Google Data Chief Says ‘Flawed’ EU Privacy Law Is Dead
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Few companies in the world can be said to have tried harder to destroy the individual's right to privacy. And with recent developments it's even more damning that they're doing this.
er, writing a (personal) blog post?
And writing blog posts of course.
I'll still disagree with your hyperbole (for instance, the privacy law he's objecting to does absolutely nothing to guard your data from intelligence agencies in EU countries...), but that makes a lot more sense.
Collecting data is their business model. All of the "services" they provide are just honeypots for their data-collecting operations.
1) they execute their business model without ethical restraint
2) it is difficult to avoid being affected by said business model because they can legally collect the data that other entities produce about you.
It's right there in their mission statement "Organize the world's information". Most people didn't realize that included their own private information.
Go on then - what examples do you have of Google "trying hard" to destroy individual privacy rights?
It's also true that Google's lobbying budget has increased quite rapidly over the past few years. Initially I thought it was just to get self-driving cars allowed, and Google Fiber, which I was mostly fine with because in the case of Google Fiber I knew many states had poor laws against any competition to local monopolies, and in the case of self-driving cars, while regulation needs to be carefully weighed, I also think it should happen sooner rather than later.
But now I think they're going to use more and more of that money to either kill strong privacy laws, in US, and EU or other places, and also to try and pass new laws that allows them to do more surveillance of users [1].
[1] - https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/11/surveillance_...
Just going on names alone, I could argue that anyone who tried to kill Americas Patriot Act hated patriots.
> Privacy is all about the individual human being. So, it's somehow fitting that the biggest privacy surprise in 2013 was created by one individual human being, the courageous whistleblower, Mr Snowden, who opened the world's eyes to the almost unimaginable scale and scope of mass government surveillance. We'll have to wait until 2014 to learn if governments do anything meaningful to improve transparency and oversight of their spy agencies' work. I have low expectations.
And this:
> More countries around the world passed privacy laws modeled on Europe's. The US continued down its path of exceptionalism: the Federal government debated, but did not pass, any meaningful privacy legislation, but many US States actively filled the void with sweeping new privacy laws, fulfilling their historic role as laboratories of potential future Federal laws. Technology advanced, raising new questions and igniting new debates. Law suits and prosecutions came and went, and in my personal case, happily, mostly went.
The only thing that Google can do to show that they respect their users is to stop storing so much information about them and change their TOS to restrict usage of data and ensure there's a convenient way to control it for the end user. Instead they force them to input more info like their real names and phone numbers.
As for this blog, it's so ridiculous that they talk about Snowden and yet Google is one of the main personal information providers included in the revelations. I don't think I've seen one post from a Google employee that demonstrated they understand privacy, they are hopeless.
However, how about just dont sign in to google at all? Click the dont track me stuff. Dont use other google products, like chrome. I mean, I do wonder how many people criticise google, from a chrome browser. I am right in thinking there is some choice here, right?
No, I dont particularly like how google has gone from being a great search engine to being this huge insane money and data slurping machine, but as long as one can avoid it, then, does it matter?
I tend to think that what is actually damaging to society is the choices society lazily makes, with out a decent level of knowledge and the possible future consequences. As long as we can get email for free, maps for free, browsers for free, and so on, who cares?
Anyone ever paid for a browser? I mean separately, not as part of buying Windows or Mac OS.
The problem is that you can't avoid Google. How many websites use Google Analytics? How many serve fonts via Google Fonts? Or serve JQuery via Google? How many sites serve up ads from Google's ad network? Google's tentacles reach every corner of the web. Android lets Google track you across mobile and tablet. Now they can track you on desktop with ChromeOS which potentailly tracks everying you do in the OS. Some people are fine with this if it means a more personalised service. I find the privacy implications horrendous.
Consider the following scenario: you visit a site with Google Anlaytics, then a site that serves up fonts through Google, then a site that serves JQuery via Google. Then you sign into GMail to check your email and immediatly sign out after. Then you vist YouTube (signed out). Does Google join up these journeys? We don't know. Google's privacy policy is deliberatley vague about what they capture.
People simply aren't aware of the amount of tracking that goes on. It's clearly not in Google's interest to be placed under greater scrutiny over what they track and record. The tech community are happy to oblige, giving Google an easy ride on such matters.
They don't architecture services with as little user data as possible. They are also don't care if user data is 'secure' (during transfer or storage). Google takes the opposite approach: collect as much data about a user as possible (mails, contacts, documents, movements, ...) and then let's see what one can do with that. For example classify the user and predict his actions. Each user request to Google helps them predicting more and more accurately what the user is doing and what he will do. Then they design offerings around that and sell it. This data is so valuable, that the government can't ignore it. They want the data and the prediction possibilities, too.
The paranoid view is that Google is a NSA frontend.
The sad thing is that they don't even have to be that on purpose. They collect so much data on every person, that NSA is going to use them as a frontend anyway, which is exactly what they did, until they discovered what NSA was doing recently, and made some changes, by encrypting data in transit within their network. However, I still don't think they are encrypting data at rest. So if NSA breaks their transit encryption again, they will be free to collect all the data again.
The day when Google can naturally be seen as an enemy of the Internet and human privacy has come. Up until SOPA/ITU they could still be seen as a net ally, because they did help with some pretty big issues against the Internet. But from now on, I don't think they will be doing anything as major in favor of the users, while they are doing major actions against users of the Internet, such as trying to kill the privacy law in EU. So they are a net enemy to the Internet already.
While they've created that "campaign" with some other big companies against the NSA, the goal of the campaign itself sounds very weak to me. They're just trying to be more transparent with what they can tell people about what the government is requesting of them. I think they could do so much more, such as joining Mozilla's "StopWatching.us" movement. The reason they aren't doing that? Because Google is "watching us", and they probably believe joining such a campaign would be detrimental to their business, even if fighting for user privacy is the right thing to do.
So whether they have a clear stated goal of "killing privacy worldwide" the way NSA does, or not, it doesn't matter. Because the incentives to do just that are too strong for them, and they are pushing them in that direction anyway. For them to stop doing that would require rethinking their business model that's based on "tracking everything" (which I think should happen), and align themselves with the users.
I hope she will prevail. She has already demonstrated in the past she is a strong commissioner.
I just hope that this is Google being desperate and trying to use PR to stop the new data protection guidelines because their lobbying efforts are faltering.
I consider this a much better reason to boycot American online services than the NSA crap. The NSA "only" infringed on our rights, Google e.a. are actively trying to destroy them entirely.
> The other big surprise of 2013 was something that didn't happen. Europe's much-ballyhooed, and much-flawed, proposal to re-write its privacy laws for the next twenty years collapsed. The old draft is dead, and something else will eventually be resurrected in its place. We'll have to wait until 2014, or perhaps even later, to learn what will replace it. Whatever comes next will be the most important privacy legislation in the world, setting the global standards. I'm hopeful that this pause will give lawmakers time to write a better, more modern and more balanced law.
http://peterfleischer.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/turning-our-bac...
not all that exciting
The sad thing is, that was my second thought too.
The gist of the article seems to be the EU nations have dragged their feet regarding implementing the law. That's to be expected, and variations are to be expected too. But that hardly makes it dead in my view.
The surprising thing is that the EU is ahead in the privacy initiative not the US.
The US are not even considering it and instead they are wasting time getting nations to agreed to a even longer copyright length.
Sadly the US has been bought by corporations and nothing important for the citizens but potentially damaging for corporations will ever pass.
It's more like the United Corporation of America not the United States of America.
This is not about NSA.
Private companies gather more and more data about us without any control (especially the US-ones), so it's good that EU tries to regulate that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_privacy_law#United_...
Then it should be easy to offer some, rather than just saying that it exists.
Have you actually read the law in question? It seems fairly sensible to me, it's the implementation guidance that was ridiculous. The banners we have at the top of every page now are nothing but cargo cult, everyone copying what everyone else is doing without ever applying any critical thinking.
I worked for a large publisher and they wasted a vast amount of time and limited release dates to implement the cookie law - all that could have been far better used in improving their sites.
Real solution is fixing client software. But, meh, all popular browsers are made by companies that are - one way or another - heavily dependent on advertisement (thus, tracking).