Google Fined By French Privacy Regulator

First time accepted submitter L-One-L-One writes "Following similar decisions in Spain and the Netherlands, Google was fined 150,000 euros by the French Data Protection authority today for breaching data protection legislation. This sanction follows a long inquiry triggered by Google's decision to change its privacy policy in March 2012. The authority notably considers that the new policy 'does not sufficiently inform its users of the conditions in which their personal data are processed, nor of the purposes of this processing,' and that Google combines 'all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis.' While the fine may be barely noticeable for Google, the authority requires the search giant to publish this decision on Google's French homepage, google.fr for 48 hours within the next 8 days."

Comments

seems like a weird sanction

[Trepidity]

Leaving aside the (also interesting) question of whether the law as written is a good or bad idea, the sanction doesn't seem to make any sense. Google changed its privacy policy in 2012, in a way that a French court finds doesn't comply with French law. As a result, they must 1) pay 150,000 euros; and 2) publicize a notice on google.fr for 48 hours. But after that, they can keep the offending policy? Seems like a strange law that you can just continue to ignore with a one-time sanction.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. If Google continues their, now illegal, behavior, they will face ever increasing fines and eventually criminal charges.

You did not seriously expect otherwise, did you ?

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[mythosaz]

Google should return their money to, uh, their advertising partners?

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[pavon]

Yeah that was my reaction as well. The link has slightly more information, and seems to imply that the current policy may comply with French Law, but the way the change took place did not:

On the substance of the case, the Sanctions Committee did not challenge the legitimacy of the simplification objective pursued by the company’s merging of its privacy policies.
Yet, it considers that the conditions under which this single policy is implemented are contrary to several legal requirements:

If that is true, then the change was a one time offense, and a one-time remedy is fitting. That said, I think the remedy ought to have included a "redo" of the policy change not just a fine; declare that Google's users may choose to be bound by either the old or new policy until Google enacts the change in a manner that is in compliance with the law.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[arielCo]

They were ordered in June to comply with the French Data Protection Act within three months. Specifically, to:

* Define specified and explicit purposes to allow users to understand practically the processing of their personal data;
* Inform users by application of the provisions of Article 32 of the French Data Protection Act, in particular with regard to the purposes pursued by the controller of the processing implemented;
* Define retention periods for the personal data processed that do not exceed the period necessary for the purposes for which they are collected;
* Not proceed, without legal basis, with the potentially unlimited combination of users’ data;
* Fairly collect and process passive users’ data, in particular with regard to data collected using the “Doubleclick” and “Analytics” cookies, “+1” buttons or any other Google service available on the visited page;
* Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal.

Source

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[Cochonou]

By the letter of the law, the CNIL has a very specific status: this 150 000 € fine is the maximum they can impose.
They can also impose up to 300 000 € fines in case of second offenses, so I as I understand it, Google could be fined again if they keep the offending policy. This would require a new deliberation of the CNIL. They just cannot impose a fine per day of non-compliance like a court would.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[Stuntmonkey]

Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal

Can someone please name for me a single site that obtains my consent before storing cookies in my terminal?

This is the worst kind of law: Written so that everyone is breaking it, and therefore can be selectively applied to anyone. The French regulators wanted to get some positive press at home by beating up on a big American company. Let's all wait patiently while they issue the thousands of fines to French companies violating this same law.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[Anonymous Coward]

I can name you hundreds of sites. This is a law in the Netherlands also, and every Dutch site asks for your permission. Want to try one: www.volkskrant.nl (a Dutch newepaper). Isn't it great when your government actually cares about your privacy.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[lgw]

Can someone please name for me a single site that obtains my consent before storing cookies in my terminal?

Bigcharts.com. A site that displays stock charts - you can configure the display, and when you hit "store settings" there's a pop-up explaining that they need to store a cookie for this purpose, and asking whether that would be OK.

I always found that classy. And there's no technical reason not to - just acceptance and permissiveness by the user base.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[davecb]

My company does all that as a matter of course, to meet Ontario law. Surely Google can! I mean, they're not stupid...

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[tlambert]

Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal

Can someone please name for me a single site that obtains my consent before storing cookies in my terminal?

Google doesn't ask permission to store cookies because it does not use cookies.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[herve_masson]

Can someone please name for me a single site that obtains my consent before storing cookies in my terminal?

Many sites started to do this recently (slashdot to name one), but I find this rather useless since most people have no clue about what a cookie really is. What matters is what google (and others) do with your data, speciffically with the help of 3rd party sites.

This is the worst kind of law

Yeah, you're right, let's do nothing instead... no, kidding, I find this fair and balanced, even though the fine is ridiculously low. Google think they don't have to comply local regulation, this has to be fought.

The french regulation used to have true power and has a good sense of what is ok and what is not in term of data collection and privacy. This became less and less true over time (thanks french politics) and their role is now really limited with the boom of data collection era. This sucks. We need more of this. A lot more. This has to start somewhere, and I'm hoping this is the begining of something here.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[Anonymous Coward]

Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal

Can someone please name for me a single site that obtains my consent before storing cookies in my terminal?

Slashdot?

Browsing as AC, and not choosing to click yes or no, for every page, there is a giant notice:

Your Choice Regarding Cookies on this Site
Cookies are important to the proper functioning of a site. To improve your experience, we use cookies to remember log-in details and provide secure log-in, collect statistics to optimize site functionality, and deliver content tailored to your interests. Click Agree and Proceed to accept cookies and go directly to the site or click on More Information to see detailed descriptions of the types of cookies and choose whether to accept certain cookies while on the site.

Re:seems like a weird sanction

[sjames]

The notice was the part that didn't comply. Once they post the notice, they will be in compliance.

Stupid Link

[EMG at MU]

Why does this summery link to itself?

I would expect google.fr to link to the French google homepage.

spare change in the couch

[Gothmolly]

Sergey and Brin can scrape the spare change in the couch to pay this. Why would they care?

Re:spare change in the couch

[kruach aum]

Holy shit, was there a massive scientific breakthrough at Google's anti-aging lab I missed?

no legal basis

[duranaki]

Isn't France that country where "everything is allowed, unless strictly forbidden?" I'm fine with the notion Google didn't notify people enough, but why is unifying their data between services inherently illegal?

Re:no legal basis

[bill_mcgonigle]

why is unifying their data between services inherently illegal?

Seems like a backdoor to un-approve M&A arrangements after they've happened.

"Yeah, that's fine for you to buy this other company. :wait: Oh, you can't share data from the new business unit with the rest of your company."

Re:no legal basis

[hurfy]

I was hoping for an answer also.
You agreed to give Google your data here and you agreed to give Google your info over there. That seems a legal basis to add the 2 to me.

Re:no legal basis

[X-chan]

I'm not a specialist about laws so I could be wrong, but we do have a bunch of privacy laws which states quite explicitely what you can and can't do with the data you collected. Each database containing private data must be declared to the CNIL, stating what kind of info you're gathering, for which purpose, etc. So you just can't acquire and merge a bunch of databases without any kind of justification because their combination would be a much greater threat to privacy than both databases separated.

Re:no legal basis

[duranaki]

Thanks for your comment, gave me something to look up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNIL :) I'm still unsure on the language of the complaint, but I suppose the privacy laws may specifically outlaw connecting separate databases without some legally defined justification, and Google hasn't provided a legal basis that would grant them an exclusion. Of course I'm no expert either, especially in the field of French law. I wish one of those reporters would flush out the specific violation in this area.

Re:no legal basis

[herve_masson]

This reasoning does not work (at least not everywhere)

Let's take an example. We have some corporation that provide banking and medical insurance services (and giving good prices when using both).
Are you really okay with them crossing both data to evaluate the risk with granting you a loan ? I'm not. They technically "own" both data.
I'm okay is they ASK me about my health, that's a different thing. They could event ask me the permission to read medical files as long as I can reply "no".Nobody will force me to answer this question If I don't want.

That's just an example. We may find tons like that.

I'm glad some country attempt to put some rules here. France is one of them; you have to inform regulator about what data is saved in your business, and HOW you'll use them. This is largely inefficient obviously, due to lack of power. This is what needs to be fixed.

Re:Not 'chump change'

[lgw]

Effectively France is just policing fraud as they see it. If Google isn't honestly disclosing what they do with your information, then it's legitimate to think of this under the umbrella of "fraud prevention".

I'm all for free markets with minimal regulation, but fraud prevention is absolutely a legitimate place for the government to be sticking its nose in. Just like contract enforcement, and standardization of weights and measures, you can't have a free market without a government fulfilling this role.

Re:What has payment to do with it

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfettered collection and commercial use of people's personal data can have harmful consequences. That's exactly why we got various "privacy laws", to enforce corporation to keep this usage within some decent limits and prevent too much harm being done.

Your argument "since you're not paying us we can hit you on the head with a baseball bat" doesn't hold any water. It is illegal to hit someone regardless of any contracts or payments or lack thereof.

Just a cost of doing business

[WillAffleckUW]

So long as there are no jail terms for execs, and the penalties remain (and they are) a fraction of what they made, Google will keep doing this.

Remember what it says in the Google charter: "First, Be Evil".

Re:The french are known for this kind of BS

[Sudline]

Actually there is a French Office, off course.

Ouch

[easyTree]

Someone at google HQ won't be having dessert with their lunch today.

Re:The french are known for this kind of BS

[robsku]

Yeah, I'm sure google will be storming out of france as quick as all other us:ian megacorporations are... wait, what? They aren't... well, boo-hoo.

Re:Not 'chump change'

[robsku]

Wow, yeah, I'm sure there are thousands of french marching on the streets for having their freedom taken away just as I'm sure that french government has these laws passed for selfish gain for politicians and having nothing to do with people growing angry towards corporations power/policies.

Luckily google still has the option of stopping doing business in/with france and I'm sure they will be doing just that instea of informing people about their policies instead - It's not like you can freely do deals if there are pesky contract and end user/customer protection laws disturbing you're freedom to *ssrape the other party.