policy allows them to do that. This is all explained in their letter to U.S. Congress.

Now what exactly is the problem with this? It seems to me that if Google is going to share my data, there are three sets of people they could share it with:

• Third-party companies, such as advertisers (e.g., selling your personal data for profit)
• Your social connections (e.g., sharing your personal information without your permission)
• You (e.g., showing you ads relevant to your interests)

I see a significant harm if they were to engage in the first two. I don't really have a problem with the third. And this privacy policy specifically prevents them from doing the first two. So what this allows them to do is share my information, from one Google service to another, for the purposes of showing me relevant links and ads. In that case, where is the harm? Further, how am I worse off having, for example, Google search results informed by what YouTube videos I've been watching. It sounds like it could give me more relevant search results.

Further, I would much rather know that anything I upload to any Google service might be used by any other Google service, than have to remember a complex set of rules about which products' privacy policies allow Google to share data with which other products.

Perhaps the move will no longer let you share individual services data, like sharing your Google+ data but withhold your Calendar?

What does this mean? What do you mean by "share" in this context? Withhold your Calendar from whom? As far as I am concerned, the only people who have access to my calendar are me and Google's servers. If the Google+ app had access to my calendar (for example, it might show appointments on the side), that doesn't increase the people who have access to my calendar: It's still just me and Google's servers.

Since when did any company give you explicit control over how the data is stored on their servers? With Google's new policy, it is simple: if you use a service, your data for that service will be stored on Google and may be used by any other service within that company (and not sold to third parties). How is that harmful? How is that different to any other company?

Re:EPIC

[c0lo]

Perhaps the move will no longer let you share individual services data, like sharing your Google+ data but withhold your Calendar?

What does this mean? What do you mean by "share" in this context?

My bad, I missused "share" to mean
1. "harvest/aggregate to sell to 3rd parties"
2 . "share/use your calendar with your social connections just because you have more permissive setting in your Google+" (I don't know if it makes sense, I'm using neither of them).

Clearer?

Re:EPIC

[Anonymous Coward]

Facebook didn't run afoul of the government like Google did with Buzz.

The rules change based on what you've done in the past.

Re:EPIC

[tlhIngan]

Ok, I don't understand. On the one hand, Google is forced to implement a comprehensive privacy program. On the other hand, EPIC complains that Google's new privacy rules are.... too comprehensive? Can someone point me to what is actually changing in the privacy terms that is actually so bad? As far as I can tell, everyone's just complaining that the policies are going to be merged. So instead of having 20 separate privacy policies, now each service is governed by the same. How is that bad?

I think the outrage is simple.

Google has a different privacy policy for each of its services, and if it decides it wants to share the data between services, the conflict makes it a legal nightmare.

Unifying the privacy policy - a great idea, because it simplifies life for everyone. However, one of the changes is that Google will also unify your profile data among all services (it could once the new policy was in place, but I believe afterwards, it said it will).

So now everything you've ever done (your youtube, your browsing (double click, google ads, CDN, any site that uses a Google-hosted javascript or something), picasa, your searches) will be available in one, all linked nicely to your details you put on your G+ page. Even what Android or iOS apps you used and how long you used them.

It's like the supermarket cards - all the juicy details of your shopping habits is pure gold to insurance companies.

Basically, you cannot use the Internet without Google - even if you use Bing exclusively, never go to YouTube and other Google projects, there's a ton of other crap hosted by Google that your web experience would suck worse than with NoScript.

If you've put up a carefully written Facebook pages, carefully choose your friends, your real self will be exposed to Google I'm sure employers and marketing ages will be anteing up lots of money to see your real self - what websites you view, what you've searched, what kind of videos you browsed. A veritable gold mine.

Re:EPIC

[mgiuca]

Okay, so those approximately match my first and second sharing types in my list of three. For #1, they state that they will not do this in the new policy:

We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless...

The "unless" includes a bunch of exceptions, which I don't see as a big deal but you may disagree. In summary, a) if you give them permission, b) if you have a domain administrator (doesn't apply to normal users), c) with a third party affiliate for "processing", which must also agree to the privacy policy (not quite sure what that means), d) if compelled to by a court.

For #2, that isn't what they meant at all by "sharing information between services". It does NOT imply that, for example, your calendar would be randomly shared on Google+. It only means that they will share data with you and you alone, across services (for example, to give you relevant results and ads). If you haven't used Google+, the sharing is very straightforward and very tightly controlled: only things you explicitly post on there get shared, and every time you share something, it explicitly asks that you nominate a group of people or individuals to share it with, and once posted, that group of people cannot be changed.

Re:EPIC

[icebraining]

your real self will be exposed to Google I'm sure employers and marketing ages will be anteing up lots of money to see your real self - what websites you view, what you've searched, what kind of videos you browsed. A veritable gold mine.

Please tell me how can I as an hypothetical employer access that information about a person without her or his consent.

Google is fucking scary in how much they know about you, but lets not throw lies with it. They offer no way to access that information unless you're law enforcement. Which, again, is bad enough, but not so bad as you're claiming.

Re:EPIC

[DarwinSurvivor]

noscript ftw.

Re:EPIC

[DarwinSurvivor]

Actually yes, if the same username and password is used to log into 2 websites owned by the same company, why would you expect the information NOT to be shared?!?

Re:EPIC

[TheRaven64]

The difference is, Facebook is openly evil. Their CEO describes their users as suckers and even nontechnical people like my mother know that you'd have to be an idiot to use Facebook. Google, in contrast, spends a lot of money persuading people that they're not evil, so people are actually surprised when they do something like this...

Re:EPIC

[Guidii]

We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless... The "unless" includes a bunch of exceptions, which I don't see as a big deal but you may disagree. In summary, ...c) with a third party affiliate for "processing", which must also agree to the privacy policy (not quite sure what that means)

c) means that you might, for example, buy something from Google, and they might have to ship it to you. When they put your name on that envelope, they are "sharing" your personally identifiable information with the postal service. This escape clause allows them to do that.

I can't remember ever reading a privacy policy that didn't have this clause in it. The clause usually says that they will only share this PII with responsible types who also have a good privacy policy... and it looks like Google uses the same language.

Re:EPIC

[GameboyRMH]

For those who want to work around this:

http://slashdot.org/journal/277383/making-google-keep-to-itself-with-multifox

For extra security, use CookieMonster 1x to only temp-allow Google's cookies in the instance used to view Google services, and maybe use a separate proxy for those tabs (although Multifox doesn't allow separate proxies for separate identity windows, so you'll have to use FoxyProxy with per-site rules)

Re:EPIC

[fast turtle]

Basically, you cannot use the Internet without Google - even if you use Bing exclusively, never go to YouTube and other Google projects, there's a ton of other crap hosted by Google that your web experience would suck worse than with NoScript.

Actually I surf quite nicely most of the time as I already block most of Google's data gathering methods and yet, I haven't encountered a website that wouldn't allow me to access it for blocking Google's attempts unlike Facebook. Combine with Ghostery and Noscript along with a pretty comprehensive host file and I'm not giving out as much information as others who simply don't care about the situation.

Re:EPIC

[jdgeorge]

Mmmm.... I missed how having the consistent privacy policy was evil. Disappointing? Maybe. Frustrating? Possibly. But doing the web equivalent of standing in front of you with a megaphone telling you it's important that you know about and understand the unification of their privacy policy is "evil"?

Re:EPIC

[Sentrion]

That's a good point. I don't know why you got a score of 0. People see a clause in a contact that they would normally object to, but then they say to themselves "well I'm sure they wouldn't go so far as to do what their contract says they can do." This line of thinking is what gets people "legally" scammed out of hundreds of dollars. Just go to www.ripoffreports.com and read about all the little people who didn't think that such tiny print could have such a big bite.

Re:EPIC

[icebraining]

So you're blaming Google for an hypothetical future where they have such a a feature.

Should I judge you too based on things I can imagine you might do in the future?

Re:EPIC

[thoromyr]

you don't have good reading comprehension. They promise not to randomly share SPI (which may not mean you think it means) to random individuals (e.g., making it publicly available) but they can provide it to business partners. The kicker is that your identity is not considered SPI, nor is your location, nor information about your economic or financial situation.

In other words they are planning on doing the largest privacy-removing correlation in history and selling to those that can afford it. I mean, providing it to select business partners.

You apparently like using Google's services. Fine, your choice. However, it is *very* hard to use the Internet without providing information to Google -- and I'm not talking about overtly using any of Google's services. They are going to correlate all information (which their "privacy" policy is ballsy enough to mention some particularly nasty aspects of) on someone that they can, whether or not the person is even aware of Google's involvement. In fact, they may feel that they *aren't* involved with Google, even deliberately avoiding Google after this blatant attack on privacy.

But your average individual isn't aware of the far reaches of google (analytics, etc.) doesn't use NoScript (even if they are using FireFox).

Would you be okay with Pinkerton monitoring you with mobile and static surveillance, using IR cameras, mikes, etc., to get information about you and then sell it to other companies? After all, they would be going through the hard work of establishing business relationships to find customers for the data, paying employees to conduct the stake outs, etc. And you could only talk in sound proofed rooms, never enter buildings without windows, try to lose tails, and so on -- but should that level of avoidance be expected from someone who didn't feel like having their life paid out to the highest bidder?

The fact that in the modern age Google can practically do the level of spying it can, whereas Pinkerton would go broke trying to do it, shouldn't make it any different from an ethics or morals point of view.

Re:EPIC

[mgiuca]

you don't have good reading comprehension.

Thanks, that's a really nice way to start a conversation.

They promise not to randomly share SPI (which may not mean you think it means) to random individuals (e.g., making it publicly available) but they can provide it to business partners. The kicker is that your identity is not considered SPI, nor is your location, nor information about your economic or financial situation.

Where are you getting the definition? From the glossary linked to by the privacy policy, personal information "is information which you provide to us which personally identifies you, such as your name, email address or billing information, or other data which can be reasonably linked to such information by Google."

So wherever the privacy policy mentions "personal information", it includes anything that could be used to link your data back to your real identity. What that means is that advertisers may be given your other information (such as your interests), but only in aggregate form, and they would not be able to link it back to your real identity without being in violation of this privacy policy.

but they can provide it to business partners

If you read the privacy policy carefully, I believe (and this is just my reading; remember that I don't have good reading comprehension) that they couldn't get away with providing personal information to trusted business partners for any reason. The policy states:

We provide personal information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us

Emphasis mine. That means that they would be able to hire a third party to perform data aggregation or the like. The data would specifically have to be used by this third party to process the data on Google's behalf. They would not be able to use this data for their own arbitrary purposes without violating this privacy policy.

which their "privacy" policy is ballsy enough to mention some particularly nasty aspects of

You say it like it's a bad thing that they had the "balls" to make it so clear what they were doing, as if you'd consider it better somehow if they jumbled it up in a long legal document. Isn't this what we've been asking companies to do all along -- provide clear and transparent policies on what they are doing with our data?

I won't deny that it is a hell of a lot of information, considering that Google has a piece of JavaScript on most non-Google web pages. But I'm happy to see that, given that's the underlying technology, they have a really clear privacy policy that, to me, seems to protect my interests and limit third-party access to my data to acceptable levels.

Re:EPIC

[icebraining]

They're collecting the data to mine it and assign keywords to your profile based on your interests, when then they use to show ads that were assigned to those same keywords.
Selling that data would undermine their whole business model, because advertisers would stop having to pay again and again to show ads to people.

Yes, the information Google has about people is potentially dangerous, and there's plenty of reasons to avoid giving it to them. But that doesn't mean that making up lies about them is OK.

Re:EPIC

[Uzuri]

There actually are a number of sites out there hitting googleapis.com and googleusercontent.com, so depending on where you go, you can run into trouble. I run into it most on news sites, sometimes when registering for things (many places are using Google's captcha), and once in a while on forums, so it truly does depend on where you're headed as to whether you see it or not.

I find that RequestPolicy for Firefox makes it easy to pick and choose which sites are permitted to talk to Google without needing to deal with maintaining a host file.

Re:Slashdot is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow... awesome thread, tolls gone wild. Good times, bring popcorn.

Re:Slashdot is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

'tis an EPIC thread o' trolling.

*Gotta stay on topic... and mix in old timey talk for no good reason.

So I opt out? Consider Tmo

[gearloos]

So, I'm a Tmobile Customer. I opt out. So am I still bound by my contract? I don't particularly need Google snooping any more than they already do, which is considerably. What is the average Joe Android User to do? This is interesting. I know it has no implication if I prefer to not use Google + but they are making Google Plus a mandatory part of using their service. So.. again.. Tmo user opting out. Will Tmo get me out of my contract? interesting...

Re:So I opt out? Consider Tmo

[basotl]

You can still opt out of the data sharing. In addition you can remove Google+ from search results. As far as Google+ it self as long as you don't enter data there is nothing really there.

Re:So I opt out? Consider Tmo

[Mashiki]

You can? The last thing I read in their privacy policy stated you can't opt out of any data sharing between any of the platforms at all.

Re:So I opt out? Consider Tmo

[theshowmecanuck]

Search using Yahoo. Or Bing. Hell, Microsoft is starting to look a lot less evil than Google. Nothing forcing anyone to use Google. So I says fuck 'em. Can't believe I now wish I'd bought an iPhone instead of an android. Next time. Anyway, if people really want to send Google a message, stop using them. Maybe a mass one day general boycott, like on February 15 to protest. Everyone use yahoo or Bing on that day. Just an idea. Spread da word if you think it worth it.

Re:So I opt out? Consider Tmo

[theshowmecanuck]

The only thing I see on Google as being a draw for me is the satellite view and street view on the maps. Other than that it's a wash. If it's just search results I'm hard pressed to see the difference. Especially lately when you have to filter like a mad man in order to get useful results (NO, I wanted to learn about mountain lions, not horny old women!). And when you filter you always end up eliminating search results that would have been useful to you in the first place. So now we have to rely on Wikipedia. grumble. So anyway, they all pretty much suck. Can't surf the web without them... can't get much that is useful with them any more. But hey, if you want a good deal on boner pills... HAH! don't ask me I don't need 'em!

Oops. Principals and principles tainted.

[symbolset]

Interesting. Marc Rotenberg, President and Executive Director of EPIC served as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee to PIPA sponsor Patrick Leahy. The very same unconstitutional PIPA that Google just protested against and helped get shut down with your help and mine.

I don't know about you, but a lawyer at counsel who could advise the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he could get away with sponsoring a bill that violates not one, but at least two of our human rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights to suit a tiny minority commercial interest might be a wee bit biased.

Odd coincidence, that he's leading the group now suing Google over something or other. How did they expect us to not know that? Do they not have the Google? Are they living in the 1980's still?

In case you don't remember who Senator Leahy is and how he's working against your free speech and due process rights, here's an article with interesting links. Being as how you're reading this though, it's unlikely you don't know this.

And here's former Senator and chairman of the Democratic National Committee Chris Dodd saying if the politicians took the graft they oughtta pass this bill (PIPA and SOPA): link.

Re:Oops. Principals and principles tainted.

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Marc Rotenberg, President and Executive Director of EPIC served as counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee to PIPA sponsor Patrick Leahy. The very same unconstitutional PIPA that Google just protested against and helped get shut down with your help and mine.

According to that article, Rotenberg served as counsel to Leahy "after graduation from law school". His EPIC biography says he was admitted to the MA bar in 1987 --- so he worked for Leahy around 1987. He co-founded EPIC in 1994.

PIPA was introduced by Leahy in 2011, around 20 years later.

Given everything EPIC has been doing for the last 17 years, it seems more likely (though less "interesting") that Rotenberg didn't like what he saw from his stint with the SJC, and that put him on the alternate path that led to EPIC.

Math is hard, as they say, but valiantly we try.

Re:Oops. Principals and principles tainted.

[symbolset]

"After" is a really stretchy word. It might mean "immediately after briefly" and it might not. Its duration is uncertain too. For all we know he's counsel to Senator Leahy still and that would not break the statement. What "After" says is that he didn't counsel the Senator before he graduated law school - which normally would be a given, since being at counsel to a Senator would normally presume passing the Bar.

I'm Symbolset and words (symbols) are my stock in trade. Words mean things. They also sometimes don't mean things you think they do, and that's not the words' fault but yours. The difference between the hard definition and the presumption or common understanding is the Devil's workspace and it's a busy place with a lot of people working it these days. I think you're among them, Mr. AC.

When this lawyer who is attacking Google last had a counsel relationship with Senator Leahy is a valid question. We know the relationship exists, but not how recent it is. So Let's ask it.

Re:Oops. Principals and principles tainted.

[Ihmhi]

How do you know that Mr. Rotenberg didn't advise Mr. Leahy that PIPA is a really bad idea and why it wouldn't work?

Re:Oops. Principals and principles tainted.

[andb52]

You do realize that that was at least 20 years ago, right? Rotenberg started EPIC in 1994, and your own citation indicates that he worked for Leahy after graduating from law school. You're falsely implying that he is currently working for Leahy and was advising him about PIPA. Also, EPIC has a history of filing suit over Google policies, such as when Google Buzz was rolled out.

It's called right to have representation

[dutchwhizzman]

Just like a doctor has to cure people as best as they can, regardless if they like them, agree with them or find the cause of the injury stupid or self inflicted, lawyers should be able to represent people to the best of their abilities, regardless if they agree with the cause or not. Only if the lawyer, by some moral objection, thinks he/she can not represent the client to the best of their abilities, should they not take the case. Anyone has a right to a fair trail and lawyers should be the people helping make that happen.

True, a lot of lawyers choose not to do so and they do just fine. However, some lawyers find it more interesting, or more rewarding, financially or not, to just represent anything or anyone, regardless of their standpoint on moral issues. In your reasoning, defense lawyers in death penalty cases that were once public prosecutors in the same type of cases, can not be good defense lawyers, since they switched sides. In practice this happens a lot. Also, private lawyers turn judge later on in their careers, same reasoning applies.

In my opinion, which is shared with a lot of people in the legal field, you should be able to serve justice over serving your own moral view points on the matter at hand. Anyone is allowed to be represented to the fullest extent of the law. A good lawyer can and will do so, regardless of the case at hand.

Re:It's called right to have representation

[symbolset]

If you can't draw a straight line from this one thing to this other similar thing, you're an idiot. It's the same venue, the same domain, the same space. The question is whether he's driving the Senator, or whether the Senator is driving him. My bet is the former.

Re:It's called right to have representation

[symbolset]

Second reply, sorry. That first reply isn't going to get 'er done. Your post presents certain ethical questions that are at the crux of lawyers and the law. No matter how depraved he is, under our system even Josh Powell deserves representation even unto parental visitation. Even if the children recall that he put their mother into the trunk and returned without her. And if that fair protection of his parental rights results in him hatcheting their skulls and immolating them, that's just due process of law.

You're a lawyer now, but you were a human once. Try.

simple explanation

[dutchwhizzman]

Google did not do the EULA thing just for private single persons, but they signed actual contracts with business users. Those policies get changed as well, not to the benefit of said business users. Those business users have a much stronger case in court to object to the changes, since there is a clear contract, money at stake and all that.

The biggest underlying change, also for businesses, is that in practice Google now reserve the right to have any bit of data they get on you, no matter how, linked to all the other bits of data on you. This applies to both private and business use, or a combination of both. If you think how much google scrapes and logs, they will probably know more about you than your mother, your best friend and your girl/boyfriend combined. Imagine what could happen to your business or personal life if that data got into the hands of a company that actually knows how to mine raw data.... oh wait....

Re:simple explanation

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Those business users have a much stronger case in court to object to the changes, since there is a clear contract, money at stake and all that.

Yes, a great case, except for the fact that the new policy doesn't apply to them at all.

Re:simple explanation

[jdgeorge]

As a previous responder indicated, Google didn't violate their contracts with businesses. The implication that they are violating their business agreements is unfounded.

Google search requires cookies now?

[Anonymous Coward]

For privacy reasons I block all cookies with Firefox using Add-on Cookie Monster (Default Action: Rejected) and only allow certain sites for session cookies via Cookie Monster options.

I did not allow any Google cookies until yesterday and Google search worked fine.

But since yesterday, if I search for something, a left mouse click on a result leads to nowhere, or when i "middle" click, to open result in new tab, I get an empty page with a long URL like http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=reddit&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CD8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2F&ei=CPsyT_z2IM3esgbw_Z3WDA&usg=AFQjCNGP2I23xwAzzicm-TwmDMKVU72m0w&cad=rja

As soon as I enable cookies for Google in Cookie Monster e.g. via "Temporarily Allow", the results open fine.

Can /. confirm this new annoying cookie requirement?

Is this a new "feature" of the privacy-changes?

Re:Google search requires cookies now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Google redirect javascript accesses "window.localStorage" without any error-checking.

If Cookie Monster Add-on is used and cookies are disabled, accessing "window.localStorage" causes a "Security Error" in Firefox.

So the Google redirect javascript fails silently.

I have the solution.

[Anonymous Coward]

If they dont like the policies then they shouldnt use the services. It really is this simple, if you dont like something they dont use it. I cant see how people dont understand this anymore.

"I find that show offensive, Im going to sue so they change it to make it bland and mediocre!", "I dont like that companies policies, Im going to sue them so they make it how I think they should run their company!", "I dont like that persons beliefs, Im going to sue them for not believing what I do!" blah blah blah. If people would just shut up and spend more time focused on things they do like then this world would be a much happier place.

I mean there are dozens of companies that I dont like their policies and guess what? I dont go there or do business with them.

Re:Slashdot is dead

[nnet]

Or maybe the majority of people just don't care about their privacy as much as YOU'D like them to, they're more concerned with the ease and convenience of a service, knowing full well that the cost of using same is access to the data they generate. No one's forcing anyone to sign up for any google service.

A slightly different view

[Dhalka226]

So, I think by now a lot of good conversations (and a fair bit of trolling!) have been started in this thread about Google, the changes they want to make, etc. I see no reason to add to that.

What I want to know is simpler: How in the world does EPIC feel it has standing to sue the FCC?

It could sue Google, certainly -- probably as EPIC, but if not it could do it as individual users because each of those users can claim to be effected. But that's where their beef is, and that's where any perceived harm is. The FCC's not blocking a company's change doesn't make them liable for it and it certainly doesn't make them the cause of a tort that EPIC can sue to redress. If there is a violation of law or rights, it originates from Google.

The FCC and Google have an agreement and this may well be in violation of it -- but that is between the FCC and Google. The idea that you can sue a government agency to force it to act in the way you want is pretty ludicrous on its face. How far do you think I would get if I sued the Department of Justice for not arresting Chris Dodd over his claims that the MPAA basically owns the congressmen it donates to?

In finest Slashdot tradition, I am not a lawyer -- but I fully expect this lawsuit to be slapped out of court in short order for lack of standing.

Re:Slashdot is dead

[hairyfeet]

Notice how I got modded down for not waving the flag? I wonder which fanboi did the modding, an Appleite, a Googler, a Softie or a FOSSie? As for your post, let me say i so rarely get to use this in a sentence...WHOOSH! Kinda missed the point didn't ya friend? the point was it doesn't matter how YOU feel about privacy as all your friends will happily post tons of info about you even if you avoid these services like the plague!

Just by following your FB friends and cross linking the data it would be trivially easy to build quite a bit of info about you even if you never touched Google or FB in your life and because so many of your friends and family use this you don't really have a choice, there is no opt out when it comes to keeping your family and friends from posting about you. these things have become like giant online diaries where people put every single thing that happens to them and if you are part of that life well congrats, you are now being datamined. And again that is if you opt out of the whole thing, but who doesn't Google? Who doesn't have a FB page? Its so bad the "Key of Awesome" did a parody called "The man without a Facebook" which showed this strange solitary creature with no FB! Gasp!

Re:iOS now has more marketshare than Android

[jdgeorge]

This parent AC post is a verbatim copy of an AC post from yesterday.

Is this the work of an unimaginative troll, or of a paid advocate?