EU Gives Google Privacy Policy Suggestions About Data Protection

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Gives Google Privacy Policy Suggestions About Data Protection

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday September 28, 2014 @06:03PM from the do-it-this-way dept.

itwbennett writes In a letter to Google (PDF) that was published Thursday, the Article 29 Working Party, an umbrella group for European data protection authorities, said Google's privacy policy, in addition to being clear and unambiguous, should also include an exhaustive list of the types of personal data processed. But if all that information is overwhelming to users, Google should personalize the privacy policy to show users only the data processing it is performing on their data.

42 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Expect the Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 18:06 · Score: 0, Funny

to rebuff this suggestion with violence. They hate it when other countries attack the companies that they control.
1. Re:Expect the Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 18:37 · Score: 0
  
  WTF are you talking about? Most US corporations give about equally to Republicans and Democrats. Google is distinguished by having supported Democrats and Obama almost exclusively.
2. Re:Expect the Republicans... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:21 · Score: 0
  
  He's an anti-republican troll. He regularly posts nonsense and lies.
Personalized privacy policies? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 18:13 · Score: 0

"Google should personalize the privacy policy to show users only the data processing it is performing on their data."
13. Shared data. The subscriber agrees by uploading personal data to Google cloud that any dick pics are both hackable and for sale to the highest bidder.
1. Re:Personalized privacy policies? by BarbaraHudson · 2014-09-28 18:22 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "Google should personalize the privacy policy to show users only the data processing it is performing on their data."
  13. Shared data. The subscriber agrees by uploading personal data to Google cloud that any dick pics are both hackable and for sale to the highest bidder.
  And guys will want to show that theirs is "bigger and better", so they'll bid on their own pics rather than having them sit there for one tenth of a cent. Google can make a fortune by having shill bids bump the price up. I'm sure they'd be able to develop algorithms that would bring the biggest yields.
  Or they can go the "social media" route. "George, your friend Harry just received a bid of $50.00. Your current high is ten cents. Would you like to put a reserve bid on your pic? Suggested amounts are $50, $100, or [ENTER AMOUNT HERE].
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:Personalized privacy policies? by Errol+backfiring · 2014-09-28 20:22 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  13. Shared data. anyone lured to our servers agrees by uploading personal data to Google cloud that any dick pics are both hackable and for sale to the highest bidder.
  There, fixed that for you. You don't have to be a subscriber to be stalked by Google. There's no consent. Google is the major company that made internet browsing without adblockers downright impossible.
  
  --
  Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
3. Re:Personalized privacy policies? by davester666 · 2014-09-29 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  and by "highest bidder", you mean "everyone who bids, pays the amount they bid and receives the pictures"
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
BOYCOTT SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 18:38 · Score: 1, Interesting

Until ads that randomly play sound are removed!
Slashdot has started adding these ads that randomly play very loud sound. It violates sensible netiquette. Accidentally leaving a slashdot window open causes your computer to make a noise randomly at night, in a meeting, etc.
Unfortunately, this isn't going to change until it affects their revenue. Boycott slashdot until these ads are gone!!
1. Re:BOYCOTT SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 19:03 · Score: 0
  
  You read slashdot and you don't use adblock plus?
2. Re:BOYCOTT SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 19:07 · Score: 1
  
  Noscript. There is very few legit reasons for a webpage to pull in and run third party scripts, it's just a security risk.
  A few serve content from another domain for load distribution, but they are few enough to whitelist.
  If page owners want me to see their ads they'd better server them themselves and make sure that the ads doesn't contain anything malicious.
  The reason they don't right now is because of the lack of trust between the advertiser and the page owner, yet they expect me to trust them both.
3. Re:BOYCOTT SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 19:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Regardless of whether it's internal or external. A website should NEVER play a sound without the user's permission.
  Slashdot should have the sensibility to drop the advertiser who forcibly play sound.
  The only people who are still seeing ads on Slashdot are the people who are trying to be nice. The rest already use an ad blocker. Slashdot reciprocates nice users with annoying loud ads.
4. Re:BOYCOTT SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  A website should NEVER play a sound without the user's permission.
  True, but this should be enforced at the *browser*; you can't count on every website doing the sensible thing.
  Why Chrome included an icon to display which tab is making sound instead of providing a button to *allow* it to make sound, it escapes me.
5. Re:BOYCOTT SLASHDOT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:43 · Score: 0
  
  You shouldn't patronize sites that do that to you. However, if you want to go to a site that makes a sound (say, a metronome) than the site isn't wrong, and the browser shouldn't sabotage it. If you insist on coming here, use noscript until they fix it.
Last Straw by swooshxx · 2014-09-28 18:55 · Score: 1, Interesting

The "right to be forgotten" was bad enough, but the moving target anti-trust, and now this?
The EU citizens will continue to sit on their hands until inspired to take action. They need to confront the tech-incompetent and xenophobic "authorities" they have in place now. Google should shut down their EU servers (Gmail, Maps, Translate, Music, etc) for one month, without disclosing the duration...maybe then the lazy EU citizens will start to see what kind of world their governments are creating.
1. Re:Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Don't be so naive. This isn't the result of bumbling and incompetent European politicians, this is the result of skilled lobbying by European companies. For Google to withdraw from the European market is exactly what they want to achieve; it's the only way they can compete.
2. Re:Last Straw by x0ra · 2014-09-28 19:21 · Score: 0
  
  Europeans are sheep, the few who aren't aren't in Europe anymore.
3. Re:Last Straw by Keyboard+Rage · 2014-09-28 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  One without power hungry, oppressing, totalitarian, inquisitive, spying, monopolistic corporations that think they can decide how the world works instead of democracy. The day Google gets split up is the day I (and many others) will cheer.
4. Re:Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 19:59 · Score: 0
  
  I'm impressed by the EU. The EU's data protection authority is the only government agency that is competent and has the ability to enforce.
5. Re:Last Straw by oneandoneis2 · 2014-09-28 20:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  As an EU citizen, I was delighted when the "right to be forgotten" ruling began a debate that's long overdue about online privacy. And I have no problem with the company at the absolute forefront of gathering information about individuals being told "Tell people what you're gathering, yes it's your problem to make it accessible."
  The Internet we HAVE, where all information that can be gained about a person is considered fair game, is not necessarily the one anyone actually WANTS. The EU should be applauded for insisting that actual thought be applied to what's going on instead of just allowing the endless procession of "Hey, we can do this! So we'll do it from now!"
  You can call them "tech-incompetent", but I label people with your attitude "social-phobic". The only limit on what's happened on the internet since its inception is "What's technically possible?", it's about time the people who asked "What do we want to permit?" got some room at the table.
  
  --
  So.. it has come to this
6. Re: Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:57 · Score: 0
  
  A Nazi, I see.
7. Re: Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 21:16 · Score: 1
  
  No, the Nazis are those who collect information and build files on people out of it for future use. This year it is targeted advertising, next year it is selective pricing, and at some point in time the government dips into the data, likes it and then it gets real ugly real fast. You can see a fast forward in Putin's Russia.
8. Re:Last Straw by alexkaskasoli · 2014-09-28 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, because we Americans are the only critical and free thinkers left in the world. For having spent some time on continental Europe, I can promise you they say the same thing about every predominantly white anglo-saxon country, aka "Five Eyes".
9. Re: Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 21:44 · Score: 0
  
  godwin point spotted :P
10. Re:Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  For Google to withdraw from the European market is exactly what they want to achieve; it's the only way they can compete.
  I thought competition was a good thing for the Slashdot hive mind.
11. Re:Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:32 · Score: 0
  
  and no - no one should have a right to be "forgotten"
12. Re:Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  Competition is a good thing. Making your competitors withdraw from the market reduces competition.
  Thanks for demonstrating the utter stupidity of the left again.
13. Re:Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  As an EU citizen, I was delighted when the "right to be forgotten" ruling began a debate that's long overdue about online privacy.
  Of course! As an EU-citizen, you believe that the state should have unlimited ability to look into your private life, for your own good and the good of society. It's a view of society that's prevailed since Bismarck and Hitler; obviously, the Germans have won.
  
  You can call them "tech-incompetent", but I label people with your attitude "social-phobic"
  I just label you a fascist.
14. Re: Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 04:03 · Score: 0
  
  European governments don't need to get private information by asking companies for it, they just force citizens to provide it by law, whether it's medical records, financial data, or your religious beliefs. They can also spy on you for pretty much arbitrary reasons.
  None of the numerous totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 20th century needed to rely on privately and voluntarily collected data for their reigns of terror. In fact, it doesn't even matter much to these terror regimes whether the information is accurate to begin with.
  So, your idea that preventing people from voluntarily giving private information to companies somehow protects them from government abuse is ludicrous.
15. Re:Last Straw by UnderCoverPenguin · 2014-09-29 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Of course! As an EU-citizen, you believe that the state should have unlimited ability to look into your private life, for your own good and the good of society
  
  Interesting. The same people in the US who want to deregulate business want unlimited ability to regulate individuals' private lives. what do you label them?
  
  --
  Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
16. Re:Last Straw by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  As an EU citizen, I was delighted when the "right to be forgotten" ruling began a debate that's long overdue about online privacy.
  I don't think the debate began with the ruling, but if you started paying attention to the discussion because of the ruling, welcome!
  
  And I have no problem with the company at the absolute forefront of gathering information about individuals being told "Tell people what you're gathering, yes it's your problem to make it accessible."
  The right to be forgotten has so far impacted Google's search results, so please replace "gathering information about people" with "crawling and indexing the web." Were you confused before about how web crawlers work? Did you not realize you could Google your own name? I'd be surprised by either, and don't see how Right to be Forgotten forces a solution to either. Remedial computer literacy classes would solve those problems, but the part of Google's business impacted by this ruling, search, seems to work in really obvious ways.
  If you want other things explained to you, then you've failed to achieve that and should re-evaluate your regulatory regime.
  
  The EU should be applauded for insisting that actual thought be applied to what's going on instead of just allowing the endless procession of "Hey, we can do this! So we'll do it from now!"
  I sympathize with your "Get off my lawn!" attitude, believe me. In particular I don't like the way mobile phones are bargaining people out of their data, or the way governments are passing "mandatory data retention" laws to make private companies into spy networks that would give Stalin wet dreams.
  However, the "right to be forgotten" applied to Google is getting used for reputation management: people don't like what shows up when they Google their own name, so they're demanding that Google suppress the results. That's what the discussion needs to be about, because that's what you guys have done. So far you don't seem to connect your abstract ideology with what can be implemented, much less what you have implemented.
  Why is it always "Google vs Privacy" and not "Journalistic integrity vs Privacy"? You talk about planning a humanist society, but when you actually act it seems you're just cheering because you forced Google to do a thing, and so brought them down a notch in your mind.
  Why is mandatory data retention out-of-scope in your privacy discussions? It's about retaining truly private data like what web sites you visit, and not data published openly on the web. It's about forcing companies to retain it longer than they'd otherwise like so governments can use it against their citizens. It's about making the data better-indexed than it already is so that the cost to the government of investigating a person is negligible, and fishing expeditions are possible. It's about setting the stage for future government surveillance and building an enforcement mechanism that enables new categories of thought-crime.
  I think Europe is bungling this discussion. They're so overfocused on Google they look irrationally spiteful and jealous and are incapable of shaping the core argument correctly. Their entitlement is so extreme they don't think it necessary to describe what they're trying to accomplish and how, and doing so isn't even humble, it's merely a sane step required to accomplish anything in the world.
Google is pretty good here by NitWit005 · 2014-09-28 19:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

Read Google's privacy policy: http://www.google.com/policies.... It seems fairly readable to me. A list per-service might be theoretically useful, but I doubt a normal human would read through each of them.
But take a moment and look at what Google offers here. Google lets you see most of your data on your account dashboard, view and edit your search history, view and edit what ad categories are targeted at you, sign up for account activity reports, and has fairly readable multi-lingual help pages. That's better than almost anyone else.
Maybe Google's advertising practices or monopoly power are issues, but on the issue of data transparency, I think they passed the "good enough" level quite some time ago. The real issue appears to be that even if a company provides good information, no one will bother to look at it.
1. Re:Google is pretty good here by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:03 · Score: 0
  
  Is there any reason why Google wouldn't personalize those pages?
  (Except, of course, that they won't do it unless forced - like all companies living off of your privacy).
2. Re:Google is pretty good here by martin-boundary · 2014-09-28 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  fairly readable to me. A list per-service might be theoretically useful, but I doubt a normal human would read through each of them.
  
  Isn't that the whole point of this suggestion? People don't like to read impersonal legalese, their eyes glaze over as soon as things get too abstract. But a clear personal document which says "Hey Joe, you bought those slippers for your wife yesterday, and we've passed this information to the following companies: Nike, Kmart, and Kink.com. Nike has bought an ad to show you a pair of women's tennis shoes at $99.95 tomorrow night when you're reading CNN, Kmart has bought your online purchasing history for the last two weeks, which includes the groceries you bought, the 50m of rope you got last sunday, and the timings of your drive home every monday. Kink has subscribed to your google account update feed, which includes realtime alerts any time you buy bondage related products in the next 6 months, because we told them about the 50m of rope and the average amount you spend monthly on non-essentials.
  The beauty of this particulary suggestion is in fact that Google are working very hard already to do personalization, it's just that they want to exploit you via this information. So it shouldn't be difficult for them to show you everything, if forced to do so.
3. Re:Google is pretty good here by swillden · 2014-09-29 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  "Hey Joe, you bought those slippers for your wife yesterday, and we've passed this information to the following companies: Nike, Kmart, and Kink.com. Nike has bought an ad to show you a pair of women's tennis shoes at $99.95 tomorrow night when you're reading CNN, Kmart has bought your online purchasing history for the last two weeks, which includes the groceries you bought, the 50m of rope you got last sunday, and the timings of your drive home every monday. Kink has subscribed to your google account update feed, which includes realtime alerts any time you buy bondage related products in the next 6 months, because we told them about the 50m of rope and the average amount you spend monthly on non-essentials."
  Google doesn't give any of your information to any advertisers, so a statement of this sort would be empty.
  I think it would be really good for everyone, including Google, if Google could find a way to make this point clear to everyone. Google sells ad placement, not user information. Advertisers don't get to control who sees their ads; they don't even have much capability to target specific demographics. Instead, they rely on Google to do the targeting which works well because (a) Google is better at it then advertisers would be anyway, (b) advertisers don't pay except when the user clicks (speaking of adwords here; there's also a smaller display ads business which works differently, but without giving advertisers more information or control) and (c) Google provides advertisers with great tools to determine their return on advertising investment. (c) is really what has made Google the powerhouse in this space: by allowing advertisers to see exactly how effective their ad campaigns are or are not, Google solved one of the oldest problems in advertising, the "I know half of my advertising budget is working, I just don't know which half" problem.
  (Disclaimer: I work for Google but I am speaking for myself.)
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"Privacy" has become delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 20:13 · Score: 0

The obsession with data privacy has really brought the crazies out of the woodwork. It's based on two fundamental fallacies:
1) That anybody gives a shit about you or your "data" (aka what cat videos you watched last week).
2) That there is any possible method that could prevent determined people who did care about you from getting your information.
1. Re:"Privacy" has become delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 21:29 · Score: 0
  
  Says AC who hasn't posted their full name, address, date of birth and credit card details with their post.
  Nobody gives a shit about your "data", AC. And there is no possible method to prevent people from finding it out. So why haven't you just posted it?
2. Re:"Privacy" has become delusional by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-28 21:32 · Score: 0
  
  These aren't obsessions or fallacies.
  1. We already know quite well that some government agencies do give a shit about people and their data, and not only collect them en masse, but also build various product databases from them for nefarious purposes.
  2. Security is not a game of 'can or cannot', but one of cost. If it is very costly to obtain and compile such information, and if there is a trail as to who did obtain it, there be less of massive data collection and less chances of unknown unknowns using it for the said nefarious purposes.
I think it is a sensible suggestion by Brandano · 2014-09-28 21:24 · Score: 2

And should be implemented, as long as all other providers of online services are held to the same standards.
1. Re:I think it is a sensible suggestion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  And governments too, of course. Why should the right to be forgotten be restricted to the commercial sphere?
3 words... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 02:28 · Score: 0

FUCK
THE
EU
Re:Expect the Democrats... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-29 05:51 · Score: 0

To hand off your children to be raped and beheaded - see syria