Google must free us from 'invisible web of our personal data' – DPA Dutch data protection watchdogs have warned Google it will face fines of up to €15m if it doesn’t alter its privacy policy. In 2012, the search giant “consolidated” the privacy policies for 60 of its services including Google Search, YouTube, Gmail, Picasa, Google Drive, Google Docs and Google Maps, thereby combining personal …
The limited fines issued by DPAs are just the initial slap on the wrist. If these don't bring compliance, a likely next step would be a DPA getting a court oder from a national court. With these, unlimited fines are just one way of forcing compliance. (Of course, Googe is likely to appeal at every step, which means the points of law at issue eventually winding up in the ECJ, which will take a fair bit of time ...)
How was combining privacy policies illegal? Was the print too small? Combining them, if anything, made the whole process less complex and more understandable. If you don't "like" it, go find another free service that does all that Google provides. (Hint: There isn't one)
If Google can find ANY other company that has similar privacy policies (think MS, Adobe, any software or website) and that company has not recieved the same false outrage from "data protection" advocates, then the accuser should be pilloried on the same stake as the accused.
Grow up Eurocrats. Or be "forgotten".
People signed up for individual services and then suddenly they were forced to "share" their data between all services, whether that is what they wanted or not. That is the problem.
A lot of people chose the individual services, because they were individual and they didn't want Google tracking their every move. Google illegally changed the rules without giving the existing users an opt-out.
The Eurocrats wanted Google to change it's policies so it did, and made them all one.
Nothing said they couldn't do it, so they did. Your laws say its okay if it isn't forbidden so it must be okay then. Nothing says they have to give an opt out other than if you don't agree you have no access.
There is no difference, only one set of rules that even a Eurocrat could understand if they weren't so busy continually trying to fuck with Google by changing the rules of the game.
Too bad...you don't get a choice for "free" software. Go ahead and "opt out" and buy something to replace Google and read the T&C's. They will not be any better.
I don't have numbers, but there was a big uproar in Germany at the time, for instance.
But thereagain, Germany is one of the main countries where thousands of people had their properties blurred in Street View, because they did not give their permission to have the photos published.
http://it-material.de/IT-online5/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/2010-14-kl.jpg
This post has been deleted by its author
Taken from the article:
"This reflects the overall view held by European data protection authorities. In September, a joint letter from Europe’s data protection chiefs to Eric Schmidt said Google cannot expect users to read the Terms of Service update in order to be informed about their privacy rights."
So, to paraphrase there is no contract in all of Europe that can be considered binding because the inhabitants of the EU are too stupid and uneducated to read it. That's either "convenient" or stupid or both.
You can fix ignorance through education, you can't fix stupidity.
I suggest that a whole bunch of Banks, better call in their loans. Their mortgages are suddenly "non-compliant". Might want to look at your online banking privacy too. Both report far more private info to the credit agencies.
Quite apparently, as you are not able to read and comprehend the T&Cs when you sign up to a service that you already know depends on selling your data.
T'was a focussed argument I believe, just that you couldn't grasp it. The EUC even said that
Dear who ever you are,
err no, I am perfectly happy to use certain Google services, I am quite happy with the bargain I have made with Google (long ago I switched on the switched off options that they do quite a good job of hiding..).
Hence I have a more than adequate understanding of the Ts&Cs, thank you for your inaccurate assumption.
My point was that I would not dream of casting aspersions over a whole continent about how a given quantity of people therein may or not react to a large American superpower-esque company being more than a bit bloody cheeky...
But please feel free to carry on ploughing your furrow.
Regards,
j
So you have just proudly admitted you are beyond help and redemption.
You cannot just go along and change the T&C's, and then expect everyone to agree to them in order to continue using the service, whether it is free, or paid for.
Morally, if not legally, you must give advance warning of the changes, so that those who do not agree to whatever changes have been made, have plenty of time to retrieve their data, delete their profiles, and get the hell out of Dodge.
No, I specifically mentioned it was people like you that blindly keep doing the same thing time after time and expect different results. That's the very definition of stupid (and insane)
As you are all atheists anyway how could you even care, you already outlawed morality because it has a basis in religion.
The statement "We reserve the right to change the terms and conditions of this agreement at will" is included in almost every software or other contract.
If you are so concerned, delete your profile and discontinue the service. THATS your "opt out".
"As you are all atheists anyway how could you even care, you already outlawed morality because it has a basis in religion."
You don't need to be a religious person in order to be a good person. For you to claim otherwise is just an attempt by you to add a strawman argument to your already flawed, and bullshit logic.
"The statement "We reserve the right to change the terms and conditions of this agreement at will" is included in almost every software or other contract."
Which makes the entire contract or EULA invalid, as even a novice knows that a contract is a set of terms and conditions agreed to by both parties at the onset. For one party to claim the right to change them at will, renders said contract unenforcable (and illegal depending on your jurisdiction).
No, the Europeans only have to read the original terms of service to understand what their rights to privacy are. Google cannot expect just changing them willy nilly is enough. They have to inform the users explicitly of the changes and they should offer the users an opt-out - the rules cannot be changed on one side and enforced without the agreement of both parties, Google didn't allow the users an opt-out or to express their discontent with the changes, it was presented as a fait accompli.
Microsoft are a little better, I have received a couple of emails this year about changes to their terms. The email mentioned which claused had been changed and put it in plain English what those changes meant. Although I didn't see an opt-out clause.
Who said there is an "opt out" other than to not use the service if you don't like the terms?
There isn't, if you don't agree and check the box you don't get to use it. Doesn't matter which company.
Google made the changes because it was told to by the dpa's. They can make changes at will, it's in the T&Cs.
If you had bothered to read the T&Cs, you might have known.
Obviously you didn't, so the inference is that you must be stupid. Even the ignorant can be educated.
Why just Google? Why not also the credit card companies, the banks, the retail stores, Facebook? (ok never mind, that last is just stupid people)
In fact why not the entirety of both government and businesses who really have NO business sticking their nose into OUR business?
It isn't just Google, Facebook have also had their knuckles rapped over this.
As to credit card companies, banks etc. they generally work within tight regulatory frameworks and any changes they make are cleary communicated up front and the user has a chance to lodge a complaint, before they are put into action.
Google presented the changes as a fait accompli.
Google should work on visualising a user's data graph for them. People are going to have to grok this stuff one day if they want to stand a chance of controlling their own internet presence. FUD being what it is, they *should* (*sigh*) favour the suppliers that actually let them see and control it.
And it will also give people a chance to rake out all the urls they clicked on that they hate, but The Machine now thinks they love (Rick Astley FTW!). Or to do exactly the opposite, naturally.
But really, we need hats (and the ability to retroactively don them, and burn them). We aren't always the same people, even on the same platform, in the same day. We do need to partition our lives. Seperate accounts is hassle. e.g. My christmas present researching/buying spree is going to completely mangle any Evil Overlord's understanding of me. (You *dare* advertise scented bathcrap at me!?!)
Recently switched to DuckDuckGo after (belatedly) looking at my Google settings and history, and being mightily scared when I saw all the searches I'd made going back at least 5 years.
While i find the idea of Big Data rather frightening, I suppose it's the price you pay for a 'free' service. However, combining terms of service so that it makes it much easier to join the dots of your various services is even more sinister, and bravo to the European authorities for at least making some of us aware of it.
Honestly, do you really think your personal data is anymore secure now?
Data IS the price you pay for a "free" service and all the wishful thinking in the world won't make that change. You don't get something for nothing (except you think you are entitled to it).
It's rather sad that you have to rely on the government to tell you what you could have read for yourself.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
