enough is enough
You tell em Eric.
The European Commission apparently wants Google to make even more changes to its web search results, beyond those that Brussels has already requested. Brussels and Google are trying to reach a settlement following claims the advertising giant unfairly dominates the search market in Europe. The US goliath's rivals allege that …
Google's business model is, in essence, profit from privacy violation. In this context this means blatant disregard for EU data protection law, which Google's EU-based competitors cannot ignore; Google has enjoyed a crushing, patently unfair competitive advantage (being able to rake in revenue by pushing ads more effectively with its extensive (but illegitimate) user profiling), which largely explains the lack of competition from the EU and Google's dominance therein.
Ceterum censeo Google esse delendam.
The thing is, if Google had drawn the line at internet search, advertising and supporting the AOSP, they would have been great... but alas, power corrupts and all it takes is one or two people in high-up positions with a greedy streak. The "don't be evil" line was crossed - all in the name of improving the business model, of course - and now Google is the new Microsoft, with the possibility of becoming even more of a nightmare if not reigned in.
Of course, there will always be the Google faithful, and given the nature of some comments I've read on here, I'm pretty sure there are also Google astroturfers and FUD-spreaders, but it's kind of tragic that in our bid to shake of the dark days of one evil, so many are unable to see that what they're embracing is rapidly becoming far worse...
Few - if any - here think Google are "the good guys". Don't fool yourself. We just see the strings Microsoft is pulling quite clearly and know that - ultimately - Google is the lesser of the two evils.
Give us an alternative, we'll consider it. But when your choices are "Google" and "Microsoft" you pick the one you think will do the least amount of damage. That isn't Microsoft.
Microsoft are selling our souls just as hard as Google. The difference is, they lie about it. But they profile you, scan your e-mail and feel no moral compunction about invading the e-mails - even of journalists - in order to fulfill their desires.
Microsoft engage in every underhanded, awful thing that Google do and much, much more.
It's an internet search engine. The hyperbole is staggering, wtf? How much salary do these people p!ss away harassing Google? It's a frickin' search engine on your little computer, not the fascist end of the world takeover. Good lord, these people must have a lot of money to blow being completely, almost hilariously useless. It's a search engine, ffs! I just don't get what the big problem is.
The value of your search data is high enough, other companies are going to extreme lengths to get hold of it. Now down at my local Costa Coffee, when I use the O2 WFi service and do a search, Google report HTTPS has been disabled by my ISP. It seems O2 are deliberately breaking HTTPS connections to Google, so they can spy on my search habits. They already know who I am through my login with my Costa Card, but this extra is a wholly unacceptable grubby practice. O2's argument will be "we are providing the service so are free to do this" but in my book they are no more free to do so than a restauranteur is free to put a spy camera in his loos. This kind of big business blatant disregard for the customer is truly depressing and tiresome. And it does make me wonder if they make money from providing this data to customers like Costa (or keep it for themselves, I don't know what the arrangement is) just how good are their Chinese walls between the "public" WiFi business and the private residential ISP business (They have now sold that to Sky, so there is now less of an issue, but who can say what they were doing before the sale?). Clearly there will have been a conflict and temptation to cross index all the data
Anyway, at least, in my case, this all too tiresome further example of corporate rogering of customers has been good for DuckDuckGo.
Not really the point of the comment, I know, but actually 'spy cameras' are pretty commonplace in the loos at clubs, bars and restaurants these days. The usual reason given is security, i.e. being able to spot if there are naughty folks selling illegal substances or causing criminal damage to property. And cameras have been far more commonplace elsewhere in shops and offices for far longer, often as a protective measure for staff. It's much harder for a violent customer (yes, there are lots of people who seem to think it's okay to take a swipe at shop staff who don't do exactly what they want, however unreasonable) to claim he/she was attacked first when it's all on cctv.
It's much harder for a violent customer (yes, there are lots of people who seem to think it's okay to take a swipe at shop staff who don't do exactly what they want, however unreasonable) to claim he/she was attacked first when it's all on cctv.
Unless you have announced the presence of cameras (hidden or not) with signs, their evidence will be inadmissible in court and you may end up with a fine on top. Read up on CCTV deployment guidelines because this could land you with a fine..
This post has been deleted by its author
Now down at my local Costa Coffee, when I use the O2 WFi service and do a search, Google report HTTPS has been disabled by my ISP. It seems O2 are deliberately breaking HTTPS connections to Google, so they can spy on my search habits
IANAL, but as far as I can tell, this is a breach of either the DPA (unauthorised acquisition of your logon details and surfing habits without a clear, upfront explanation that they are doing this and under coercion), RIPA (unauthorised surveillance) or the Computer Misuse Act (this puts your UID and password in cleartext over a public network) - I would make screenshots of the process and then ask O2, announcing that you intend to lodge a complaint by the authorities responsible for each law. That ought to trigger some answer, and it would be interesting to see how they'd try to defend it. Be sure to put a time limit on their response - and keep us posted.
I'd do all of this myself but I'm abroad right now which makes evidence gathering problematic :)
"Seems like the standard Euroweasel's complaint. Whatever happened to Capitalism (the little of what remains in the Eurozone, that is?)"
A combination of name calling and a personal insult followed by a spurious reference to the cold-war era Capitalism-Communism divide, which by now is rather stale and in any case irrelevant in the context. Otherwise void of content.
Isn't it obvious that Google's 'vision' projects are upsetting plans for the New World Order so much that the secret cabals are fighting back?
Google are pretty much untouchable in the US so those who feel threatened by Google's headlong rush towards the singularity are using their European branch, who don't rely on the taxes brought in, to try and cripple the ad giants network, hoping if one part falls others will follow and stop Google advancing research that the previous interests had done so well to stifle.
We have to support Google against these warmongering luddites from the dark ages!
(goes off to listen to Knights of Cydonia for the bazillionth time)
"...A new commissioner would therefore have to get up to speed on the case, which probably wouldn't help matters."
It's true that it wouldn't help Google - they have better things to be getting on with. But the primary objective of the Commission is to perpetuate and expand their own bureaucracy. They live for this kind of stuff.
But the primary objective of the Commission is to perpetuate and expand their own bureaucracy. They live for this kind of stuff.
They also occasionally annoy people with trying to uphold EU law, that's why Google is so annoyed with them. If they were just playing bureaucrat and took their bribes as they were supposed to there wouldn't a be a problem for Google. Unfortunately, it appears Google was counting on the latter, and didn't quite expect to get the former instead.
Hmmm which law have they broken again?
Gathering all your searches and selling them to others, which can get you in real trouble. Say, for instance, you are working your way through a season of Person of Interest (just to keep it topical), and you decide to check just how certain things are made by searching for it. The assembled search results will not be accompanied by what you're doing at home unless you have a Glasshole nearby, so you may well be flagged for being a terrorist.
And there will be nothing you can do about that. That's another function of privacy - keeping data out of people's hands until they are in a position to see the context as well.
In a nutshell, what they do is harming your privacy by breaking EU law - that's why they have been asked to change their privacy policy and then live by it.
I agree, but at least they're starting to do something. Having said that, the right to be forgotten is IMHO not exactly a shining beacon of sanity - here they have indeed not really worked their way through the consequences, and the ways in which an offender can screw over an entire country in an unprecedented way by playing games.
Google is the dominant search engine so, in general, what they choose to show (or not) is of immense consequence: in practice, if your site is not among the top results from Google, it is as if it didn't exist. With this in mind, it is really beside the point whether there are other search engines: the issue is not that there is no choice for the users making searches, but that there is a rather substantial effect on third parties. As stated in the article, this becomes a competition issue if and when Google uses its dominance in search to push its other services, akin to Microsoft leveraging its dominance in the desktop OS market (Windows) for an advantage with its other products (e.g. Office). Whether there is a good solution for this is another matter, one suggestion has been separating the search business into an independent company.
On the other hand, if your site is not on the first page or so of Google's response list it is likely not on the first page of Bing, Yahoo, or Duck Duck Go either. Although all of these consistently are slightly inferior to Google in producing the result list I want, all are pretty good, and certainly good enough for most uses. Schmidt is correct at least for me: I want a response containing links to sites that answer my query, not a result link that has links to sites that might respond to my query.
It would be interesting to see results of a survey posing the question whether (a) others have an opinion similar to mine and (b) how many/what per cent of the population actually want to see such useless responses as foundem or nextag (also how many/what per cent actively ignore such sites, as I do, in search results).