* Posts by Pseu Donyme

161 posts • joined 10 May 2011

Page:

Google to French data cops: Dot-com RTBF? Baiser ma DERRIERE

Pseu Donyme

Re: "[..] it is not the law globally"

>Well over on our side of 'The Pond ...

I think that there is a misunderstanding of what is being asked of Google here. Having read the ECJ decision at the time my impression was that as long as the search results are available within the EU the 'right to be forgotten' applies; it is immaterial through which domain the the search was made as long as the user is in the EU. Hence it seems Google could comply by always forcing the redirect from google.com to an EU site or by applying the EU filter to results from google.com when it knows that the search originates from the EU (as it does as it forwards to a national site by default). Of course, Google could also comply by applying the EU filter everywhere, but this is not its only option.

However, if Google were to display search results on EU persons outside EU, there might be an issue of having exported personal information from the EU in the sense of the data protection directive; to qualify for the 'safe harbor' exception making such export legal Google has contractually committed to apply the key principles of the EU data protection law to the information thus exported.

Also, I don't think this is free speech issue in the sense of the US (Constitution as that only limits what the US (or a state) government can do to prevent such speech (and the US (or a state) government is not involved).

2
0

Google turns cookie monster on AdSense, DoubleClick clients

Pseu Donyme

The trouble with Google is that their business model - pushing targeted ads where targeting is based on personal profiling without consent - is at odds with privacy and hence any decent data protection laws. What they are trying to do here is circumvent the EU law's spirit with an interpretation of its letter such that they'd be allowed to carry on as they were, when the only real solution would be dropping the offending business model based on the (non-existent) US law.

3
2

Swedish government wins legal case to seize Pirate Bay domains

Pseu Donyme

Re: The government can take stuff it thinks belongs to you if you've been convicted?

>If the domain is rented...

I suppose the government could sidestep the issue by paying the regular fees to the registrar for as long as they want to keep the domain out of circulation. This would be in line with no harm to the registrar - as with the court costs - due to finding them not liable. Actually, maybe the 'property' here is the right to the domain name under the same terms as with the original owner as opposed to a perpetual right to the domain name itself.

0
1

'Right to be forgotten' festers as ICO and Google come to blows

Pseu Donyme

Re: I've Asked Before

>... google.co.uk and google.com?

If I got the gist of the ECJ ruling right, the domain name through which Google search is reached doesn't matter as long as the results are visible within the EU. I'm not sure Google can display the 'forgotten' results even when the search user is outside the EU as there might be an issue with exporting personal data from the EU; in order to qualify for the 'safe harbor' exception allowing such export Google is supposed to respect the key principles of the EU data protection regime.

2
1

Google whacks CREEPY predictive search up to 11 in cheap Chrome OS beta

Pseu Donyme
Thumb Up

>Rubbish. You're creeped out by a search engine ...

Um ... it seems as if you see Google as a company offering just a search engine. In fact it is really the largest ad pusher on the internet and this is where it gets its revenue. To target its ads it collects profiles on internet users. A part of this is one's search history on Google search and, in general, whatever they can get from their other services (such as gmail, Youtube, Chrome (browser), Android devices, Chromebook, cloud ...). This might be legal even in the EU (*), what is illegal (in the EU, at least) is their collecting (and making use of) data of browsing habits with Google Analytics, G+ buttons, Google Maps and of course the ads they distribute (and possibly otherwise) without consent - or even knowledge, in most cases - of the internet user.

(*) Then again it might not, because their TOS is so wide open to intepretation that actual user consent to any of this is suspect (and possibly because their dominant market position with search and Android).

6
0

Google-gate: 'Toothless' watchdog FTC nibbles furiously on journalists

Pseu Donyme

Re: Google bashing

Indeed, richly deserved though - if only for their other misdeeds.

Ceterum censeo Google esse delendam.

0
0

'There is NO SUCH THING as a safe site anymore' – security bod

Pseu Donyme

re: privacy policy

How about

"We will collect, use and/or store information related to you only as strictly necessary to provide our products and/or services to you, such information will not be disclosed to a third party absent a court order compelling us to do so."

?

1
0

Privacy? What privacy? EU's draft law on your data is useless, say digital rights orgs

Pseu Donyme

Re: Lobbying

In this context it occurred to me that these drafts should be put under version control with a public changelog so that we the people (through the press) could at least see which particular minister (country) or other entity is behind each tweak to a draft.

4
0

Google mouthpieces: 'Right to be Forgotten' should NOT apply on google.com

Pseu Donyme

Re: What makes something outdated?

You shouldn't be affected as there should be no reason to search by an individual's name (?): the ECJ decision was about Google removing certain result page when searching by the name, not removing the page from search results altogether (using other search terms).

1
0
Pseu Donyme

Re: Why the search engine?

>I still don't understand ...

The legal basis is that Google is a data controller processing personal information in the sense of the data protection directive; in this context it is irrelevant whether the information is otherwise available or not, what matters is that Google 'processes' personal information and some of this 'processing' (at least displaying the results) takes place in an EU member counrtry.

1
1
Pseu Donyme

Re: The google.com thing

>Does this extend?...

I suppose it could, if an external entity is under the de jure and de facto jurisdiction of where the information is displayed; e.g. while the Chinese certainly would seem to have de jure jurisdiction over what gets displayed - i.e. physically takes place - in China, it is hard to see the existence of de facto jurisdiction i.e. the ability to actually force a British news site to do anything about it in practice.

0
0

Google must free us from 'invisible web of our personal data' – DPA

Pseu Donyme

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 ...)

2
1

EU Google-bashing is making us look really bad, say Google bashers

Pseu Donyme

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.

2
9
Pseu Donyme

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).

3
4

Cloud Printing from a Chromebook: We try it out on 8 inkjet all-in-ones

Pseu Donyme

Re: Print Drivers

>It's a much better idea than ....

Um .... no: I would assume that compatible printers implement a common network interface (a built-in driver, if you will), if so, this same inferface could be used to print locally over wi-fi. The reason for doing it via cloud is - no doubt - because that makes it easier for Google to snoop on you (to better target ads (to better please their paying customers - i.e. advertisers - with an improved product i.e. you, or, more precisely a more detailed profile on you)).

3
0

Keep your court orders to YOURSELF – human rights chief slaps US

Pseu Donyme

Re: Analysis

I fear "reflexive anti-American Eurocratic wankery" could be construed as arrogant American anti-European balductum here on the European side of the pond.

11
0
Pseu Donyme

Re: Gottalottaballs here...

Different issues. The 'right to be forgotten' decision was about preventing Google from disclosing certain kinds of information as a part of a commercial service provided to the public. Microsoft is currently trying to argue against being compelled to disclose a third party's information to the state as a part of a criminal investigation. There is a unifying, consistent theme of protecting privacy though.

18
0

Is EU right to expand 'right to be forgotten' to Google.com?

Pseu Donyme

Re: how does it work in reverse

From a pragmatic point of view: no, if you don't have any business interests, assets or persons you care about (including yourself) potentially* under the jurisdiction of an objecting country.

* e.g. by extradition treaties

0
0
Pseu Donyme

Re: Search Jazz

The way this is supposed to work is not filtering search terms, but omitting certain pages from the results: Josephine might ask Google to remove one or more URLs that show up when searching with her name without affecting what shows up for Joe (unless, I suppose, material about both happens to be on the same page(s)).

0
0
Pseu Donyme

Re: Private search engines?

I would think a private search engine - with or without its own private database - is a 'data contoller' in the sense of the data protection directive just as a public one is and hence the same rules apply, maybe even more stringent ones as a private search engine cannot claim public interest as a justification (to the same extent as a public one might, anyway).

6
0

MEPs want 'unbiased search', whatever that is – they're not sure either

Pseu Donyme

Neutral search results are not an ureasonable thing to ask for as such: a (dominant) search engine's bias has consequences for third parties (other than search providers and theirs users). So far the best suggestion has been separating search to an independent (and hence presumeably neutral) company to eliminate the problem of biasing search results to push the search provider's other services.

4
3

Author fined $500k in first US spyware conviction

Pseu Donyme

@MyBackDoor

I think the OP is referring to tracking by the prevalent Facebook 'Like' buttons, where the (dubious) claim that the user had agreed to be tracked by accepting Facebook EULA (or TOS) doesn't apply.

2
0

Euro Parliament VOTES to BREAK UP GOOGLE. Er, OK then

Pseu Donyme

Humbug

Break-up seems kind of lenient considering the scale and persistence of Google's violations of privacy, a fundamental individual right in the EU. Instead I'd like to see them driven to bankruptcy (or at least out of the EU) with fines and confiscation past and future revenues as proceeds of crime as well as prosecuting the top brass (or at least sharply limiting their travel options). Since some EU-countries consider serious violations of the data protection directive a criminal offense (?) this should be operationally possible. This would also address the competition issues quite nicely, the worst of them being that an entity which cannot ignore the data protection directive, such as an EU-based search engine, is at a crushing competitive disadvantage to one who does.

2
8

Right to be forgotten should apply to Google.com too: EU

Pseu Donyme

Re: First Amendment ?

>How does the EU law trump the US constitution ...

I seem to recall that the relevant bit in the US constitution begins with "Congress shall make no law" i.e. this is a negative right, a restriction on what the US (or state) government may do, not a positive right the same is obliged to uphold. Hence no conflict here.

1
1

Europe may ask Herr Google: Would you, er, snap off your search engine? Pretty please

Pseu Donyme

The problem is not that search users don' t have a choice, they do. The problem is that Google's dominance means that if your site does not turn up among the top results on Google search it is as if it didn't exist; there is a huge impact on third parties (other than Google and the user of their search, that is). This becomes a competition issue when Google uses its search to promote its other sevices (or potentially whenever it deviates from 'organic' results for other reasons).

2
4

Google Contributor: Ad-block killer – or proof NO ONE will pay for news?

Pseu Donyme

Indeed. Not only does this greatly facilitate collecting a profile of one's browsing habits, but also allows tying one's real world identity to the profile (as an unavoidable side effect of paying for this).

4
0

Be real, Apple: In-app goodie grab games AREN'T FREE – EU

Pseu Donyme

Re: So-o-o-o-o-o-o...

And how about the much touted "free market(s)"? Hardly free at all in the sense at issue here.

2
1

Uber exec wanted to sic private dicks on critics ... Hey, Emil Michael, COME AT US, bro

Pseu Donyme

On a related note

This sort of thing is why one's life on-line (browsing habits, searches, who you mix with, ...) should stay strictly private instead of being collected for commercial advantage, which ultimately means selling the information to the highest bidder: knowledge (of you) is power (over you).

6
0

Who will save Europe's privacy from the NSA? Oh God ... it's Google

Pseu Donyme

No thanks

How about respecting the sovereignty of other (friendly) nations though?

10
0

SUPER-JAMMY Philae comet probe got down WITHOUT harpoons

Pseu Donyme

So say we all.

3
0

Poverty? Pah. That doesn't REALLY exist any more

Pseu Donyme

Re: The measure of Poverty

There happens to be a piece on Vox on this very issue:

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/29/5946395/eitc-poverty-supplemental-measure-official-threshold

Based on this I'd disagree with the notion that it leaves out "almost all of the things done to try to alleviate poverty" (it does leave out a lot though).

0
1
Pseu Donyme

Re: Ironic.

>This is one cost of debasing words...

I'm not so sure the words poverty or poor have been debased lately (as a result of a cunning leftist conspiracy or otherwise), rather it seems they have been used in the absolute and relative senses for quite a while: Webster's 1828 edition defines poor as

"Wholly destitute of property, or not having property sufficient for a comfortable subsistence; needy. It is often synonymous with indigent, and with necessitous, denoting extreme want; it is also applied to persons who are not entirely destitute of property, but are not rich"

(http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=poor&use1828=on)

5
0

Europe's Google wrangle: PLEASE, DOMINANT Mr Schmidt? More?

Pseu Donyme

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.

1
0
Pseu Donyme

Re: The unfairness goes much deeper

"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.

1
1
Pseu Donyme

The unfairness goes much deeper

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.

11
8

US citizens want stricter CO2 regulations by two to one – Yale poll

Pseu Donyme

Re: This one is predictable

Sadly, this seems pertinent to the downvotes and Tom's comment above: "

Everyone knows that the American right has problems with science that yields conclusions it doesn’t like. Climate science — which says that we face a huge global externality that requires not just government intervention, but coordinated international action (black helicopters!) has been the target of a sustained, and unfortunately largely successful, attempt to damage its credibility.

But it doesn’t stop there. We should not forget that much of the right is deeply hostile to the theory of evolution.

And now there’s a new one (to me, anyway; maybe it’s been out there all along): it turns out that, according to Conservapedia, the theory of relativity is a liberal plot.

" (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/first-they-came-for-the-climate-scientists)

0
0
Pseu Donyme

Re: This one is predictable

re cost: in his most recent NYT column Krugman argues that the cost - relative to GDP - is minuscule, based on figures from the *US Chamber of Commerce* (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/krugman-cutting-back-on-carbon.html).

3
8

Mozilla launches Flame reference handset for Firefox OS

Pseu Donyme

Re: Good luck with that.

Um ... changes are that you got a faulty piece of kit: mine works a-ok and, imho, is kind of impressive for the money as such and also as an indication of the general readiness of the platform. Mine did update itself ota as about the first thing though, so the problem could be a crappy, early software flashed at the factory (?).

0
0

Senate slams ad servers for security failings

Pseu Donyme

Better Better yet

Make advertising strictly opt-in.

2
0

Hey, Michael Lewis: Stop DEMONISING Wall Street’s SUPERHUMAN high-speed trading

Pseu Donyme

Re: Why do we have stock markets?

> 2) ...

Or maybe moving to a market where bids and offers are matched and transactions executed at the end of the day so that the highest bids get what is on offer at the mean price of each match. This would serve the long-term investor just fine while eliminating much of the volatility (and, incidently, HST ;).

6
2
Pseu Donyme

Bollox

This is about converting priviledged access to profit, which is siphoned off from those without such access i.e. the market is rigged to the benefit those with such priviledged access. Attributing the spread getting smaller over time entirely to HST is sketchy at best, automating the trading in general and increased competition between exchanges is a more likely (and obvious) explanation. In fact, the front running at issue here would seem to have an opposite effect as the aforementioned profit doesn't flow from thin air, but comes from the regular buyers and sellers, who end up with paying slightly more (or getting slightly less).

9
2

US to strengthen privacy rights for Euro bods' personal data transfers

Pseu Donyme

Even without Snowden leaks it was clear that 'safe harbour' was (worse than) useless: US companies have been operating with blatant disregard of the EU data protection laws. Case in point: Google's troubles with CNIL (see e.g. http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/news/article/the-cnils-sanctions-committee-issues-a-150-000-EUR-monetary-penalty-to-google-inc/ ).

2
0

Triple-headed NHS privacy scare after hospital data reach marketers, Google

Pseu Donyme

Re: What has it got on its serverses?

>... then what's the problem?

Maybe that the data was supposed to be strictly confidential, accessible to named individuals within PA Consulting only? Instead, a company with the business model - in essence - of violating privacy for profit on a massive scale was given a copy. It does not help that Google fancies that the EU data protection law does not appy to them (on record, no less: http://www.cnil.fr/linstitution/actualite/article/article/google-failure-to-comply-before-deadline-set-in-the-enforcement-notice/).

14
0

UK citizens to Microsoft: Oi. We WANT ODF as our doc standard

Pseu Donyme

Re: Thanks

> ... the market ...

Indeed, the market, competition. I'd give it a try before dusting off Das Kapital. Hence ODF.

9
0

France demands that Google post badge of shame on its pages

Pseu Donyme

>... The French are being plonkers, IMO.

I wouldn't say that it is only a) about the combining of data (new TOS) and/or b) the French (CNIL).

See the letter to Google from OCT 2012, signed by just about every (?) EU data protection authority: http://www.cnil.fr/fileadmin/documents/en/20121016-letter_google-article_29-FINAL.pdf (from http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/news/article/googles-new-privacy-policy-incomplete-information-and-uncontrolled-combination-of-data-across-ser/)

2
1

Blighty's laziness over IPv6 will cost us on the INTERNETS - study

Pseu Donyme

Likewise I have a timer switch that turns the router off briefly in the wee hours combined with a startup script that pulls the MAC for the WAN port from /dev/urandom (on dd-wrt). With the browser clearing cookies, local storage, cache etc. on exit this should keep Google and its ilk at least somewhat in check as far as tracking goes. :)

0
0

Do Not Track W3C murder plot fails by handful of votes

Pseu Donyme

As a (partial) solution by other means, ISPs could offer privacy options (that might be enabled by default for the great unwashed), such as NAT (effectively destroying the association with an IP-address and a particular user/device, already widely used with mobile data) and mapping known ad servers and other trackers to 127.0.0.1 (or similar) in DNS (akin AdAway / custom hosts file).

0
0

Obama to Merkel: No Americans are listening to you on this call

Pseu Donyme

Re: Its like when you have proof that a politician is lying...

>...how do you propose any nation "punishes" the US?

In this particular context eliminating US tech products from official or infrastructure use by law would seem to have merit: a fair and prudent precaution also amounting to punishment.

4
0

Electronic Frontier Foundation bails from Global Network Initiative

Pseu Donyme

I'm afraid the reality of it is that the big US corps don't actually give a hoot about privacy (if there is money to be made). Case in point: Google's current troubles with CNIL and other EU data protection authorities.

11
0

Page:

Forums