Google to be Punished in France for Failing to Pare Back its Privacy Policy(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Google to be Punished in France for Failing to Pare Back its Privacy Policy
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/30/cnil-slaps-google/
8 comments
Google is not "any" company. In light of recent allegations, they collect far too much data for purposes that we don't know. Hence "Define specified and explicit purposes;".
Every user is entitled to know what data a company is storing on them.
Remember that CNIL protects user interests.
Remember that CNIL protects user interests.
I wonder what would occur if EU privacy laws were weakened so that no violation would occur.
Or if they altered them to be reasonable - knowing what "processes" your data, especially if it's a ton of things, in no way protects your rights as a consumer since most consumers wouldn't understand it anyway.
Yawn. I'll believe this is something other than a publicity stunt when they start going after Microsoft with the same zeal for making essentially the same privacy policy changes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expan...
http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-att...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expan...
http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-att...
How did we reach the point where we suspect a country's privacy regulator of engaging in a publicity stunt (why? what do they gain from publicity?) while ignoring the point they're making - that Google waited for the last day of a 90-day deadline to amend its privacy policies to comply with French law, only to question the regulator's reasoning.
Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model?
Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model?
> How did we reach the point where we suspect a country's privacy regulator of engaging in a publicity stunt (why? what do they gain from publicity?)
Are you new to the world? Or just hopelessly naive?
It's called politics & lobbying.
> Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model?
Occam's Razor doesn't apply here. It never applies to law, because law is not about simple, concise rules of logic. And second, it doesn't apply because your scenario doesn't make any fewer assumptions than other scenarios.
It's possible that French law is right and Google is wrong. It's possible that Google is right and French law is wrong. It's possible that Google is right, French law is right, and the regulators are wrong.
And really all of those are equally likely possibilities.
Are you new to the world? Or just hopelessly naive?
It's called politics & lobbying.
> Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model?
Occam's Razor doesn't apply here. It never applies to law, because law is not about simple, concise rules of logic. And second, it doesn't apply because your scenario doesn't make any fewer assumptions than other scenarios.
It's possible that French law is right and Google is wrong. It's possible that Google is right and French law is wrong. It's possible that Google is right, French law is right, and the regulators are wrong.
And really all of those are equally likely possibilities.
> It's called politics & lobbying.
That is a generic explanation that offers absolutely zero insight about this particular incident. From the article, the regulator waited for 3 months for Google to comply, after which it threatened to impose fines. Any other regulator around the world would have done the same when faced with a company refusing to abide by its laws.
That is a generic explanation that offers absolutely zero insight about this particular incident. From the article, the regulator waited for 3 months for Google to comply, after which it threatened to impose fines. Any other regulator around the world would have done the same when faced with a company refusing to abide by its laws.
It's part of a big song and dance. Google doesn't think it violated the law, the regulators think they did. Google is taking the entire amount of time they were given before responding with "no", and now the regulators are banging the pots and pans.
This is how it always goes - regardless of guilt or innocence.
This is how it always goes - regardless of guilt or innocence.
But how does that make it a "publicity stunt"?
It's possible that French law is right and Google is wrong. It's possible that Google is right and French law is wrong. It's possible that Google is right, French law is right, and the regulators are wrong.
Ya think Google is short on lawyers to test this in court? My opinion is that a lot of people (regulators included) have just awoken up from a Gkoolaid hangover and that may account for the zeal. They feel betrayed and feel like idiots for having bought it. What Google sold as "hip" or "we just want to have fun and change the world" just isn't going any more. Google is just another money hungry, duplicitous company, but with a lot more power. Maybe more power than Microsoft ever had, since Google control e-commerce and advertising. One algo change and your store will be gone, unless you advertise on Google. That's power.
P.S. I suspect that this story will be on page 2 soon, as is common with negative google stories.
Ya think Google is short on lawyers to test this in court? My opinion is that a lot of people (regulators included) have just awoken up from a Gkoolaid hangover and that may account for the zeal. They feel betrayed and feel like idiots for having bought it. What Google sold as "hip" or "we just want to have fun and change the world" just isn't going any more. Google is just another money hungry, duplicitous company, but with a lot more power. Maybe more power than Microsoft ever had, since Google control e-commerce and advertising. One algo change and your store will be gone, unless you advertise on Google. That's power.
P.S. I suspect that this story will be on page 2 soon, as is common with negative google stories.
The main differences between Google and Microsoft in this case are a) Google's dominant position in a broad series of online services (Microsoft doesn't come close), and b) Google's utterly disrespectful attitude.
The second is what really pisses off regulatory bodies. Google's attitude of "we're right, your stupid foreign laws are wrong, so screw you" is well beyond any arrogance Microsoft ever displayed.
Also, European privacy regulators don't need any publicity stunts. The NSA leaks have pretty much ensured privacy protection is top of the political agenda. Their funding is safe for next decade.
The second is what really pisses off regulatory bodies. Google's attitude of "we're right, your stupid foreign laws are wrong, so screw you" is well beyond any arrogance Microsoft ever displayed.
Also, European privacy regulators don't need any publicity stunts. The NSA leaks have pretty much ensured privacy protection is top of the political agenda. Their funding is safe for next decade.
Per the article, Google was punished for NOT amending its privacy policy before amending its practices.
Please edit your comment to correct the error.
Please edit your comment to correct the error.
400k fine for multi-billion $ company is hardly a newsworthy punishment. It's a parking ticket.
Quite; Google's Paris office building alone cost €100 million.
http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-headquarters...
http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-headquarters...
It seems to balance "Yes, we fined them" with "No, we didn't scare a high tech employer out of the country."
[deleted]
This title doesn't need to be this vague. The original spells it out pretty well.
"Google To Be Punished In France For Failing To Pare Back Its Overreaching Privacy Policy"
"Google To Be Punished In France For Failing To Pare Back Its Overreaching Privacy Policy"
Can the fine be unlimited, by the way, up to e.g. half the value that France thinks it's worth it for Google to remain in France?
What is the recourse that Google would have?
What is the recourse that Google would have?
According to the CNIL site the maximum fine is 150,000 Euros, or 300,000 for a repeat offense.
I'm not familiar with the CNIL specifically, but normally this kind of decision would be subject to judicial review if Google felt it merited it. Or they could refuse to pay, in which case the matter would ultimately go to court.
I'm not familiar with the CNIL specifically, but normally this kind of decision would be subject to judicial review if Google felt it merited it. Or they could refuse to pay, in which case the matter would ultimately go to court.
subtext: France to punish google for recognising their EU revenue in Ireland and not in France.
subtext: easytiger spreading FUD
First, this is about privacy rights. Second, this is an independent agency. Third, it is actually rumored that other equivalent agencies in the EU will take the same kind of measures.
First, this is about privacy rights. Second, this is an independent agency. Third, it is actually rumored that other equivalent agencies in the EU will take the same kind of measures.
Yes. The CNIL and the tax service have really nothing to do with each other.
Not to say that Google shouldn't pay taxes like normal businesses do, but this has nothing to do with it.
Not to say that Google shouldn't pay taxes like normal businesses do, but this has nothing to do with it.
You seriously don't think there is a political motive behind this and the other French Google issues? That and the grasp the copywrite lobby have on the french government are certainly influences behind creating an atmosphere behind this.
Not to mention the unrealistic and technically infeasible nature of the demands. The french government are a madman loose in the room. On many levels and issues.
Not to mention the unrealistic and technically infeasible nature of the demands. The french government are a madman loose in the room. On many levels and issues.
Not being a french company I think you mean ;-) guess which companies got raided over the 35 hours law a few years back.
skim-read this headline as "Google to be Punched in Face..."
lol
"Inform users with regard to the purposes of the processing implemented;" Seems like an extension of the first.
"Define retention periods for the personal data processed;" Forever, but valid.
"Not proceed, without legal basis, with the potentially unlimited combination of users’ data;" What? Are they saying that the use of data can never change?
"Fairly collect and process passive users’ data ;" A good one.
"Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal." Their cookie law is freaking ridiculous so they should probably get their head out of there ass to begin with.
Most of this seems like FUD - are there any companies that have these policies in place currently?