To be honest, having different terms and conditions for every service that Google runs must have been quite confusing for a lot of people*, so consolidating them into one package does make sense.
I do not think so. I rather think that is quite confusing to see that Google uses my Gmail login and data to "improve" my search results or stores my search strings persistently. I did not sign up for this feature.
It makes a lot of sense to have different T&C for a serach engine, an email service, a video sharing board, and a social network.
I can however understand the problem with Google now being able to use data collected from one service and now using it in another, but if all they're doing is using it to target us with more specific ads then I don't really care.
The question is not whether you care. The question is whether it is legal to join those databases without explicit user consent. And there is a high probability that this is ruled to be illegal in Europe. And it would be a huge win for the user's ability to control the use of his personal information.
I see nothing wrong with Google doing whatever they want with the information I voluntarily provide them in exchange for their services. If you don't want them to have it, use another service.
There are multiple problems with your post: 1. Obviously Google could do you very wrong with the information that you voluntarily provided, e.g. by making them public. 2. The issue here is that Google consolidates and joins the data over multiple services - so it's email and search and G+ and YouTube services. Before each service had its own privacy clauses that were service specific and - at least legally - Google could not merge and match this information across those services. 3. Changing to a different service is very expensive (at least if you count in the time) for some services. This is particularly true for GMail and G+.
Doubleclick is owned by Google now. Why is that a scumbag company?
I do not know. But I know several Web site owners, who stopped using Google Ads when Google bought Doubleclick - they had that kind of reputation, you know...
On Firefox, the "Tell websites I do not want to be tracked" is not enabled by default. I don't understand why this is not the default action.
The option should be "Tell websites I'm okay with being tracked" and should be ticked off by default.
Actually, it is unclear what the "do not track" actually means. Does in include "do not log" - or "wipe my IP address from the logs after x days"?
Anybody, who does want to not support the biggest trackers (facebook, google, twitter), should (a) deactivate sending cookies to third parties and (b) install ghostery in FireFox. That's much more effective than the "do not track" additional information sent to the tracking web sites.
How does Facebook do it (the Like button)? Does Facebook also circumvent it this way? Either Facebook found a way to do it better, or they are both doing the same thing.
Can we stop the Google/Microsoft bashing and focus on the techniques please?
Firefox with Ghostery is your friend. Forget "do not track" and P3P. They rely on fair play of web sites - which is unreasonable to expect.
Firstly, what's the big deal with the document having these microdots?
I found it interesting that you even might think that this is not a bid deal. For starters: When you buy a printer, are you informed about it printing microdots?
While it is clearly interesting to have an open source format for editing (btw, there are already many), it is far more important to have a standardized and open reader format: The eBook that I buy should be readable on all readers and also convertible to new formats in the future (thus: open and without DRM). When we have this, the writer/editor will have his choice automatically as well.
All this bill would do is ensure that Google, Facebook and others completely shutdown all local European presence. That means all those local jobs go away and all legal recourse is gone while at the same time everyone keeps using it. Unless of course you're willing to implement the great firewall of Europe and join China in a world where the powers that be can decide to rewrite history.
If this would be true, Europeans would have a big interest in implementing this law right now. While some local jobs from Facebook and Google might disappear, large European competitors for those sites would appear that implement the technical possibility to delete this information that you have published before, and creating new jobs and tax income for a state within the EU. Win-win for the Europeans I would say.
Do people have a right to control info about themselves? I don't think so. Sure it'd be nice if all companies voluntarily would remove naked pictures of you that you regret, but to enshrine this service into law is a very bad precedent.
You would be able to control the information about yourself, if you would publish it on your Web site (and set the robots.txt to exclude spiders). But if you give it to a "social" web site, you traded it in against the "service". So, basically you sold your information (to not say: you sold your soul).
Should you be able to reclaim your postings/pictures etc.? Yes, you should. Would reclaiming your postings be against free speech? No. Would it make "social" web sites more complex to manage and therefore a bit less attractive from a business point of view? Yes, you bet. But since when is this an argument for a law about control of your digital data?
There is one remaining issue of "environmentalist" obstructionism. I use quotes, because these people are damaging the environment, not protecting it.
This is true. If you oppose nuclear, a coal plant will be built in its place, which is far, far more dirty and dangerous.
Interesting argument. Why does it always need to be coal, when comparing nuclear power against another energy? Here is the car analogy: if you do not like this new electric car, you will need to use this monster truck, which runs 2 miles per gallon, which is far, far more dirty and dangerous.
Just like France makes good money selling electricity to the UK and Germany (as those two countries have somewhat of a nuclear-phobia, that seems to be increasing). The electricity prices in France are 10% of what I pay in the UK, and I'm on a cheap UK tariff provided by a French electricity company! I'm sure the money goes somewhere...
Electricity prices in France and Germany are very much political prices. It has very little to do with nuclear power and very much with who subsidizes what (France: Tax payers subsidize nuclear power; Germany: Households (electricity users) subsidizes solar and other renewable energy installments).
Would having wireless carriers be dumb pipes really be so bad?
Minor nitpick: If they were "dumb pipes" they wouldn't have to subsidize the cost of the iPhone. You'd pay full price for it and obtain service without a contract.
Possible in Europe. It was long-time not interesting, because you could not get a contract, which actually removed the subsidies - but this changes currently and see: It's much cheaper to pay full price for your iPhone and then much less for the contract, then to have an subsidized iPhone with an expensive contract. Actually the incumbent wireless carriers in Europe fear those unbundled deals very much the same as the devil the holy water.
How shortsightedly-inane-for-the-sake-of-a-headline can you get? At least making a facebook account and having your data shared is an option.
According to the author's logic, the United States Postal Service, for the service of getting our mail delivered, has EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PHYSICAL ADDRESSES, regardless of whether we opted in to begin with! Holy shit.
Bad analogy. The USPS does not have the contents of the letters that they have delivered to you. FB has.
You can be paranoid about it. But the fact is that we all depend on companies every day and trust them with our personal info. There really isn't an alternative.
Why is there no alternative? FB is not really a required service you depend on. Email and Internet access probably is a required service, but email is not centralized and monopolized, but using an open standardized protocol, Internet access at the other side is a classical man-in-the-middle problem - that's why ISPs are regulated (and at least in most countries forbidden to do man-in-the-middle actions) - and you can always use SSL and HTTPS to exclude your ISP from overhearing and profiting from your conversations.
Then in his opinion, wouldn't email be the same? It's stored on some 3rd party mail server somewhere... and for that matter, wouldn't all form of electronic communication that gets copied/stored somewhere not under your personal control also be classified as a "man in the middle attack"?
No, email is not centralized (unless you refer to gmail and other BIG email providers). You know that you can run your own email server? - It's easy.
It amazes me that people think Moglen is overstating the case. He is not. Let's forget the datamining for commerce. Let's just think about what a simple post on a social network can do with ones life. People have been murdered over a post on social networks by goverments. People have been held in custody (hi USA) over posting a qoute from family guy... Moglen is right. Everything you post on facebook, twitter, hell any service that has an office in the USA will get into the FBI, CIA an SS databanks and you will get in trouble if you post something those warmongers don't like. Moglen is right. Using centralized, datamined networks is stupid and even more dangerous. It takes a lot of effort not to see that.
Actually, it is very easy to overlook this or ignore it (since it is so convenient). And unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort to open people's eyes so that they can see it.
Besides the term doesn't apply -- in a man in the middle attack, the man in the middle needs to be invisible.
To the contrary: the term applies absolutely. You just need to apply it on the social level instead on the technical level. Who is aware about FB (and its use of the information), while using FB? While it is visible, it is not perceived by the users as being the man-in-the-middle.
Moglen is absolutely correct and I am very impressed by this great analogy: Facebook (and some other "social" media) is a man-in-the-middle attack; it's just not a technical hack but a social hack. Best 20 second explanation ever. Google might very well join them soon - if they use profiling on gmail conversations.
Google is not censoring anything. They are not stopping freedom of speech.
They ARE redirecting blogger blogs through ccTLDs.
Correct. But why is a user outside of the USA redirected to a ccTLD, if he asks for "blogger.com"? More and more corporations are doing this redirection and it sucks big time. I, and probably most people, know how to write "google.de"or "google.fr" - if I write google.com, I want the same page as users in the USA. And the same is true for amazon, dell, hp, blogger, twitter etc.
I am against ACTA and I have called my congressman as has my son to ask him to not support it. Interestingly, he knew little about it and wanted information. We had a fairly long call. At the end of the call he said that he would not vote for it.
Slashdot Mirror
To be honest, having different terms and conditions for every service that Google runs must have been quite confusing for a lot of people*, so consolidating them into one package does make sense.
I do not think so. I rather think that is quite confusing to see that Google uses my Gmail login and data to "improve" my search results or stores my search strings persistently. I did not sign up for this feature.
It makes a lot of sense to have different T&C for a serach engine, an email service, a video sharing board, and a social network.
I can however understand the problem with Google now being able to use data collected from one service and now using it in another, but if all they're doing is using it to target us with more specific ads then I don't really care.
The question is not whether you care. The question is whether it is legal to join those databases without explicit user consent. And there is a high probability that this is ruled to be illegal in Europe. And it would be a huge win for the user's ability to control the use of his personal information.
I see nothing wrong with Google doing whatever they want with the information I voluntarily provide them in exchange for their services. If you don't want them to have it, use another service.
There are multiple problems with your post:
1. Obviously Google could do you very wrong with the information that you voluntarily provided, e.g. by making them public.
2. The issue here is that Google consolidates and joins the data over multiple services - so it's email and search and G+ and YouTube services. Before each service had its own privacy clauses that were service specific and - at least legally - Google could not merge and match this information across those services.
3. Changing to a different service is very expensive (at least if you count in the time) for some services. This is particularly true for GMail and G+.
Doubleclick is owned by Google now. Why is that a scumbag company?
I do not know. But I know several Web site owners, who stopped using Google Ads when Google bought Doubleclick - they had that kind of reputation, you know ...
On Firefox, the "Tell websites I do not want to be tracked" is not enabled by default. I don't understand why this is not the default action.
The option should be "Tell websites I'm okay with being tracked" and should be ticked off by default.
Actually, it is unclear what the "do not track" actually means. Does in include "do not log" - or "wipe my IP address from the logs after x days"?
Anybody, who does want to not support the biggest trackers (facebook, google, twitter), should (a) deactivate sending cookies to third parties and (b) install ghostery in FireFox. That's much more effective than the "do not track" additional information sent to the tracking web sites.
He should be fired, and possibly prosecuted if any crimes were committed.
Yeah. Put him in jail with this Assange guy! What do I say. Burn'em!!!
How does Facebook do it (the Like button)? Does Facebook also circumvent it this way? Either Facebook found a way to do it better, or they are both doing the same thing.
Can we stop the Google/Microsoft bashing and focus on the techniques please?
Firefox with Ghostery is your friend. Forget "do not track" and P3P. They rely on fair play of web sites - which is unreasonable to expect.
Firstly, what's the big deal with the document having these microdots?
I found it interesting that you even might think that this is not a bid deal. For starters: When you buy a printer, are you informed about it printing microdots?
While it is clearly interesting to have an open source format for editing (btw, there are already many), it is far more important to have a standardized and open reader format: The eBook that I buy should be readable on all readers and also convertible to new formats in the future (thus: open and without DRM). When we have this, the writer/editor will have his choice automatically as well.
It only takes enough people to reach 114 years, then you see also people that will get older.
OP is correct, though. Troublesome to see a rather recent publication (2001) giving the wrong advice for such a "standard" disease.
All this bill would do is ensure that Google, Facebook and others completely shutdown all local European presence. That means all those local jobs go away and all legal recourse is gone while at the same time everyone keeps using it. Unless of course you're willing to implement the great firewall of Europe and join China in a world where the powers that be can decide to rewrite history.
If this would be true, Europeans would have a big interest in implementing this law right now. While some local jobs from Facebook and Google might disappear, large European competitors for those sites would appear that implement the technical possibility to delete this information that you have published before, and creating new jobs and tax income for a state within the EU. Win-win for the Europeans I would say.
Do people have a right to control info about themselves? I don't think so. Sure it'd be nice if all companies voluntarily would remove naked pictures of you that you regret, but to enshrine this service into law is a very bad precedent.
You would be able to control the information about yourself, if you would publish it on your Web site (and set the robots.txt to exclude spiders). But if you give it to a "social" web site, you traded it in against the "service". So, basically you sold your information (to not say: you sold your soul).
Should you be able to reclaim your postings/pictures etc.? Yes, you should.
Would reclaiming your postings be against free speech? No.
Would it make "social" web sites more complex to manage and therefore a bit less attractive from a business point of view? Yes, you bet. But since when is this an argument for a law about control of your digital data?
There is one remaining issue of "environmentalist" obstructionism. I use quotes, because these people are damaging the environment, not protecting it.
This is true. If you oppose nuclear, a coal plant will be built in its place, which is far, far more dirty and dangerous.
Interesting argument. Why does it always need to be coal, when comparing nuclear power against another energy? Here is the car analogy: if you do not like this new electric car, you will need to use this monster truck, which runs 2 miles per gallon, which is far, far more dirty and dangerous.
Just like France makes good money selling electricity to the UK and Germany (as those two countries have somewhat of a nuclear-phobia, that seems to be increasing). The electricity prices in France are 10% of what I pay in the UK, and I'm on a cheap UK tariff provided by a French electricity company! I'm sure the money goes somewhere...
Electricity prices in France and Germany are very much political prices. It has very little to do with nuclear power and very much with who subsidizes what (France: Tax payers subsidize nuclear power; Germany: Households (electricity users) subsidizes solar and other renewable energy installments).
Would having wireless carriers be dumb pipes really be so bad?
Minor nitpick: If they were "dumb pipes" they wouldn't have to subsidize the cost of the iPhone. You'd pay full price for it and obtain service without a contract.
Possible in Europe. It was long-time not interesting, because you could not get a contract, which actually removed the subsidies - but this changes currently and see: It's much cheaper to pay full price for your iPhone and then much less for the contract, then to have an subsidized iPhone with an expensive contract. Actually the incumbent wireless carriers in Europe fear those unbundled deals very much the same as the devil the holy water.
How shortsightedly-inane-for-the-sake-of-a-headline can you get? At least making a facebook account and having your data shared is an option.
According to the author's logic, the United States Postal Service, for the service of getting our mail delivered, has EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PHYSICAL ADDRESSES, regardless of whether we opted in to begin with! Holy shit.
Bad analogy. The USPS does not have the contents of the letters that they have delivered to you. FB has.
If you use FB, you know that your friends and family will post personal information about you as well.
Worse: If you do not use FB, you know that your friends and family will post personal information about you as well.
You can be paranoid about it. But the fact is that we all depend on companies every day and trust them with our personal info. There really isn't an alternative.
Why is there no alternative? FB is not really a required service you depend on.
Email and Internet access probably is a required service, but email is not centralized and monopolized, but using an open standardized protocol, Internet access at the other side is a classical man-in-the-middle problem - that's why ISPs are regulated (and at least in most countries forbidden to do man-in-the-middle actions) - and you can always use SSL and HTTPS to exclude your ISP from overhearing and profiting from your conversations.
Then in his opinion, wouldn't email be the same? It's stored on some 3rd party mail server somewhere... and for that matter, wouldn't all form of electronic communication that gets copied/stored somewhere not under your personal control also be classified as a "man in the middle attack"?
No, email is not centralized (unless you refer to gmail and other BIG email providers). You know that you can run your own email server? - It's easy.
It amazes me that people think Moglen is overstating the case. He is not. Let's forget the datamining for commerce. Let's just think about what a simple post on a social network can do with ones life. People have been murdered over a post on social networks by goverments. People have been held in custody (hi USA) over posting a qoute from family guy... Moglen is right. Everything you post on facebook, twitter, hell any service that has an office in the USA will get into the FBI, CIA an SS databanks and you will get in trouble if you post something those warmongers don't like. Moglen is right. Using centralized, datamined networks is stupid and even more dangerous. It takes a lot of effort not to see that.
Actually, it is very easy to overlook this or ignore it (since it is so convenient). And unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort to open people's eyes so that they can see it.
Besides the term doesn't apply -- in a man in the middle attack, the man in the middle needs to be invisible.
To the contrary: the term applies absolutely. You just need to apply it on the social level instead on the technical level. Who is aware about FB (and its use of the information), while using FB? While it is visible, it is not perceived by the users as being the man-in-the-middle.
Moglen is absolutely correct and I am very impressed by this great analogy: Facebook (and some other "social" media) is a man-in-the-middle attack; it's just not a technical hack but a social hack. Best 20 second explanation ever.
Google might very well join them soon - if they use profiling on gmail conversations.
Google is not censoring anything. They are not stopping freedom of speech.
They ARE redirecting blogger blogs through ccTLDs.
Correct. But why is a user outside of the USA redirected to a ccTLD, if he asks for "blogger.com"? More and more corporations are doing this redirection and it sucks big time. I, and probably most people, know how to write "google.de"or "google.fr" - if I write google.com, I want the same page as users in the USA. And the same is true for amazon, dell, hp, blogger, twitter etc.
I am against ACTA and I have called my congressman as has my son to ask him to not support it. Interestingly, he knew little about it and wanted information. We had a fairly long call. At the end of the call he said that he would not vote for it.
Who is your congressman?
Thanks, I learned something today (even while Wikipedia is blacked out).
Legal language != intuitive (used) language