French Officials Say EU Will Sanction Google Over Privacy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Officials Say EU Will Sanction Google Over Privacy

Posted by samzenpus on Monday February 18, 2013 @09:47AM from the pay-up dept.

taz346 writes "French officials said on Monday that the EU intends to sanction Google after the Internet search giant failed to respond to concerns about its privacy policy. 'At the end of a four-month delay accorded to Google to comply with the European data protection directive and to implement effectively (our) recommendations, no answer has been given,' said France's CNIL data protection agency. Google's new policy, implemented in March 2012, allows it to track users over multiple sites. Users who sign in to Google services cannot opt out. CNIL said a working group would meet next week to begin work on 'coercive actions which should be implemented before the summer' against Google."

99 of 161 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Damn nanny government by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 09:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Trying to protect its citizens' privacy!
1. Re:Damn nanny government by game+kid · 2013-02-18 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  Curiously, it sometimes serves individuals better than states that do have citizens.
  
  --
  You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
2. Re:Damn nanny government by alendit · 2013-02-18 10:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union
3. Re:Damn nanny government by node+3 · 2013-02-18 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Your sarcasm was way too subtle. I suspect there are more than a few here that would agree with your statement without irony.
4. Re:Damn nanny government by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you're a citizen of a nation in the European Union, you're also a citizen of the European Union, barring special circumstances.
  Has no bearing on your scenario.
5. Re:Damn nanny government by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what's sadder. That you think this is true or that a bunch of other people have modded you +5 interesting.
  I'm sure all those EU citizens casting votes in the elections for the European Parliament, as outlined in the Maastricht Treaty, would be astonished to learn that they are imagining all of that.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
6. Re:Damn nanny government by Lapithes · 2013-02-18 10:50 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  So long as it is agreed that the term EU citizen has no bearing on my or anyone's scenario I'm fine with it as a meaningless abbreviation.
7. Re:Damn nanny government by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 10:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  As per multiple other comments, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. But don't let your ignorance of international law get in the way of your pronouncements on the matter...
  Again, since apparently you missed the first three or four times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Union
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
8. Re:Damn nanny government by Lapithes · 2013-02-18 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  In fact, it was the very meaninglessness of it that I wanted to point out in the first place.
9. Re:Damn nanny government by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  That would have worked had you not actually been factually incorrect in basic international law.
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
10. Re:Damn nanny government by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  And I'm sure that the people who voted for Mitt Romney are unhappy, but that doesn't make Obama any less the President.
  Look, basic point of fact - EU citizenship exists. It was established by one international treaty and expanded by a second. It has been interpreted and acknowledged extensively by international courts, and your apparent inability to comprehend that doesn't actually change that.
  Multiple citizenship is a common enough thing - plenty of people have two or three citizenships. Everyone who is a citizen of an EU country is also a citizen of the EU. Explicitly.
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
11. Re:Damn nanny government by Lapithes · 2013-02-18 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, democracy made Obama President, yet the EU constitution was democratically rejected by at least some of the peoples you call EU citizens. Thanks for making my point.
12. Re:Damn nanny government by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Plus, of course, the Treaty of Maastricht was ratified by popular referendum in the countries of the EU. It was more or less popular in various countries, but it was democratically ratified. Not sure what you think it undemocratic about that.
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
13. Re:Damn nanny government by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Look. Clearly you have no concept of what you are talking about.
  The treaty that established EU citizenship was democratically ratified by democratic vote in the countries of the EU in 1992 and 1993. It was DEMOCRATICALLY adopted according to the laws of all the countries involved.
  The rejection of the European Constitution (note - NOT the EU Constitution) in 2005 by a couple of EU countries was an entirely different thing, that had nothing to do with EU citizenship, and which did not actually change the fact that EU citizenship had already existed for over a decade.
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
14. Re:Damn nanny government by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  Clearly you are a moron.
  Citizenship is a legal term. It has legal meaning. You don't get to just make up your own bullshit definition.
  International law recognizes the existence of EU citizenship. That fact that you don't just means you don't actually know what the word citizenship means.
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
15. Re:Damn nanny government by Lapithes · 2013-02-18 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  You think citizenship means the right to vote in European election etc. all those things listen in that wikipedia article; I think citizenship means belonging to a state that is governed the way its people wants it to be governed. If you can't see this difference I don't know where to go with this.
16. Re:Damn nanny government by Lapithes · 2013-02-18 11:34 · Score: 1
  
  I feel so sad reading what you say, because it is clear you have never thought a thought of your own.
17. Re:Damn nanny government by Lapithes · 2013-02-18 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  Which were then ignored (the European Constitution ones).
18. Re:Damn nanny government by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody is a citizen of a government. They're citizens of countries, or cities, or empires, or other geographically-defined legal entities which are governed by a certain body of law.
  The fact that such an entity usually has a government, which may or may not be democratic, is beside the point.
  In practice, the usual rule is that any government that can make its word stick is considered 'legitimate', because anyone who wants to do anything with those citizens has to acknowledge that government. Again, whether it's 'democratic' or not has no bearing on anything - it's just the way things are. If you want to do business in China, you have no choice but to acknowledge and accommodate Chinese law and the rulings of the Chinese government, no matter what your personal opinion of them.
19. Re:Damn nanny government by Your.Master · 2013-02-18 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Words mean things. It has nothing to do with whether you think independently. It has to do with whether you communicate effectively.
  You have invented your own deviant definition of citizen but, appropriately, it has been democratically rejected.
20. Re:Damn nanny government by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I call you my subject will you accept me as king? Would it be alright if others did business with me as if I were your king even if you don't accept me as such?
  You've been called off and shown to be wrong, so instead you double down. And triple down. And continue to find excuses to make it appear as if you were right. People like you are responsible for every single thing that human beings do wrong. Literally every stupid or malevolent decision made by any human can be traced back to the feeling of superiority to everyone else you're demonstrating and/or a complete disregard for any evidence given to the contrary of your beliefs, which you're also demonstrating in abundance. Take a step to become a better man today, read what I have to say below and admit you're fucking wrong.
  The European Union is pretty much like the United States. We're all citizens of our individual states. I'm a citizen of South Carolina, for example. The states formed an union. As a result, I'm also a citizen of the United States.
  The European Union is a governing body. It has a parliament elected by its citizens through a form of proportional representation to be decided by the member states. It has a common currency. Members of different member states can move and work in any other member state...passports issued by member nations of the European Union have the words "European Union" written in the cover.
  The European Union has citizens, they're properly represented, and you're an idiot.
21. Re:Damn nanny government by Luckyo · 2013-02-18 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  EU is a union of states, therefore all citizens of EU countries are EU citizens.
  Additionally EU has its own power structures, some of which are elected by state governments, which in turn are elected by citizens of each country and some are elected directly by EU citizens.
22. Re: Damn nanny government by John+Courtland · 2013-02-18 14:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not an ad homenim if you really are a fucking idiot.
  
  --
  Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
23. Re:Damn nanny government by davester666 · 2013-02-18 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Some even have citizens that are human.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
24. Re:Damn nanny government by Lord+Lode · 2013-02-18 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Do you actually live in the EU?
LOzzz!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 09:53 · Score: 1

Eat it up, Fandroids. They're stealing your data for their profits!!!
1. Re:LOzzz!!! by Qwavel · 2013-02-18 10:21 · Score: 3
  
  Sadly, that is the level of discourse common amongst fanbois of any camp. (I refer to the post I'm replying to.)
  The summary isn't much better: the article accurately says that Google wants to consolidate user data across Google's "services", into "track users over multiple sites" which is quite different and not relevant to this issue.
  Personally, I get annoyed at how often I have to re-enter data across the various Google services, because the different services aren't allowed to share data. I'm not attributing altruism to Google's change, but it still seems like progress to me.
  I also don't appreciate the fact that they have many, complicated privacy policies, and I really appreciate the fact that this change reduces them all to one, much simpler, policy.
2. Re:LOzzz!!! by Angua · 2013-02-18 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I get annoyed at how often I have to re-enter data across the various Google services, because the different services aren't allowed to share data.
  I understand and appreciate your point, also the one about simplified privacy policy. But for me, it's the other way around. It freaks me out when I go from one site to another and my personal info follows me. I wouldn't mind so much if there was an opt out, but apparently there isn't.
  
  --
  I am not a vegetarian werewolf.
3. Re:LOzzz!!! by Qwavel · 2013-02-18 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, I think the lack of an opt-out is one of the issues. Practically, that would mean that Google would have two maintain two versions of their software - potentially another version for each country that rejects future changes. And their external systems, like Android, would need to be able to work with each different version. That sounds like a nightmare to me.
  I tend to think of privacy in terms of companies: if Google knows something then I expect them to know it everywhere, but not sell it or leak it to anyone else.
  If the distinction is finer then site: within the various services of the companies, it's tricky to know where the line is drawn because individual services are not always clearly divided and I think Google must make theirs more integrated if they are to move forward.
4. Re:LOzzz!!! by Luckyo · 2013-02-18 13:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Issue is that privacy laws are set based on two things:
  1. Cultural expectations of privacy in the region.
  2. Attempts at circumventing aforementioned expectations for various reasons such as profit.
  Issue is that nothing like google existed when current laws were drafted. It does now and it's in a clear and direct opposition with 1. in EU. This means that privacy watchdogs will either have to find applicable laws that will be interpreted in a way that fits 1. and goes against what google does (and many laws in these areas are often drafted specifically to allow for this by executive organs without forcing legislation changes) or they will push new legislation to specifically outlaw what google is currently doing.
  The conflict was pretty obvious even with old google services, but it was viewed as a tolerable one. When google unified its services, pretty much every privacy watchdog across the continent red flagged the changes and made inquiries to google as to what it intends to do to resolve this conflict. Google did the (apparently) stupid thing by going with "we're too big to care, fuck off" answer of "we're withing the scope of law". A really stupid answer when you're talking to organisations that have power to both interpret laws as well as wield heavy influence in legislative process through being specialists in their respective field that is essentially consulted and relied upon to maintain privacy rules.
  I don't see a good outcome for google unless they intend to spend a lot of effort lobbying hard. Considering that I doubt stupidity being the thing behind decision here, as there are plenty of smart people at google, it's likely that google is hoping to push for paradigm shift and is going all-in.
  This obviously means that if it loses, it stands to lose a lot.
5. Re:LOzzz!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that Google's only getting into trouble because they're the most transparent company out there? People are idiots, even those in governments.
  I mean, think about it: the article even states that you HAVE TO LOG IN. If you don't ... guess what? They can't track you! If I had a problem with my privacy and Google (even with an Android device)... I just wouldn't log in, and find equivalents to Google services elsewhere. That's right - even on Nexus devices, you can completely opt out of Google services *AND* the replacement services can be *SEAMLESS* with 2 clicks. For example, a replacement GPS navigation application would take the address from any service requesting it (like clicking on an a contacts' address) would open the replacement GPS application.
  Compare this to (presumably your camp) APL: You *MUST* have an account to even activate the phone. Their i Ads platform provides EXACTLY the same services Google provides. Your Location based ads opt-out is not even on the device, but on a website. As most Gmaps iUsers are finding out, just having a Gmaps app is extremely inconvenient because all address requests can only be handled by ... you guessed it... APL maps! There's no option to switch!
  So I lol'd at this article.
strange by Trepidity · 2013-02-18 09:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

Google has a large legal team, so I assume not responding is deliberate, rather than because they forgot or just couldn't think of what to respond with.

--
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
1. Re:strange by Cley+Faye · 2013-02-18 10:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The CNIL (a French agency checking privacy issues on internet) is almost powerless: they can barely "suggest" stuff to be done, maybe, once every new moon, even on France-only related issues. They can't propose laws or impose anything on anyone. I believe google is well aware of their power and responded adequatly :-)
  
  Not saying that nothing should be done on the issue, but it won't work at such a small scale.
2. Re:strange by Trepidity · 2013-02-18 10:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Ah it looks like you're right, at least in terms of any serious sanctions. They do have the authority to impose fines, but the fine amounts look so small I assume Google just doesn't care. In fact, from what I can find, Google currently holds the record for a CNIL fine: in 2011 they were fined 100,000 Euros over wifi data that was recorded by Google Street View cars. They didn't bother to send any response to the inquiry that time, either.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
3. Re:strange by mdielmann · 2013-02-18 13:12 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like Google has good lawyers. "To be honest, you'll spend more defending yourself against these guys than they'll ever fine you for. Your best bet is to assign someone in AP to pay this off as close to the deadline as possible, so that you can at least save the interest. Now, on to something that's actually important..."
  
  --
  Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
4. Re:strange by Luckyo · 2013-02-18 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't just about France. The problem is that this issue has been raised across the continent. Individual organisations are fairly weak because they're built to deal with things like magazines violating privacy of individual citizens.
  However when they all push together, this is bound to start biting google hard, because a pan-european effort will get both to EU parliament as well as commission. And that means new legislative packages, even more ammunition for competition commissioner and in worst case scenario can push EU commission to draft and parliament to approve a directive that will specifically outlaw what google is doing on pan-European level.
  Google looks to be playing chicken here. And it stands to win a lot if it wins, but it also stands to lose a lot of it loses.
5. Re:strange by Seeteufel · 2013-02-18 14:08 · Score: 1
  
  You are wrong here, they are a member of the Article 29 group.
6. Re:strange by rtb61 · 2013-02-18 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  Google is simply being targeted as the largest. Working out this internet privacy thing is still new to them, the law makers are testing things out, checking for public approval, seeing how deep the rules need to be and how structured enforcing of the rules need to be. Even checking size of companies to which it needs to be applied. Google can dick around with arrogance and lawyers all it wants, it will most certainly get caught up in rapidly escalating fines and then start driving prison sentences to be enforced. They are currently offending the law makers and generating long term hostility. This is still early days in legislation catching up to privacy abuses and manipulation.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
7. Re:strange by Tough+Love · 2013-02-18 18:35 · Score: 1
  
  Google has a large legal team, so I assume not responding is deliberate, rather than because they forgot or just couldn't think of what to respond with.
  Sure, you assume that, and I will assume it's just more hubris.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Fuck yeah by AmiMoJo · 2013-02-18 10:05 · Score: 1

Our government works for us, not the corporations who want to turn our private lives into profit.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
1. Re:Fuck yeah by Cley+Faye · 2013-02-18 10:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  but you don't understand, peoples *have* to use google. I've seen it, if you don't use google's services, someone come at your house, put a loaded gun on the side of your head, and whisper softly in your ear "would you kindly log yourself into our services?".
  Or maybe not, my memory is fuzzy on the details.
2. Re:Fuck yeah by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 10:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you have a trouble with how Google tracks you, why would you object to the suggestion that you not use Google?
  Oh wait, wanting stuff for free is the thing I'd expect a European to say.
  See what I did there?
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
3. Re:Fuck yeah by node+3 · 2013-02-18 10:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Visiting almost any site on the web means you are using Google. Google Analytics, Ads, and blogging platforms... This isn't some optional service that you can simply choose not to use, like Dropbox or MS Office.
  Your argument is, practically speaking, like saying, "don't like lead pollution in the air from gasoline? just don't breath in the lead particles."
4. Re:Fuck yeah by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 10:45 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize that none of the services you mention actually collect any information about you beyond what your browser delivers to every website you visit. Unless, of course, you are logged in to a Google account... Which is the point.
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
5. Re:Fuck yeah by Bing+Tsher+E · 2013-02-18 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. I use an Android tablet a lot these days. But I almost excessively run Firefox these days. Every once in a while I load YouTube to make sure FF is still not logged into the Googleplex.
6. Re:Fuck yeah by toutankh · 2013-02-18 11:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Especially when said corporations are not European and not government. France has no problem amassing ridiculous amounts of data (of questionable quality) to use against their own citizens, here is a list (only available in French unfortunately).
  Said differently: when your government does something that has a positive impact for you, it doesn't mean it's doing it for you. A pessimist would argue that there likely is a higher interest at stake.
7. Re:Fuck yeah by toutankh · 2013-02-18 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Not using Google" is not enough to prevent Google from tracking you. In case you're unaware of how it works, have a look here. If you're already aware of how it works then I guess I'm just wasting my time...
8. Re:Fuck yeah by toutankh · 2013-02-18 11:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Wrong link in my comment above, here is the correct one.
9. Re:Fuck yeah by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-02-18 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Um, no it is just another government shakedown for cash.
  Given the size of fines in this sort of case, it's more like "shaking down" the couch Google was sitting in and picking up the change that fell out of its pockets.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
10. Re:Fuck yeah by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 11:25 · Score: 2
  
  You do realize that your browser reports your IP address to every website you visit, right? That's all Google Analytics gets if you aren't logged into a Google Account.
  
  --
  Life needs more saving throws.
11. Re:Fuck yeah by amicusNYCL · 2013-02-18 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  Visiting almost any site on the web means you are using Google. Google Analytics, Ads, and blogging platforms... This isn't some optional service that you can simply choose not to use, like Dropbox or MS Office.
  It's pretty trivial to block *.google-analytics.com/* if you really have a problem with Analytics or their ads. People already use things like Adblock which automatically block their ads, it's really easy to add a rule to block google-analytics.com also.
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
12. Re:Fuck yeah by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-02-18 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  Our government works for us, not the corporations who want to turn our private lives into profit.
  HADOPI? It is undeniably true that France has a distinct distaste for data-hoovering American internet companies(how much out of a genuine commitment to privacy law, and how much out of an ongoing jealous spat over the surprising lack of data-hoovering French internet companies is somewhat unclear); but damn are they ever 'helpful' when it comes to protecting those culturally-vital copyright holders...
13. Re:Fuck yeah by toutankh · 2013-02-18 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Your point was that you can always "not use Google" if you decide to. All I'm saying is that this is not true: when you browse a site that is not affiliated to Google but is using Google Analytics, which is quite common, then your data is gathered by Google. So you cannot simply "not use Google": even if you don't have a Google account and if you never use any service by Google, they still gather data about you, your browsing history, etc. By the way I don't know about the US but here in Europe I do most of my browsing from a few fixed IP addresses, so tracking is very easy.
  And yes, I am aware that every website I browse knows my IP address, but Google knows everywhere I go, that's a whole different thing. Even if I'm not logged in. That's actually how they make a profit you know, targeted ads and stuff. In other words what you said is wrong: you cannot easily opt out from being tracked by Google, and it is important for them to track you as much as they can, whether you like it or not. Some people might even argue that being able to opt out is not enough, and that it should be opt-in.
14. Re:Fuck yeah by node+3 · 2013-02-18 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not trivial at all. The people for whom it *is* trivial are themselves a trivial portion of the public at large. Government regulations aren't there to protect those that are able to fend for themselves, but for those that can't.
15. Re:Fuck yeah by node+3 · 2013-02-18 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  However, you can choose to use the internet without google services.
  No, you can't. Not reasonably so. You can use it without using a Google login, though you might find some limitations on various sites and services.
16. Re:Fuck yeah by node+3 · 2013-02-18 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that none of the services you mention actually collect any information about you beyond what your browser delivers to every website you visit.
  Does that change anything? All you've really said is that Google doesn't steal the information.
  
  Unless, of course, you are logged in to a Google account... Which is the point.
  It's not so binary. If Amazon knows everything I do on amazon.com (without an account, so it's mostly anonymous), Google knows everything I do all over the web. It's just not tied to my name, though I suspect there's plenty of data in there by which they could reasonably name a lot of "anonymous" users.
  But then you sign in once. Why? You bought an Android phone, you want to save YouTube videos, you want to post on a blogger site, you want to buy something online. The problem is that Google's reach is too far and broad, and you truly can't avoid dealing with them on the Internet.
  That doesn't mean Google can't offer the services they offer, just that given the scope of their power, safeguard may be warranted.
17. Re:Fuck yeah by Luckyo · 2013-02-18 13:33 · Score: 1
  
  You're running a "you don't have to care about paparazzi looking through your windows because you can always hire security guards to block them from your home".
  Doesn't work that way in EU. Private citizens have a certain expectation of privacy that they do not need to actively enforce themselves.
18. Re:Fuck yeah by node+3 · 2013-02-18 19:51 · Score: 1
  
  There's absolutely nothing stopping me from NOT signing in to Google, or even removing the Google account from my Galaxy Nexus. I will have a fully functional phone / portable computer, and I can select Amazon as my app store, Garmin as my navigation provider, etc.
  That's not true, there's plenty stopping you. What is true is that you can, with not trivial effort, completely avoid signing into Google.
  And that only gets you so far. You still have to use Google as per the wishes of others, or forego the Internet altogether. Even with all the adblocking plugings, hosts file settings, and other tricks, you'll still hit Google dozens of times per hour without ever going to a Google site or service directly.
19. Re:Fuck yeah by node+3 · 2013-02-18 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  Can what? You can go to a Blogger site without going through Google? You can go to a site with Google ads and analytics, without Google knowing? You can send mail to someone with a Gmail address, without sending the mail to Google? You can call or text a Google Voice number without Google storing your communication?
  You've just listed alternatives to Google's major products (sans Blogger, Picasa, etc., which you can't avoid without avoiding interacting with others). Google's reach is far deeper than that. And though you can block some of this through plugins and editing hosts files, that's a lot of effort (especially for most people) and won't even be all that thorough.
20. Re:Fuck yeah by node+3 · 2013-02-18 19:59 · Score: 1
  
  None of these things are unreasonable. It makes navigating the internet a little less convenient, but that is what you sacrifice if you don't want to browse without having google sniffing your every move. People need to stop pretending to be helpless.
  That's complete rubbish. Most people are helpless here. 99+% of people have no comprehension whatsoever about how these things work. They are helpless not solely because the task is impossible, but fundamentally because they lack the understanding necessary to help themselves.
  And even with that knowledge, you can't do it all. How are you going to go to a Blogger site, view a YouTube video, view a friend's vacation photos on Picasa, etc., without Google knowing?
  No, it's wholly unreasonable that each and every person need become a tech god just to keep Google from building a profile on them.
21. Re:Fuck yeah by Luckyo · 2013-02-19 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'd rather cheer for liberty then stupidity of your level if that's what you got out of my post.
I bet google's plan by ozduo · 2013-02-18 10:06 · Score: 2

is to purchase the EU and destroy all their Apple and Microsoft products , then the rest of the world is next!

--
I got to the chocolate box before you, that's why the hard ones have teeth marks.
The stageplay of the EU by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 10:10 · Score: 2, Informative

The EU is funding INDECT which will have automated scanning of all online communications.
But it will obviously only be used for detecting "child pornography" and "organ trafficking".
As in, you search through the online communications and profiles of every citizen in the EU to detect and expose organ trafficking, the major issue facing the EU right now.
What Sanctions Can They Impose? by Koreantoast · 2013-02-18 10:18 · Score: 1

So I'm curious, what other possible sanctions can they impose on Google? Clearly they'll begin with some sort of fine, but are there other actions that they may take, and if so, what?
1. Re:What Sanctions Can They Impose? by theVarangian · 2013-02-18 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  So I'm curious, what other possible sanctions can they impose on Google? Clearly they'll begin with some sort of fine, but are there other actions that they may take, and if so, what?
  I'm no expert in international politics but I'll take a jab at it.... The EU is a unified market area of over 500 million 1st world consumers. Google is not going to want pass up on an opportunity to make money in a place like that. If Google want's to make money in the EU it has to either have a presence somewhere in the EU or by some other means funnel cash from customers in the EU to wherever Google's favourite tax havens are at the moment. That gives the EU a way to make life hard for Google and also a motivation to make life rather easy for Google's competitors. For example, at the moment Google is, AFAIK, doing most of it's tax dodging in the EU via the Irish Republic. The EU has the Irish by the balls because of the 2008 financial crisis and all the EU commission has to do to make life unpleasant for Google is squeeze since it'll be hard for them to find another EU country willing to take Ireland's place knowing that the instant they invite Google in, the EU commission will be knocking on their door.
2. Re:What Sanctions Can They Impose? by fustakrakich · 2013-02-18 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  They can seize assets, such as patents and copyrights and put them in the public domain.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
EU should really get their priorities straight by ccguy · 2013-02-18 10:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously, EU, you should go after PayPal first. They are doing whatever the fuck they want over here.
1. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by node+3 · 2013-02-18 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME PLZ1!11
  ???
  Besides, PayPal is sufficiently optional across the entire web with very few exceptions (beyond eBay, I'm not sure of anything of note that requires PayPal).
2. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-02-18 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  ONLY ONE THING AT A TIME PLZ1!11
  ???
  Besides, PayPal is sufficiently optional across the entire web with very few exceptions (beyond eBay, I'm not sure of anything of note that requires PayPal).
  Organizations and firms that require PayPal to conduct business with you aren't as rare as you might think. Or as rare as I used to think. This past year, I've dealt with 3. In two of those cases, I went ahead and did the deal. The third had viable non-PayPal-requiring alternatives. None were any sort of eBay (or auction) thing at all.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
3. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by ccguy · 2013-02-18 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, PayPal is sufficiently optional across the entire web with very few exceptions (beyond eBay, I'm not sure of anything of note that requires PayPal).
  Try starting a online business in Europe. There's no google checkout or amazon payments, all paypal competitors seem as sketchy as paypal or worse, and the online payment solutions offered by traditional banks are an absolute joke.
4. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-18 12:00 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  PayPal is a bank, based in Luxemburg, in the EU, with all the rules and regulations that entails. You Americans should do follow suit.
5. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by node+3 · 2013-02-18 13:04 · Score: 1
  
  Three over the course of a whole year? And one of them had an alternative?
  How does that remotely compare to Google? I'd be surprised if the average user doesn't feed Google data any less than three times *per hour* on average, not a paltry thrice per year.
6. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by node+3 · 2013-02-18 13:06 · Score: 1
  
  Even if *all* online small business purchases went through PayPal in Europe, that's still less impact that Google has on user's daily lives. And, besides, it's not like only one service can be addressed at a time.
7. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by Richard_at_work · 2013-02-19 00:07 · Score: 1
  
  They also report to the FSA for all activities in the UK, just like any other financial services company.
8. Re:EU should really get their priorities straight by Cedarbridge · 2013-02-21 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  So, why would it be a reasonable solution to that "problem" to hamstring the one setup that is better than the others because all the alternatives are awful? Perhaps you should look into making online transactions more viable across the spectrum instead of begging upset at Paypal for being the most evil but also the only functional online transaction service you have access too.
Re:I can see .. by gl4ss · 2013-02-18 10:34 · Score: 1

Google just closing up shop in EU countries.. no more buildings owned or leased by Google and no more people employed by Google in the EU....
there are plenty other areas of the world to direct those resources towards.
yeah, right. are they going to switch to a chinese-taiwanese sandwich arrangement? and lose all their eu revenue? google isn't a charity you know.. for google it's not what they can give to eu but what they can get from eu. they're not going to pack up and leave. but they're not going to bother writing a new policy and separating their db's if not forced - it's too much work.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Yes, please by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 10:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is perhaps the single most stupid thing I've read on this topic. You admit to being an avid user of Google's services, yet you object to the "price" that they offer those services for. When you go to the grocery store, if you don't like the price of milk, do you demand that the government make the store give it to you for free?
Don't want to agree to Google's terms of use? I have a perfect solution for you - use somebody else's services.
Oh, and you're on the internet. Good luck with that fantasy of keeping your data under your absolute control...

--
Life needs more saving throws.
the French by drankr · 2013-02-18 10:39 · Score: 1

are beginning to annoy me..
Ridiculous by Maudib · 2013-02-18 10:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

No one is forced to use Google. If you don't want them to do things with your data, don't give it to them.
1. Re:Ridiculous by tlhIngan · 2013-02-18 11:08 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No one is forced to use Google. If you don't want them to do things with your data, don't give it to them.
  How?
  Avoiding Google owned properties eliminates a good chunk of the 'net - and not just obvious ones like google search, gmail, picasa, youtube, etc. The +1 buttons are everywhere, google-owned ads are everywhere (and not just adsense, we're talking about doubleclick, admob and other google-owned ad companies). Plus they have CDNs and other things like google-analytics.
  If google were to disappear tomorrow, the internet would end up horribly broken - many websites use google analytics on every link in order to track you.
  Google has literally reached a point where they are too big to fail
2. Re:Ridiculous by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-02-18 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  No one is forced to use Google. If you don't want them to do things with your data, don't give it to them.
  As with facebook, the only winning move isn't to not play, but to not exist.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
3. Re:Ridiculous by tlhIngan · 2013-02-18 11:14 · Score: 2
  
  Also, don't forget about secondary tracking. Stuff like sending an email to someone who uses Google Mail (gmail or for domains, for example). In which case Google gets to violate your privacy as you didn't really agree to any privacy policy because you don't use google services nor agreed to them.
4. Re:Ridiculous by Qwavel · 2013-02-18 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  Above I defend Google in this regard, but I think your statement goes too far. People gave Google their data under one set of privacy policies, now Google wants to change those policies unilaterally. I happen to think that the changes are good for users and necessary for Google to move forward, but I think it is OK to question any unilateral change like this.
5. Re:Ridiculous by Hentes · 2013-02-18 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  The EU isn't a free market, if Google wants to do business here (and apparently they do like some low-tax members) it has to obey EU laws. Consumer protection is a well established form of regulation.
  Now you are not forced to give Google your data, even if you use their services, as it's possible to opt out from tracking. This could probably have saved Google had they bothered to actually defend themselves.
6. Re:Ridiculous by sg_oneill · 2013-02-18 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Actually thats sort of what this is about. People are being forced to use it by all the covert web tracking.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
7. Re:Ridiculous by Maudib · 2013-02-18 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  No one is forced to use anything. People voluntarily make requests to and pass information to web servers. The very act of doing so should considered consent unless there is an explicit agreement stipulating use.
8. Re:Ridiculous by houghi · 2013-02-19 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody is forcing Google to do business in Europe.
  If they are unwilling to follow the law, then don't do business there.
  If they are unable to follow the law, then don't do business there.
  Imagine if the European brewers would start giving beer tastings to people between the age of 18 to 21 saying: hey, we don't force it up onto them and we do the same in e.g. Belgium in the supermarkets.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:WTF? by Grashnak · 2013-02-18 10:41 · Score: 1

I believe the Trade Federation is still reeling from that Naboo fiasco and unable to fulfill its obligations.

--
Life needs more saving throws.
I wonder... by Greyfox · 2013-02-18 11:09 · Score: 1

I wonder what would happen if Google just turned a country off. Just boom, no Google for you. No Google, no Gmail, no Youtube. I wonder if it'd make a noticeable impact on a GNP. Of course, Youtube and Google's other functionality might balance themselves out in terms of productivity gained or lost, so it might be a wash. At least, once the rioting quieted down.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:I wonder... by Maudib · 2013-02-18 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  The French government would love this. I'm sure that at it's root their objection to Google is that its not French. Remember that god awful Parisian municipal network that was pushed by government but no one used?
Re:Calling APK, APK to the service phone by node+3 · 2013-02-18 13:00 · Score: 1

There are a number of ways that you can make sure you don't use any google services while still using the web.
Not reasonably so. Such regulations, should they be warranted, aren't to protect the small portion of people who *can* skirt Google, but for the vast majority of people who *can't*.

I don't remember them all, but I am sure APK could help you.
I've long since given up giving a shit, mostly because there's nothing you can do about it beyond being some sort of nerd hermit like Stallman. Fuck that.
But some sort of regulatory oversight might be able to give me (and billions of others) back some of my privacy. I can't see how that's a bad thing. No one's talking about shutting Google down.
Reminds me of "The Holy Grail" by Virtucon · 2013-02-18 13:55 · Score: 1

"I fart in your general direction!"
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!"
All they want is money out of Google. They can't tax the "services" that are provided, so they'll some how figure out how to extort money. I don't discount their arguments however this is France talking, not the EU, so I'd like to see what the EU bureacracy has to say about the Privacy concerns with Google services. Strange though, I don't see them going after Facebook yet... woops, they already have. http://marketingland.com/france-wants-to-tax-facebook-google-personal-data-collection-31196

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
1. Re:Reminds me of "The Holy Grail" by cheros · 2013-02-18 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  All they want is money out of Google
  I think they are starting from the position that Google knows damn well what the EU privacy laws look like, they have now been caught AGAIN at ignoring them and they have had plenty of time to formulate *any* kind of answer ranging from apology and compliance to at least engaging in discussion on how to solve the issue. Instead, they have calmly ignored a letter sent to them in name of 27 separate countries, meanwhile collecting even more income from what in some cases is flat out illegal activity under EU law.
  The result is that the EU will now act, for two reasons. First of all, the law is the law, and if Google thinks it's too big and important to comply I would only like to point at what happened with Microsoft. Secondly, the Art 29 Working Group represents 29 countries, and none of them could progress any complaints until there was clarity about this privacy policy. This means there was a lot of other trouble backed up behind this issue, so by acting, the commission is now allowing those later complaints to become active.
  Google is being *very* stupid IMHO, but that may be because they make the same mistake as other US companies by considering the EU as just another version of the US, but with more languages (which also explains their attempts at lobbying themselves out of this situation). That may emerge to be a VERY costly mistake, and Google has wasted the time it had since the 16th of October - now they will have to deal with a commission as well as 27 separate countries all keen to prove they are not US annexes..
  
  --
  Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
2. Re:Reminds me of "The Holy Grail" by Virtucon · 2013-02-19 01:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well Google has a big team of lawyers who probably recommended that they don't say anything at this point because the bigger EU fines would probably supersede whatever France decides to do anyway. I don't think it's thumbing their noses at the French but in general, that's usually what most legal advice entails, wait and see then argue in court later.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
3. Re:Reminds me of "The Holy Grail" by Xest · 2013-02-19 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, companies like Google have been saying it's morally right that if they can avoid tax in countries like France that they should, and they've simply pay next to no taxes there.
  The flip side of that is it means that if governments like the government of France feel it's morally right that companies do pay taxes for things like privacy intrusion, then they also have an equal right to do that.
  Or in other words, perhaps if companies like Google didn't dodge taxes in the first place and paid what it was always intended that they owe (whatever the going corporation tax rate is) then they wouldn't make themselves such targets. They can't on one hand openly claim they're doing the right thing by playing the system, and then complain and cry foul when the system plays them. It's a two way street.
4. Re:Reminds me of "The Holy Grail" by Virtucon · 2013-02-19 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well that's the crux of the matter then. Is it a revenue or a privacy thing? I think it's hypocritical and corrupt to say that you're going after somebody because of Privacy issues but you're willing to let it slide if you just pay a small amount of your revenue to have the problem overlooked.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
You want 'coercive action' that works? by fustakrakich · 2013-02-18 14:47 · Score: 2

Hey, that's a nice patent/copyright portfolio you got there. Would be a shame if anything happened to it...

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I love how the EU has a debt crisis and suddenly.. by BlueKitties · 2013-02-18 17:46 · Score: 1

They find ways to make billions of dollars off of foreign companies. I bet all of you my hat, big record penalties are going to be imposed. Just in time to fund some bailouts (how lucky!)

--
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Re:Yes, please by houghi · 2013-02-19 05:38 · Score: 1

If the store where I buy my milk breaks the law, I would expect them to be punished and fined. This has nothing to do what I think of the price of their milk or if I even buy at that store.
Google is breaking the law. They should get out and stop doing business even with those who are willing to do business with them until they stop breaking the law.
Even if I have a contract with them and I am completely agree with what they do with my data, they STILL are breaking the law.
Now you can think that the law is stupid. Or you can think that the law is unjust. That still does not change the fact that they are breaking the law.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.