EU Google-bashing is making us look really bad, say Google bashers It appears that Google's rivals, who have complained about the ad giant's European dominance, are worried that bashing the goliath can go too far. “It is irresponsible to try and make the Google case seem wider than it actually is,” said Microsoft-backed ICOMP, an organisation representing big businesses that have moaned to …
Consumer choice, indeed: the way in which search engines are (or aren't) biased makes a huge difference as to how consumers actually choose. Hence the suggestion of separating search from other business: an independent search provider doesn't have a conflict of interest displaying its own or affiliated services (as it doesn't have any).
"and leave consumer choice to the consumers!". Yes, Yes, I like that too, but the thing is that we consumers will eat shit, drink shit and be treated as shit if we think to much of having any force on facts just because we are consumers. We do need organisations within the state to help us. For instance, the lobbying by the industry related to what shit they are allowed to put into our food is staggering. The amazing thing is that the EU has agreed not to check but some of the stuff used by the food industry.
Lots of shit in this comment, no doubt, but that is, more or less, how it is.
Doesn't seem that way to me: consider that violations of the data protection directive are a criminal offense in some EU countries, add this to the principle of proceeds of crime - i.e. Google's past and current revenue - being subject to confiscation and using money laundering provisions to carry this out for an idea of what a vendetta might actually look like.
There may or may not be a EU vendetta against US companies, but there's definitely an EU vendetta against Google.
It's not a vendetta, merely asking them to abide by EU law, and some effort at constraining the power and influence these unelected people have on society. This forum talks about freedom of choice as if that is a given, but if Google can adjust search results to supports its advertisers / sponsors / political benefactors then you are not making a choice, you end up merely a marionette with a profound blindness for the bits of string going up from your limbs.
Don't get me wrong, I love how Google has revolutionised search because their page 1 results tend to be indeed more relevant than others (and still are, btw). Where it gets dodgy is that Google has become a gatekeeper to your use of the Net - practically all Internet activity starts with a search other than your regular haunts such as El Reg, and they have enough income to actually just buy the required politics in some countries. I don't know if they have, but given their attitude towards privacy (you had "none - get over it" until it started to cost them money and cause risk, and have you ever found anything out about Google management?) I cannot really detect an overabundance of ethics.
Having said all of this, how on earth are you going to regulate search? I can see this remaining a struggle for quite some time.
The topic of Data Protection is actually much easier. Google were given PLENTY of advance warning that they needed to correct things, and they were even given an opportunity to fix it in 27 countries at once. Instead, they chose to ignore it and are now facing the consequences. I really have no pity here, but I can see why the other providers are getting nervous - if Google is made to comply the game is pretty much over for them too as there deeper implications here across jurisdictions.
You better get popcorn - this is getting interesting..
The regulation had better be extremely cautious as it would not take a lot for Google to add 'the right to be forgotten' approach for every politician, party and eurocrat who support acting against Google. If they were joined in that by other search engines that were being hit by collateral damage from the anti-google attacks it could be very very bad for the politicians involved who spend a lot of time and money trying to ensure that they are found by search engines. So they should be very careful what they wish for.
The regulation had better be extremely cautious as it would not take a lot for Google to add 'the right to be forgotten' approach for every politician, party and eurocrat who support acting against Google
.. proving exactly the point that they should be absolutely BURIED under legislation until they start behaving. I'm no big fan of regulation, but if a company is clearly taking the piss with the law they deserve everything that can be thrown at them. Should any company really have the power to influence law and politics in a country other than where it resides and where it pays a decent amount of tax? If you want to see what happens if that becomes reality, look no further than Wall Street which has had more get out of jail cards issued than collectively seen in all games of Monopoly together for the last two decades or so (they just got another one issued, QED).
As the DPC in Europe have been saying that changing individual agreements for individual services into a single agreement was illegal and Google has just ignored them for the last 2 or 3 years, I would say that they only have themselves to blame.
If you sign up now and are forced to agree to a single agreement for all services, that is one thing. For those that signed up for one or two individual services to have it forced on them that their data can now be used outside those services they signed up for is just wrong... Users are either forced to accept this bludgeoning of their rights or they have to quit the service.
"Users are either forced to accept this bludgeoning of their rights or they have to quit the service."
They are not forced to use the service. Alternatives exist. More or less decent ones, too. This isn't "Microsoft OS on the desktop" here. You aren't de facto locked in because it's the only thing that's realistically usable and/or everyone else uses it.
if you use bing maps on your website, nobody gives a wallop. If you use Yahoo News, nobody cares. So what's the big deal? Is it, perhaps, a desire for cake and simultaneous consumption thereof?
If you want something to get your panties in a bunch about, let's start having conversations about "integrated search". Android, ChromeOS and, yes, Windows. Why should a search of my local PC/NAS/Corporate Network/etc be streaming the information about what I'm searching for to Bing/Google/the NSA/etc? Local is local. Web is web. The twain should not meet.
Now there is a privacy issue.
If you have built up a community around your profile on one service, then it is very difficult to up stumps and move to another, without losing that community and having to start over.
Or if you are a GMail user, for example and hundreds of people have your address, it is a pain to have to go through your contact list and inform them that you are moving to a new address, and all because Google change the T&Cs to mean that they can scrape your email for other services not related to GMail.
That is the problem, people joined up with an expectation of a certain level of privacy for individual services, only to have Google undermine that, once they had gotten themselves nested into the service, in the hope that it would be too much hassle to change services and the people would carry on using the services regardless.
"Is it, perhaps, a desire for cake and simultaneous consumption thereof?"
More people chose which slices tasted good to them and Google decided to force feed them the rest of the cake until they puked.
As to integrated search, yes, you are correct, that is also a big problem.
"If you have built up a community around your profile on one service, then it is very difficult to up stumps and move to another, without losing that community and having to start over.
Or if you are a GMail user, for example and hundreds of people have your address, it is a pain to have to go through your contact list and inform them that you are moving to a new address, and all because Google change the T&Cs to mean that they can scrape your email for other services not related to GMail."
Okay, fair point. So I think there's a case to be made there that those users who were using Google services before the great Ts&Cs merger might have cause to request segregation of their data, if that's their beef. But not anyone after said merger. Because they would have gone into this (in theory) knowing what they're getting.
I agree totally, and I think the ICOs would probably agree. If you sign up now, you get what is in the T&Cs.
The existing users were told, "those T&Cs you agreed to, yeah, well here's the thing... Na na ne na na, it is now all null and void and we ownz U." And that is the problem. They weren't given the option to opt in, they were moved lock stock and barrel, whether they wanted to or not, which under EU DP law is not allowed.
'Twould appear that the solution to your false dilemma is the latter alternative. Stop using the 'free' services. You made a deal with
Google, whether you are aware of it or not, that if you use their services, ANY services, you accept the proviso that Google will use any information that YOU provide for any purpose that they choose. Want to type in a search query? Google will keep track of that query and all others, to build an intellectual and commercial profile of you. Use Gmail and keywords in your mail are noted, recorded and analyzed. Don't want that to happen? Don't use Google's search engine, email, document handling suite, translation or what have you.
Problem solved!
Here is a small insight; "If you do not pay, directly, for an internet service, you are not the customer, you are the product."
Spain is off the list, as well as Russia. The other companies worry about what happens when Google leaves the stage. Who's next?
Who suffers when Google, Uber, etc are forced to leave? My own feeling is that all best and brightest will march off to Palo Alto. Lots of jobs there, although the housing's a bitch. :)
ps. 2 weeks search and a new Canadian civil engineer lands a $85K job, although lots of people have to jam into a house.
Why do you think there's currently mass Spanish emigration to the north of the Pyrenees, North America and finally Latin America (for those who aren't good with languages)?
It's because the politicians in Spain are corrupt retards who don't understand any technology less than 50 years old and have no hesitation destroying your business if it interferes with the regular supply of brown envelopes from the guild of candlestick makers.
Now it's obvious to the rest of the world as opposed to those just inside Spain then that's going to dissuade foreign investment even more and maybe Google will end up pulling out of opening their office in Madrid next year.
No real point to this reply other than to agree with your post but it gave me a fine opportunity to rant.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the EU found that there is no longer any Google? They may get that.
But on the EU's right to be forgotten. If the EU is going enforce the "Right to be forgotten" then is should be the court which informs the search engines what data is to be for gotten and if it does not come from the court the search engines should not obey the request. Of the searcher engines should forget all search results even the ones the police may need if the request comes from the individual and the search engine companies are required to honor it.
It certainly seems from looking at the ICOMP website their primary concern is stirring the pot of discontent with Google. No doubt this is backed by lobbying efforts directly from Microsoft.
They had a good plan too. Start off ICOMP with tangential interests like copyright to gain trust and access, then bring it to a new heading to fire broadside at Google. The vendetta looks to originate from Microsoft.
Precisely. FairSearch and ICOMP are lobbying proxies for Microsoft. This is all about damaging Google for being too successful in Europe. The reason that people don't use Bing is because it's crap, not because Google is being anti-competitive. Hell, Microsoft even ships Bing/IE as the default on every new Windows PC, and still can't get any marketshare. Consumers are actively choosing Google over rivals because it's generally better.
It's astonishing that the EU commission wants to breakup Google, yet doesn't do a damn thing about Microsoft's abusive multi-decadal monopoly of the PC market. Browser ballot? Version N? What a joke. How about the commission separates Windows from the rest of Microsoft? Now that's something I'd go along with. Though by the looks of things, there's a better chance of Microsoft going bankrupt than the EU actually doing anything to end that abusive monopoly.
"The vendetta looks to originate from Microsoft."
Waaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah!!! Please! Someone send this guy a tinfoil hat!
Seriously, it's not healthy to hold a grudge like this for so long. Yes, we all know that Microsoft have done some downright filthy things over they years, but to immediately round on them when another big corporation starts getting questioned? Jeez, next thing will be that the axing of Google Earth API at the end of next year will be due to the actions of all the Microsoft staff who have "defected" over the years actually being trojan horses!
The friend of Microsoft is not necessarily your enemy, though it turns out that way about 99% of the time. The problem is that Microsoft epitomizes cancer as a business model, so they have to be nervous about attacks on the google's cancerous nature. Remember the google's motto "All your attentions is belonging to us."
If it makes you feel any better, Amazon is worse and even more EVIL than the google. I stopped shopping with Amazon more than 10 year ago because of their intrusive and aggressive use of my purchase history, but that hasn't stopped them. The other day I visited Amazon and checked some information on a book, and Amazon responds by emailing me a list of related books they want me to buy.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
