Slashdot Mirror
EU Authorities To Demand Reversal of Google Privacy Policy
judgecorp writes "Google's privacy mechanism, which combines personal data from around 60 products, and gives users only one opportunity to opt out, was rolled out in March against requests from privacy regulators in Europe. Now they want the policy reversed, and user data from the different Google products, including Gmail, Search and YouTube, to be separated. The EU attack is lead by French regulator CNIL, which has historically taken a tough line on privacy matters."
The French may save us yet.
"Yeah, so what if YouTube let you register with a user name before we bought it. We see you don't use a real name. WTF is up with that? Are you a criminal?
[x] My name is ___________________________
[ ] I'm a criminal."
This will surely deter the far better free market solution from being developed.
Whatever it might be. My Capitalist gods haven't told me yet.
What do you mean we had an opportunity to opt out?? It was take it or leave it scenario. Lose your data, change your email, disrupt your life or let us assemble your data.
I switched to DuckDuckGo for search. I did not like adverts for the things I'd been searching for, being presented to me and my family. I've tried to block Google tracking too.
I don't like that I receive an email on [obscure thing] and see adverts for [obscure thing], and I hate the fact that some spotty faced oik in Google can pull up my searches at the tap of a key.
I don't like the fact my Android tablet won't let me remove the Google email account from it, which I wanted to do as soon as they made this change. Next tablet will be Android, but won't be Google Android, it will be some Taiwanese clone.
If they want the Facebook crowd that's up to them, but I don't use Facebook, it's a privacy disaster, and I'm looking for an out to Google if they are trying to copy the crap that Facebook does.
I don't want this privacy invasion, and I'm not French.
...and what happens if this works and google reverts the policy? Does anyone here know exactly what the problem is with the new one?
Really, I don't see this as an issue if you're volunteering your personal info to Google anyway. I'm more worried by the tracking that Google does even if you're not logged in, say, via its ad and recaptcha services.
Really though, unlike with Intel or Microsoft, I've never felt like I have been wronged by Google, which is probably why my knee jerk reaction is that this is just another extortion racket and an organization hired to cause a stir.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
All these web sites are owned by the same people. Are the EU saying a company can't mine the data the EU says it is allowed to collect? How on earth do you even police that?
Besides, it's a non-issue, as it is under the users control anyway. If you don't want Google tying the data together use different use names on each site. It is not like it is rocket science.
There's one other source of tracking. Firefox has a 'block reported phishing sites'. The way it works is they download a block of partial (32bit) hash keys, WITH A TRACKING COOKIE, each Firefox user gets their own cookie. If a site is in the set of 32bit keys, Firefox asks if the 256 bit hash matches a phishing site to determine if the site actually is a phishing site, or just a hash collision.
In this way, Google can track any website simply by adding its partial key to the list and Firefox will dutifully report it back to Google.
Why does this need a session cookie? why does it need to update the list so incredibly frequently? Why send only partial keys?
A million blocked urls is 8mb of data with 256 bit hashes, that's just a few seconds of youtube video. An incremental update, would be, say 100 urls/day, that's 800 bytes. Firefox could request 'changes since version X', and it would be tiny data.
The way Google implemented it, and the way Firefox uses it means that they gave Google a tracking tool for Firefox users.
I know its throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I turned off the malware warning in Firefox. When I used tamperdata to see data connections on a website, and saw how frequently Firefox was reporting back to Google, I was quite shocked.
so people have to opt out 60 fucking times?
so EU, just how retarded are you?
Interesting, why don't they also require Microsoft to reverse its recent privacy policy change which is essentially the same (unification of the company's services).
"You agree to pay a restaurant a certain price for a slice of pie in the 1950's. Let's say 25 cents. Sixty years later, you cannot expect to order the same slice of pie for 25 cents."
The EU privacy law says "no unnecessary linkage of data", Google decided it would help itself to cross linkage data. I'm extracting myself from Google. Search has gone to DuckDuckGo, I'll extract my email from them over time, and youtube when a new suitable alternative arises. I've also blocked their tracking, and adverts, because I don't trust them to abide by 'do not track'. Android tablet I'm stuck with, I'll change it on the next upgrade.
It will take time to extract myself. Until that date, I expect Google to comply with "no unnecessary linkage" rule of EU privacy law, which was the same law that existed when they first offered their service.
I notice that there is no defense here other than bad metaphors. Google are not special. It's not like Facebook can do stuff and it's bad, and Google does the same thing and its good. It's not.
They chose to do a Facebook on me, and I expect the EU to do its job, and the broken trust with Google means I'll extract myself from their services regardless. It's not their data, it's mine.
There is tons of scientific evidence to back up the fact that video games cause violence.
Tons?, Care to provide links to this, as thou art an expert? (and I can't be arsed Googling this, as I've work to go to)
Last time I looked, admittedly several years back, all I remember was a lot of dodgy statistics being peddled by people with an agenda/grudge.
I really wish this was an imageboard at times, I'd post a picture of the person I know who plays all the most violent games imaginable, (and has done so for years) with an ickle-wickle black kitty curled up under his deranged psychopathic chin, complete with glaekit look of happiness on his otherwise stone-cold-killer-of-pixels face..
So cite one that is on the web so that we can discuss it. Saying something does not make it true.
Much like radio stations that now have censorship, no one is forcing anyone to use google, if you do not like them, change your service.
If you are so afraid that some data may get out there, don't use it.. Roll your own servers, and provide your own stuff. Anything and everything that google does is optional to use. There are plenty of other video sites, they may not have as much as youtube, but they are out there.
The amount of money needed to keep a company like google going is huge. Hell just the other day 8 million people watched live a video online in HD for almost 3 hours. Name another site on the net that could do that kind of traffic? Gmail has almost 500 million users.
Google provides a great product, and they are unifying everything across the board, I for one love all the unification. Why fragment everything?
If google burns me, somehow, then I can go switch to other services, run a maemo phone, start developing my own stuff and there you go.
Both microsoft and apple also have similar privacy policies, so if you are going with the big 3, and have privacy concerns then you will be missing out on what is going on in the world today.
It's too bad people can't opt out of the intrusive data collection and privacy invasion schemes of the European governments. Frankly, I greatly prefer Google having my private data than the German or French government.
I don't like Google tying together all these services. I think it is a privacy nightmare and it's risky too. For example, if your Google account gets disabled because of a blog post, you lose access to all your Android apps and Google movies. But you know what? You have a choice.
The sooner people realize this, the better, because that means it keeps alternative services viable. And there still are plenty of alternatives to every service Google offers.
But we don't need European "privacy regulators". Slaps on the fingers of companies like this are thoroughly ineffective in terms of protecting your privacy. And if European privacy regulators succeed in legitimizing the single-service-for-everything, we are worse off, because terms of service don't protect you from criminal or governmental misuse of your aggregated data.
He points out that they've been buying Facebook friends networks, and so on.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/15/vote_stalkers_obama_romney_campaigns_mine
Look at what the Koch brothers are up to, they're telling their employees that if they vote Romney it will risk their jobs. If Koch can buy your Facebook data, or Google data then they can know how you vote. There is considerable danger in letting companies be so free and easy with your data.
Perhaps you're Republicans, and are OK with Koch doing it? Well what if a supporter of Obama did it to Republican voters??
We have had law about privacy and IT and database for about as long as it started to become a phenomenon, I think back in the 80ies. For example you may not in certain circumstance do a join on database, or have races, skin color, religion, political affiliation, or whatnot mentioned in some database (I don't recall exactly when it is allowed, but you can take for granted that in a commercial database it is msotly not allowed). There is something similar on EU level.
That you in the US (or any other country) don't care that you are the "product" is your problem. but if google want to have a commercial presence in EU it better respect our privacy laws. And No it is not YOUR responsibility to use different usernames, it is google responsibility to respect law and not join DB.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I only remember one where the result was, that yes, playing violent video games increases your aggressivity. The effect in size was comparable to drinking a pot of coffee.
They can do that. If Google does not play by their rules, they can put penalties on Google or even exclude Google from doing business in the EU. Sure, Google can still do business in other legislations, but no revenue will come to them from the EU.
"There is a cookie for anti-DoS purposes"
You gave yourselves permission to link that cookie to other data. You say, its to continue providing service while a DOS attack is in progress (from my IP presumably, since you'd know by IP address where the queries are from). Why wouldn't you issue the cookie only if there was a DOS attack from my IP and you'd asked me to fill in a captcha?
Understand this, having misused my data, having changed the privacy agreement between you and me, you DON'T GET TO BE THE GOOD GUYS. You don't get to say (in essence) "trust us because [technical reason] we promise not to misuse the system", because having done a Facebook you don't get trust by default. The argument will never be now if [technical reason] is the best solution because you changed your privacy agreement, it will be if there's a [technical reason] that doesn't involve sending you data then your [technical reason] is now [technical excuse].
"And let's face it - the anti-phishing system is designed to frustrate criminals, the kind of people who wouldn't hesitate to use DDoS attacks against a blacklisting service"
I've turned it off. I saw the volume of connections from Firefox to your servers was frequent.
I didn't like what I saw. I'd been told this was just a hash table from Google, I imagined a hash table with daily updates, I imagined Firefox trying different components of the URL and the table containing a hash at the level of trust, and flagging it to me if there was a match for that domain, that folder, that url. Yet no, it's a systems that hands Google a lot of data. A [technical reason] where other [technical reason]s would achieve the same result yet not hand you data.
Cyber criminals phishing for my data is almost non existent, I've never had a correct report from that service, yet its been sending data to Google all the time. I turned it off, I've stopped the biggest case of data phishing.
"If there was no partial server-side matching you could defeat the blocklist by simply using random filenames"
And you can't think of any other approach? Seriously? You can't think of an approach that doesn't require URL analysis of any url on Google server, at Googles request?
As I said, I'm extracting myself from Google services one by one.
You wake up in the morning and turn on your bedroom light; the lady across the street knows when you woke up.
You pull out of the driveway to go to work; your neighbor knows when you left for work.
The cop on the corner sees you drive by; that policeman knows what route you took to work.
The guard at your office sees you pull in; he knows when you got to work.
The postman reads your envolopes, and knows who is writing letters to you.
The waitress at the cofffee shop knows what you ordered for lunch.
On the way home you stop at 7/11; the clerk knows what you bought.
You watch TV in the evning, and the cable service knows what you watched.
You turn out the light at night, and go to bed; the lady across the street know when you slept.
Normal, yes? Now imagine that all of those people are THE SAME PERSON. A guy in a blue suit with a white shirt and red necktie. He watches your house at night. He sees you drive to work. He takes your order in the coffee shop. He sells you stuff at 7/11. He can tell what you are watching on TV. And he writes it all down in a little notebook he has. His name is "Google".
Are you parnoid yet? I am.
Anyone who doesn't like Justin Bieber is a terrorist!
(/Snark)
Like it or not, it is not unreasonable to unify their policies. This idea to break it up again seems the wrong track, address what you don't like about the over arching policy, as presumably any new services will come under that.
It seems you're the retarded one... It's not about opting out at all and you're fucking stupid for "thinking" that. The EU wants it less of the information to be stored in general! No need to click 60 boxes or even one!
That's #1 on their list of freedoms to implement.
So you got nothing? Well done.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, that new metaphor you are offering is the bad metaphor, unless Google made some commitment not only as to the current terms, but explicitly limiting future changes to the terms for current users.
They did. You seem to want to pretend that they agreed to prospective future terms that they never, in fact, agreed to.
Sure they can, they can issue whatever orders they want to Google but if Google is convinced that the EU lack jurisdiction someplace they can choose to ignore those orders. BUT since Google currently funnels most of it's global profits through Ireland because of the low corporate tax there life could become VERY difficult for Google if the EU decides to order that those funds be frozen which it can do since Ireland is within it's jurisdiction, it's the same as when the US govt sizes .com address from people/businesses with no presence in the US.
You Americans don't have any FREEDOM, you just replaced one oppressor(the state) with another(the corporations). Actually you have less FREEDOM than the Europeans do because EU government places restrictions on what the government can do as well as what the corporations can do.
I WANT Google sharing data between services, because that is what makes using all the products under the Google umbrella a unified experience. I LIKE that my Google+ and GMail and Drive and Calendar and Picasa YouTube accounts are all linked and I don't have to manually cross-post things all the time.
If you don't like it, then don't use Google's services. I don't see what business the EU has in this, it is not like there are not plenty of free alternatives to all of Google's services.
Opt out of the policy and don't use any of Google's services. Problem solved? Google is not a monopoly, there are a plethora of alternatives for any of their services. If you don't like their terms then they might as well take their ball and go home.