Debunking Jimbo: Slippery Google tries to evade European privacy Google’s latest celebrity recruit, Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales, recently gave an extraordinary performance on the BBC's Andrew Marr Show. We want to share with you what he said – verbatim – with expert commentary. It’s about the decision of a top European court that Google cannot be exempt from the Continent's privacy and …
when you put together a "journalist" with poor research and understanding and someone who runs a site packed full of misinformation which will also be subject to this ruling?
Jimbo is shitting himself that he will have to correct a boat load of bad information and/or face legal actions and costs as he is now subject to EU DP laws.
You people keep getting this wrong:
"One is the structure of the legal process - in which a judge ultimately decides."
Not true. A judge does not ultimately decide if Google just says "yes" at the first step.
The danger is not when Google says "no", the danger is when Google (and others) cannot be bothered to say anything other than "yes". And why should they when saying "no" is going to cost them more money.
The danger is not when Google says "no", the danger is when Google (and others) cannot be bothered to say anything other than "yes". And why should they when saying "no" is going to cost them more money.
If Google stops being a good search engine, and a competitor is willing to spend that money, then Google will lose most of its advertising revenue. Which is still massively dominated by its near-monopoly in search. Google makes loadsa' money from search, so I have very little sympathy if they have to absorb some costs while complying with the law.
Admittedly you do have a point. But then that's the problem with having competing interests. Google try to portray the world as having this one great thing (the internets), and any even minor threat to that must therefore be a bad thingTM. Well it's a balance. At the moment there's a good argument to say that we allow too little control of to people of information about them. Thus we should consider giving them more control. But that will obviously have downsides, and we'll never get the balance right. Becuase there is no perfect balance. We'll just have to do the best we can.
Eventually society will change again, and so will the balance. At the moment many employers are searching the internet history of potential employees. And probably digging up many youthful indiscretions. This must surely be losing some people jobs. But this is almost certainly a generational thing too. I'm old enough that there was no www when I was a teenager. So many of my generation won't have this kind of stuff floating around there. Also many of my generation would feel it reflected badly on us if it did. But when people who are now 20 are doing the job interviewing, they may themselves have had a drunken/naked/whatever photo go online, and so not give a damn if some potential employee does too.
In one future then, maybe people will feel less need for privacy - and not care so much what's online. In another possible future, this generation that hvae grown up sharing loads of stuff online may suddenly hit 40 and react decisively against the dissemination of this kind of info. And call for massive regulation of the internet, and beefing up of privacy. Or their children may, in reaction to all the stuff about their parents they see online.
When social change, law and politics interact there are no easy answers, often no definitively right answers, and nothing stays the same anyway. Such is life.
Reg: "A judge ultimately decides"
AC: "Not true. A judge does not ultimately decide if Google just says 'yes' at the first step."
Indeed, the 'first step' is not the 'ultimate step'. This is a good way of judging Google's commitment to 'uncensored' search results or freedom of expression, two things Google insists it cares very deeply about. If Google agrees to every removal request, automatically, then the Courts are not involved - correct. But Google can refuse and also appeal every removal request for years through the Courts, without paying costs. Many "data controllers" do this.
If Google does as you suggest and takes down every link it's asked take down, it can't then say it's committed to fighting censorship and fighting for freedom of expression. It can't have it both ways. So we'll just have to see, won't we?
Loathe as I am to go near this subject again lest I lose more of my posting history, it seems you're interested in setting up Google to be hated no matter what they do.
If they accede to demands without sending them to court, Google are pro censorship, and their previous freedom posturing is exposed as lies!
And if Google send things to the courts, then Google are arrogantly attempting to defy their obligations under EU law!
And if Google do both, well, they're doing BOTH! DoubleHate!
No. If Google just allow anyone's request without complaining that's OK. They're a company out to make a profit, and all's fine and dandy. However they then have to lose the preaching schtick, about freedom and opportunity for all, and the internet as the saviour of everything etc.
There's also no problem if Google go with some, and appeal others. That's what the information commissioners are supposed to be there for.
The point is that it would be nice if everyone was honest, and called a spade a spade. So Google could say this is bad, it'll hurt our profits. But instead they pay sock-puppets, often claiming to be independent and disinterested internet experts, to cry wolf - and shout how this is the end of the internet as we know it. Which they've said on a few issues now.
And they try to claim that somehow the law doesn't apply to them, because... the internet. Well bugger that for a game of soldiers. They make tens of billions of profits a year - I don't argue if they can find legal ways to avoid tax - but they make loads of money from the EU market, so they can obey the law like the rest of us, or fuck off and do without the cash. Them's the choices. If they don't like the law, they've got plenty of cash for lobbying to get it changed. And they're not shy of deploying it.
The "Don't be Evil" tag has been used as a stick to beat them with, because they sometimes have been evil. Or at least nasty, dishonest and creepy. Andrew O does seem to have an anti-Google thing going, but I can't remember him being unfair or inaccurate in any of his articles about them, and he's a useful antidote to all the know-nothing media-wankers who keep blathering on about how great they are all the time.
Not that Google aren't also great too. They've done some brilliant stuff. The creepy way they've built an army of smartphones into a global remote sensor network has also given us some brilliant features in Google Maps, local search, traffic reporting etc. They've bet billions of dollars on the technology panning out, and reaped the rewards. I'd say the loss of privacy is somewhat worth it for the services provided - and you have a choice to not use Google's services if you don't think so.
But it seems to me that The Register has a balance of writers and opinions on most subjects. And you know what you'll get if you read an Orlowski article on Google. Unless you can point out to me things he's said that are factually inaccurate? In which case I'll happily join you in having a go at Andrew myself. Since I went to a Register do, he's now got my phone number. So he can probably track me down and have The Register's sinister attack troops bump me off. But I'll happily take the risk of a Playmonaut hitting me at Mach 2 for truth and justice...
"No. If Google just allow anyone's request without complaining that's OK." -- Since this is not only the easiest but the most profitable undeniably legal route, if they fight to avoid taking it, does that therefore logically mean profit isn't their primary driver? ;-)
"The point is that it would be nice if everyone was honest, and called a spade a spade. So Google could say this is bad, it'll hurt our profits" -- I'm having the same reaction as Google, I don't like where these ripples are going, and last time I checked I don't have a financial interest. My spade doesn't seem to be your spade, but does seem to be their spade.
"sock puppets" -- I'll admit here to not knowing which ones you mean. I think I ignored all the wafflers on both sides. I can see Wales, and I can imagine him personally hating this ruling, and I suspect Wikipedia get Google money, so, him? *Might* these be his own opinions tho?
"And they try to claim that somehow the law doesn't apply to them" -- If you mean the geolocation argument, I thought that was a lawyer thing actually - throw everything at it. Whenever I look at a big court cases, you see a kitchen sink fly past at some point. I'd need more datapoints tho to declare it a trait of the *client*.
"<The bit about lawbreaking>" -- Yeah, that's the thing that reaaally bugs me. If you're not handling personal data, you're not a data controller, and those laws don't apply to you, so you aren't a lawbreaker. The court declared Google *was* a data controller - even though it can't in advance identify which data has *made it into* a data controller, nor therefore *control* that data, or refuse to handle it. Would you enjoy suddenly being given *that* job?
"I can't remember him being unfair or inaccurate in any of his articles about them" -- I applaud your success in posting. You've fared much better than I on the same subject. Put it this way, now you know about the Ruling unexpectedly classifying Google as a Data Controller at least. It would have been, in my opinion, unfair, to leave that bit out, as it would mean that Google really weren't breaking any laws until the Court moved Google onto the other side of them.
"But it seems to me that The Register has a balance of writers and opinions on most subjects" -- Oh indeed. But the energy spent destroying can never be undone by the same spent building, and "It will be nice when Google has to lawyer up rather than us, since we did the work of finding and publishing the information in the first place and all they did was put ads next to a clip of it. - Ed" ... *shrug*.
"I'd say the loss of privacy is somewhat worth it for the services provided - and you have a choice to not use Google's services if you don't think so" -- I'm still fuzzy on this 'loss of privacy' thing. As far as I can tell, people are so data-incontinent that every site they visit has their CC+security number, home address, mothers maiden name and IP address. What is it people think Google has they haven't already given to everyone else?
"If they accede to demands without sending them to court, Google are pro censorship, and their previous freedom posturing is exposed as lies!
And if Google send things to the courts, then Google are arrogantly attempting to defy their obligations under EU law!"
But that's pretty much the dilemma we all face, including the law itself. Either we're in favour of censorship or we're in favour of violating privacy. Unless we all agree on exactly where the dividing line falls (and there's not much chance of that as it's a political judgement as much as anything) then there's no squaring this particular circle.
The usual solution in such cases is to enact some fairly vague and ambiguous laws so that only those people who care enough to spend a fortune going to court ever need a firm decision. The rest of us just have to lump it because we can't afford the money or effort to fight. In the case of data protection, you also set up a watchdog with no teeth to take the wind out of people's sails if they have the cheek to complain
Looks like we're fairly well down that path already.
The media do love their darlings (and their hate figures). Andt there's a horrible tendency to hunt, and defend, in packs. Although to be fair, there are always lone voices, and some media organisations do consciously try to allow for dissenters to get time. The Beeb, for example, often seems to have a party line, but there's usually someone challenging it somewhere.
At the moment it's Google, and Twitter, still Wikipedia, but Facebook gets less love and more mixed messages. I can still remember the early days of New Labour. Blair was often given an easy ride, but always had opponents. Gordon Brown was given almost blanket praise by almost everybody. I guess in his case it was partly through having the most aggressive spin machine (Damian McBride, Ed Balls, Charlie Wheelan etc.). So I guess there's a good comparison with Google, who are very good at getting the message out there - although I suspect they probably say "Fuck" a lot less, eat fewer pies, wear better suits, and don't push people up against walls...
A nice piece by the way Mr O. It's often the sign of a bad interview / interviewer, when it takes as much space to write down the questions as it does the answers. That's often a sign that the interviewer is pushing their point just as much as the interviewee.
... when intervied the journalist thanks him because he's usually so reserved, he cares so much about his privacy... yes, he cares about *his* privacy but has no problem to totally destroy Truman's one - but the journalist has no problem with that! She's in front of a media legend, all she needs is a scoop, she doesn't care about anything else - ethics, especially, and coherency. She can't see the blatant hypocrisy in front of her! That moment I believe is the most important of the entire movie.
That's the same with Google. Your privacy is worthless as long as it's a good business for Google. In every sentence of theirs, change any reference from "free speech" to "our business" and everything gets clear - hypocrisy removed.
As written above, by most, this is such a difficult subject, especially given a practical word limit in The-Reg Comments section (or at least, a readable limit) - and as witnessed by only 8 comments before me, in 15 hours - that it is probably best (certainly easiest) to preserve your score/history and let the OP get away with it (for once) ;-)
However ...
I am personally never fond of laws which try to protect people from themselves. Though I appreciate many people do require such protection and – genuinely – sadly, often not entirely through a fault of their own*.
If such laws of censorship are required – and, as everyone has put above, the balancing act is a very difficult act to perfect – then there must surely be democratic supervision of that censorship, by (at the very least) people elected by those having their rights “diluted” (those who can no longer read).
Once the courts are involved, then it is far less of a potential nightmare; and so – with a big nod to cost and complexity – there must surely (eventually) be an EU Body (however elected and/or staffed) that “demands of” Google – in every instance – what must stay and what must go.
And if that aspect of this subject was very difficult to discuss … How Google revises its stated mission – or finds ways to get around this legislation – is also going to be both interesting to watch and a nightmare for the preservation of a 'Tard's reputation.
But … to an extent, I think that there would be no US of A had there not always been a vast gulf between the European and US views, of how the world should work.
A well-done to those able to scratch something out in response to a well thought out and written article :-)
* Witness the bloke and his “sexist/just-a-joke” presentation, reported and widely commented on, on here, this past week.
Where did “fault/blame/responsibility” lie in that case? And should Presenter-Bloke be unemployable in a similar role, for the rest of his life / Don't recruiters have the right to make the decision, knowing all of the facts?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
