France's Data Protection agency issues their maximum monetary penalty to Google(cnil.fr)
cnil.fr
France's Data Protection agency issues their maximum monetary penalty to Google
http://www.cnil.fr/english/news-and-events/news/article/the-cnils-sanctions-committee-issues-a-150-000-EUR-monetary-penalty-to-google-inc/
11 comments
That would be a very harsh penalty for me. I'm not sure if my dry cleaner would survive a fine like that either, but I'm not sure about their cash reserves.
Just a note: 150,000€ is indeed the maximum penaltly allowed by law for this, see http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexteArticle.do;jsession...
Google's right to fight these charges. Things like the EU cookie directive are stupid laws that allow legislators to pretend to be doing something but do nothing beyond making websites less user friendly.
This has only a little to do with the cookie directive which I agree is stupid. Why are you using this as a straw man to defend google?
It's one of the points mentioned in the report on Google. It's one of the reasons they are being fined. And the cookie directive is an incredibly stupid idea floated by people who don't understand technology.
Sure it's stupid, but the other reasons are not, so encouraging google to fight the whole thing because of the stupidity of the cookie directive is to gloss over the issue.
Perhaps they shouldn't be harping on the point about the cookie directive with equal weight then, as they are. It's as if they have an equally asinine rule that footers must be blue and Google's footer were red. Even if the other 3 points are valid, they're undermined by having a nonsense point alongside them. A point that is incredible silly to any sane person alongside other points that require a more nuanced understanding of the issues is detrimental to the overall argument.
Are you really claiming that the other points are less valid because they are contained in the same document as the point about the cookie directive?
Which of the four requirements listed do you object to?
Which of the four "requirements" are precise enough to realistically be laws? They appear to boil down to opinions of some random people on a committee, that's why they contain language like "Google did not do enough" - well, what would be enough? Every single Google account holder was emailed in the runup to the change and there were banners on all the websites for weeks or longer, if I remember correctly. The notification effort was huge.
this article is the first i've heard about the policy change, and i have multiple google accounts...
All of them. This is outrageous. Nobody is forced to use Google and their privacy policy is Google to decide and their users to accept or not, no government intervention is needed. The only party that should be fined is the French government for spying on its citizens without their consent and with total disregard for the citizen privacy rights using the French version of the prism program.
The fine is not about people agreeing or not to use Google, it's about Google not informing it's users in the frame of this law. Compare it to a retail product: your company can be fined for not listing the right information in the package, weither your customer buys your product or not has nothing to do with the case.
says the guys who surely have read all the privacy policies he supposedly agreed to… right?
So what? I chose to agree with the policy. The state doesn't have any right to get into my decision to agree willingly to a legal contract with another private party. This is just legal State racket at work, and hypocritical on top of that when the government is the only one here spying on me without my content. Screw them. This despicable government that doesn't create anything but debt and harasses people who are actually trying to work and racket innovators who actually create value instead of debt. Maybe if Google went bankrupt, they'd get some money from the state, but Google being innovating and profitable? This is unacceptable for the State and it just has to racket them and punish them for being successful. I'm disgusted by my government who by the way tonight just voted for a law that forces amazon to charge more for its books so retail can compete. Yeah, really, screw them. I don't need their "protection", I just want the State to let us be.
The state has exactly the right to regulate contracts. We don't actually live in the libertarian dream you are pretending we do. Many people like to live in a democracy where money is not the only form of power, but where votes are powerful too.
> We don't actually live in the libertarian dream you are pretending we do.
What? Our constitution already protects our rights to freely sign legal contracts between each others. Since when is that a libertarian thing? TIL.
> Many people like to live in a democracy where money is not the only form of power, but where votes are powerful too.
Who's talking about money? People are already free to accept or not their contract with Google. What you want is allow people to vote for other people to be forbidden to sign a contract of _their_ choice with Google, you want people to vote to restrain other's freedom. That's the opposite of freedom and what our constitution is about.
What? Our constitution already protects our rights to freely sign legal contracts between each others. Since when is that a libertarian thing? TIL.
> Many people like to live in a democracy where money is not the only form of power, but where votes are powerful too.
Who's talking about money? People are already free to accept or not their contract with Google. What you want is allow people to vote for other people to be forbidden to sign a contract of _their_ choice with Google, you want people to vote to restrain other's freedom. That's the opposite of freedom and what our constitution is about.
Which country's constitution are you referring to? In any case, the government clearly has the right to regulate what contracts can be legally entered into.
One of the points of the new Google privacy policy was to be simple and unified, so you actually could read it. Before that there was a different policy for each service, and they were often long, which practically guaranteed nobody could read them all.
CNIL doesn't even deny that the new policy was a good thing but they levied a fine anyway!
CNIL doesn't even deny that the new policy was a good thing but they levied a fine anyway!
How much damage was caused by Google? What amount($) of damage?
Did citizens complain in court?
Who was hurt?
Is this punishment "just in case" Google becomes Evil?
In contrast, governments have a proven track record in this domain, and the french gov just passed new laws against online privacy that even the NSA wouldn't dare dream of.
Guess what? People talk about Google, not about these laws.
You generally don't sue to protect these rights, you complain to the data protection authority.
Google is no evil. They don't misuse data. But they got fined.
Spammers all around the world are evil. They misuse data. The CNIL should fight them. Governments are evil. They collect and misuse data. The CNIL should protect us.
But the CNIL doesn't. It just wastes public money. They go after Google because it's so easy. The government needs a get-rich-fast scheme: CNIL sues Google.
They're not here to make things better or protect us. They just "do their job" but they do it in the most stupid way.
Spammers all around the world are evil. They misuse data. The CNIL should fight them. Governments are evil. They collect and misuse data. The CNIL should protect us.
But the CNIL doesn't. It just wastes public money. They go after Google because it's so easy. The government needs a get-rich-fast scheme: CNIL sues Google.
They're not here to make things better or protect us. They just "do their job" but they do it in the most stupid way.
Frankly, I'm not sure why Google puts up with France's shit anyway. I would have thrown my hands up with that news snippet thing and simply stopped using the news snippets or listing those news sites in France. After those sites saw a massive drop in traffic, I'm sure they'd leave Google alone. For a little while, at least.
Fixed fines are silly, make it a percentage of revenue or profit. Give them a real incentive to change.
This sort of thing is done with speeding fines in several countries (link: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295905?tp=1)
This sort of thing is done with speeding fines in several countries (link: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/295905?tp=1)
>Fixed fines are silly, make it a percentage of revenue or profit. Give them a real incentive to change.
What do you think Google's claimed revenue/profit in France would be, in that case?
What do you think Google's claimed revenue/profit in France would be, in that case?
EU: next time when you make a law, allow a penalty of 150,000,000 Euro for starters. After repeated violations increase to 1,500,000,000 . Double each year. Then Google will listen.
Let them search cake is likely the response.
holy cow, that's not even 3 people's salary. who thinks that's going to be effective?
€150,000 is a drop in Google's ocean.
Better would be to fine any public company a percentage of their market cap or something comparative that matches the fine to the size of the company.
That would provide a true penalty that discourages large multi-nationals from abusing local laws.
Better would be to fine any public company a percentage of their market cap or something comparative that matches the fine to the size of the company.
That would provide a true penalty that discourages large multi-nationals from abusing local laws.
"€150,000 is a drop in Google's ocean"
An even more useless measure against Google was made earlier last year (2013) by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in the UK (a data privacy body).
Google, having wrongly collected wi-fi data during its Street View activities, was asked to delete the private data it had collected. It failed to do so, prompting the ICO to give them additional days to comply with deletion but no fine. [1]
Google probably have an entire department of corporate lawyers zealously protecting their interests, yet despite being instructed by an official body to delete private data, they "accidentally" retained the discs containing the additional private data. These are not the actions of a compnay that takes privacy seriously. And that is unlikely to change until official authorities sufficiently hold Google to account for their privacy transgressions.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166
An even more useless measure against Google was made earlier last year (2013) by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in the UK (a data privacy body).
Google, having wrongly collected wi-fi data during its Street View activities, was asked to delete the private data it had collected. It failed to do so, prompting the ICO to give them additional days to comply with deletion but no fine. [1]
Google probably have an entire department of corporate lawyers zealously protecting their interests, yet despite being instructed by an official body to delete private data, they "accidentally" retained the discs containing the additional private data. These are not the actions of a compnay that takes privacy seriously. And that is unlikely to change until official authorities sufficiently hold Google to account for their privacy transgressions.
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23002166
They did with what they had available as a tool : By law, they can't fine more than 150 000 euros ...
I agree (and I'm pretty sure the CNIL agrees) it's not enough.
I agree (and I'm pretty sure the CNIL agrees) it's not enough.
For me, Google loses a part of its "Don't be evil" image by being sanctioned by the CNIL.
As a French, I see the CNIL as some kind of Superman of the citizens rights. When Superman fight against someone, this someone is probably evil.
As a French, I see the CNIL as some kind of Superman of the citizens rights. When Superman fight against someone, this someone is probably evil.
You could charge Google that a day and they wouldn't care.
In US dollars, roughly $200,000. This action probably cost the French government more in bureaucrats' salaries than it got from Google.
If the fines are this small, it's pretty clear that the legislators who passed this law were not interested in creating a serious deterrent.
If the fines are this small, it's pretty clear that the legislators who passed this law were not interested in creating a serious deterrent.
It's possible that they didn't knew what they were after... Also we should not underestimate the power of stupidity, in all ranks of society.
They implemented a 'cookie directive' where websites are supposed to ask permission to set cookies. They not only didn't know what they were after, they had no idea how to get there or where they were starting.
That's what the upcoming EU Data Protection Regulation states. I believe it's around 8% of global profits.
It's cleared the European Parliament and is currently being stymied in the Council (the body made up of ministers from EU member states)
It's cleared the European Parliament and is currently being stymied in the Council (the body made up of ministers from EU member states)
> percentage of their market cap or something comparative
The income from the local market comes to mind, as this is realistically the piece of the cake that the local government has some control over.
The income from the local market comes to mind, as this is realistically the piece of the cake that the local government has some control over.
Oh I don't know how it is a penalty.
it doesn't even come to close to the "cost of business".