This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Google's privacy policy: EU data protection chiefs 'to act within days'
Google's privacy policy: EU data protection chiefs 'to act within days'
(14 days later)
Google's unilateral change to its privacy policy in March will come under fire from European data protection commissioners within days, sources say.
Google's unilateral change to its privacy policy in March will come under fire from European data protection commissioners within days, sources say.
The controversial changes, in which Google tied together the previously separate data collected under services including its search engine, YouTube and Google+ were announced in January and implemented two months later. While creating a unified privacy policy across all the services, it also in effect amassed the data into a single location.
The controversial changes, in which Google tied together the previously separate data collected under services including its search engine, YouTube and Google+ were announced in January and implemented two months later. While creating a unified privacy policy across all the services, it also in effect amassed the data into a single location.
That attracted widespread criticism – and now the group of 30 data protection commissioners from across the European Union are believed to have determined that Google has breached EU privacy laws.
That attracted widespread criticism – and now the group of 30 data protection commissioners from across the European Union are believed to have determined that Google has breached EU privacy laws.
Now Google might be required to undo the changes – although Auke Haagsma, a lawyer advising the lobby group Icomp, which is critical of Google's policies, said that would be like trying to "unscramble the egg".
Now Google might be required to undo the changes – although Auke Haagsma, a lawyer advising the lobby group Icomp, which is critical of Google's policies, said that would be like trying to "unscramble the egg".
Data protection commissioners in a number of countries have varying powers. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in the UK declined to comment on the decision, but said that generally it can use its powers to force any company that breaks the law in altering its privacy policy to reverse the change. "We can issue an enforcement notice," said a spokesperson.
Data protection commissioners in a number of countries have varying powers. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in the UK declined to comment on the decision, but said that generally it can use its powers to force any company that breaks the law in altering its privacy policy to reverse the change. "We can issue an enforcement notice," said a spokesperson.
The internet firm is already being investigated by the European commission's competition arm, which says that the way it orders its search results, uses other sites' content, and controls some elements of advertising is anti-competitive.
The internet firm is already being investigated by the European commission's competition arm, which says that the way it orders its search results, uses other sites' content, and controls some elements of advertising is anti-competitive.
The two sides have been locked in negotiations since July. Joaquín Almunia, the EC competition commissioner, warned Google in September that it could face court action if it was not more flexible in the negotiations.
The two sides have been locked in negotiations since July. Joaquín Almunia, the EC competition commissioner, warned Google in September that it could face court action if it was not more flexible in the negotiations.
Some German data protection authorities are also considering their response to the news that Google has not destroyed all the data its Street View cars collected when they scanned Wi-Fi networks in houses and businesses adjacent to roads.
Some German data protection authorities are also considering their response to the news that Google has not destroyed all the data its Street View cars collected when they scanned Wi-Fi networks in houses and businesses adjacent to roads.
The changes to Google's privacy policies had already been described as being possibly in breach of EU law by the justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, in March.
The changes to Google's privacy policies had already been described as being possibly in breach of EU law by the justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, in March.
Data protection commissioners, led by the French national agency CNIL, criticised Google at the time for making the change without offering consumers the chance to opt out by remaining with the existing policy. The only choices Google offered users were to move to the new policy, or delete their entire user profile. The CNIL and others wanted them to be offered the option of remaining with the existing segmented profile.
Data protection commissioners, led by the French national agency CNIL, criticised Google at the time for making the change without offering consumers the chance to opt out by remaining with the existing policy. The only choices Google offered users were to move to the new policy, or delete their entire user profile. The CNIL and others wanted them to be offered the option of remaining with the existing segmented profile.
Google said at the time that the changes would simplify the experience of using its services and that it was confident that they respected "all European data protection laws and principles". It said users would benefit because it would be able to tailor search results and advertising more specifically to users.
Google said at the time that the changes would simplify the experience of using its services and that it was confident that they respected "all European data protection laws and principles". It said users would benefit because it would be able to tailor search results and advertising more specifically to users.
Google declined to comment.
Google declined to comment.
Comments
48 comments, displaying first
8 October 2012 12:12PM
Do not worry about the new masters of the universe like Google or FB. What can possibly go wrong trusting these friendly (PR success!) co-operations with our lives?
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 12:18PM
pooling of data by Google breaches privacy laws
That’s a surprise then…
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 12:22PM
Finally someone started to see the daylight about private matters are important to some!
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 12:39PM
It is no comfort that I don't use Facebook and only rarely Google. I anticipate most online services do something similar to raise revenue as part of their 'business model'.
Users are faced with limited options. Multiple identities - possibly illegal and certainly a PIA. Use multiple online services and share around so they can't get a full picture. Don't use services - probably not practical Put up with it.- most will have to. Press your Representatives to stop taking the business shilling and make them earn their money through a different route.
Guidance welcome on this point though. When you log onto a website and they use Google to search their online data do Google get to aggregate those search results into the profile they already have of you, as well?
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 12:50PM
These are all ways of monitoring the population. Give free and fun tools to the masses and see what they are doing. If they "offend" then off to the clanger they go. However no such penalties to those that flout the laws to achieve this....but of course it's all in the interests of "National Security" and over-arching legislation of the "Patriot Act" and similar infringements on democracy (not that we had much democracy in the first place anyway).
The bottom line is that ANYONE posting on forums or sending emails with US companies MUST assume their personal data is being monitored. It's not much better with UK companies and ISPs.
IF you value your privacy then you need to do your research and choose the right tools to protect yourself, even if that means disconnecting from Farcebook, not using your iToy, etc. Don't worry, there is still plenty of more secure choices out there, just need to spend a bit more time seeking them out, and also adopting appropriate level of measures for anonymity and / or addtional security such as encrypting email if you do use such open services.
It's no longer paranoia. Big Brother IS watching you. He IS interested in watch you say, in what you think, in what you do. Welcome to 1984 +28
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 12:52PM
They forgot to not be evil.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 1:42PM
Just last week, there was a bloke on Radio5 demanding an end to the blight of CCTV in modern Britain. "Who knows where all this footage ends up..." was his mantra. I worry far less about this and far more about our 'mates' Google, FaceBook, Twitter, Linked-In etc. who'll happily plunder your private address books, search histories and email contacts - sharing, cross-referencing, profiling and with hardly a raised eyebrow, voice of dissent or even a : ( in response from users and the media.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 1:47PM
"Google said................. it was confident that they respected "all European data protection laws and principles". It said users would benefit because it would be able to tailor search results and advertising more specifically to users."
I was under the false impression that deciding what benefits me was a matter for me and not government or multinational companies which do evil. I have no use whatsoever for 'more tailored advertisements' or, whilst we are on the subject, any advertisements. Please go and 'do good' which I understand is the purpose of Google.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 1:47PM
Use DuckDuckGo.com to do your searches. They don't collect any information.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 1:57PM
The CNIL and others wanted them to be offered the option of remaining with the existing segmented profile
Why would you want this?
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 2:00PM
Google is one of the UK's most serious corporate tax avoiders and, at last, the EU will show hopefully show that it cannot interpret EU law as it sees fit. Google seems to believe it is entitled to representation without taxation. Sorry, Google, you're not an indigenous business - you're a parasitic external monopoly. You trade here at our discretion and play by our rules, however much you spend on your lobbying operation.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 2:13PM
Although personal privacy should be essential it isn't and it is not just Google prying into our lives. Just like the use of facebook, which even our national broadcaster uses, there are a million ways of stitching things together via loyalty cards, competitions, purchases, and almost anything else you may do when you walk out your front door. Whilst indoors is the place Google works there are plenty of others doing the same thing in the big outdoors.
We really do need to cut these companies down to size, start charging them (on a royalty basis) for any information they keep about us, and make the charges so punitive that they are comply or go bust.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 2:23PM
Just don't have Facebook profiles etc - they add nothing to real life.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 2:30PM
Has anyone specified which bits of the 95/46/EC this pooling of privacy policies has actually breached? Sound bites and posturing are all well and good. Some facts would be nice.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 2:51PM
Just don't have Facebook profiles etc - they add nothing to real life
That's like saying "we don't need speed limits - if you're concerned about people driving at 120 mph, then just stay away from roads"
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 2:58PM
"Don't be evil, be vile instead."
There are alternatives to the vile Google corporation.
Is this what you mean? http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/products_gss.html
I would imagine that when you log-in to a site (not using a Google login) it will be encrypted behind https or something similar, meaning that Google will regard searches made on that site as an unidentifiable entity, such as (unknown) or (not set) that you would see in Analytics and therefore not be able to log any keyword data for/about you.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 3:21PM
TVM, I'll check it out.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 3:28PM
just use DuckDuckGo as a search engine
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 3:53PM
Well at least google still works., facebook is broken, or rather, the timeline is broken so that 1000's or more cannot see any posts after 30 th sept...2012., and personal date collecting has been going on for years. if you use a computer use encription.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 4:00PM
What really surprises me about this story is how ineffectual that data collation is.........for instance none of the global newspapers have even had a sniff of the largest breaking story of how facebook has ignored its users (including their business users) when their posts and therefore their pages, are stuck in a time warp from the 30th Sept 2012 and facebook readers can check this out by going to the facebook help centre page.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 5:06PM
Some web sites use Google Analatics on each page from that it is possible to see how many hits per page where they come from ie city what key words and more how many new and return visits If someone on a website can read all this how much more does Google know think many websites
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 5:08PM
I keep trying to think of something sinister that these companies can do with all the data, but I can't. Banks have had detailed records of where you live, who you work for, and what you spend money on for years and years, but it hasn't been a problem.
A supermarket club card is probably much more revealing of your private life than your Google search history.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 5:22PM
Not just Google of course. I recently had an email from Twitter suggesting people I might know on Twitter. They could only possibly have got this information by looking in those people's address books and finding my email address. I have never given permission for any of these companies to go through my own address book.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 5:24PM
Banks have had detailed records of where you live, who you work for, and what you spend money on for years and years, but it hasn't been a problem.
I was recently denied access to Barclays' Pingit service because my name has previously been associated with a Barclays business account. And lots of people are denied credit or mortgages because of what the banks think they know about them.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 5:43PM
Not just Google of course. I recently had an email from Twitter suggesting people I might know on Twitter. They could only possibly have got this information by looking in those people's address books and finding my email address. I have never given permission for any of these companies to go through my own address book.
Twitter routinely sends these emails out to members. Are you, or have you been, a member? If neither I see no way this could have happened, other than that a Twitter member known to you has submitted your name and email address to them as someone who might be interested.
The idea that Twitter might want to spy on random people in the manner you suggest is as risible as it is illegal, they get more than enough data from their membership.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 6:22PM
No, I did create a Twitter account in 2008, and tweeted just once. I suppose I was naive in not realising exactly what that entailed. And I'm not claiming that I'm being spied on, merely that there are companies that know a lot about me and those connected to me. But if I compare that to back in the day, if I had asked for a product catalogue from a company four years ago, I wouldn't expect them to be writing to me to tell me that they had found my name in another customer's address book, and would I like to order some more of their sex toys.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 6:27PM
This ruling may have some bearing on the UK government initiative to pool data in order to introduce the Universal Credit. At the very least Liberty need to look at it and particularly on Francis Maude's suggestion that claimants use Facebook and Twitter as identifiers.
When UC is in full flow everyone in the UK will be on the data base together with Tax, NI, bank details, credit check history and much else that is highly contentious. It will probably need to include at least some medical records because of ESA, disability.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 6:39PM
'Just don't have Facebook profiles etc - they add nothing to real life'That's like saying "we don't need speed limits - if you're concerned about people driving at 120 mph, then just stay away from roads"
Not really. I have to use the roads to get to work, to do the shopping, to take the kids to school, to go on holiday and all the rest of real iifes necessary activities. I don't have to use facebook for anything necessary.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 6:51PM
Some web sites use Google Analatics on each page from that it is possible to see how many hits per page where they come from ie city what key words and more how many new and return visits
My website uses this. To access the service you need to log in with your E-mail. There's an option to leave the "stay signed in" box blank - but it makes fuck all difference. You need to actively sign out later.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 7:11PM
How fortunate that the UK still has the European Commission to look after the interests of its citizens
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 7:13PM
Isn't this the same EU commission that tried to enforce ACTA across the entire EU?
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 8:25PM
I like the CCTV question as to where the footage ends up and does the sheer volume make it all redundant? Sadly not, however. Soon, the footage will be scanned electronically as easily as text is scanned currently. What we do with all that information, however, is the question and the data is only of value if something tangible can be done with it. So ... use different email accounts for different online activities; Use different credit cards from different banks' accounts for real and online activities; ensure that your personal and professional accounts are totally separate; etc ...
Having said that It's surely the younger generation that is at risk - it seems totally oblivious to issues of privacy and data protection. That is truly frightening and I am glad that I will not be a part of the world that is forming as we speak: Private companies owning so much data on every individual - probably more knowledgeable about that individual's recordable actions / activities than the individual him-/ herself! Each and every action becomes permanently recorded ... what will this do to people psychologically? What will this allow the 'State' to do? - Have you noticed that in parallel to the increase in digital monitoring, there has been a significant rise in 'police state-like' activity?
The future is not orange, it's not bright.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 8:55PM
Unfortunate;y they've managed to get themselves above the law, just like the banks...
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 9:24PM
I'm not so sure. Viviane Reding is one of the best things to come out of Luxembourg or the EU: she managed to stop the outrageous profits that the telecoms operators were gouging from roaming charges, although the last Labour government lobbied against the obvious consumer interest in an attempt to water down her proposals. Reding also condemned the deportation of Roma by the French, much to the disgust of Sarkozy thus: "I personally have been appalled by a situation which gave the impression that people are being removed from a Member State of the European Union just because they belong to a certain ethnic minority. This is a situation I had thought Europe would not have to witness again after the Second World War".
I can't wait for her to get stuck into the parasitic, alien monopoly that Google is.
Link to this comment:
8 October 2012 10:51PM
Providing personal information to social networks is voluntary. Being a victim of CCTV surveillance is not.
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 1:50PM
"I can't wait for her to get stuck into the parasitic, alien monopoly that Google is."
Lol - What are you talking about ?
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 2:19PM
It's possible they did break a regulation, but I'm still not entirely sure what the fuss is about. Google could aggregate everything about you before, it just required more compute.
And I do like the "avoid google, use DuckDuckGo", which of course is an anonymising layer over the google search engine. You're still giving them a megatonne of search data, which they can use to correlate user behaviours. You're only making it slightly more difficult for them by stripping out localisation data.
Of course, if you want to use a search engine that actually works, then it's going to have to store information and use it to train the search algorithm. Inevitable. Worried about targeted ads? Well, they're less annoying than random ones, since you may actually find them useful (I managed to get some free cat food offers when I got my new cat so ...)
So personally, I'm going to give them everything that I need to in order to get the best service, since there is zero chance that it will lead to the FBI knocking on my door and taking me away.
The important thing is that (1) I know they are doing this and (2) I can delete all my personal records and info and history etc when I decide that I don't want it on the internet any more. That's considerably better than 99% of web companies.
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 2:56PM
I wonder if the EU wil treat Google in the same manner as it does Microsoft?
Ho Ho Ho, who am I kidding!
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 6:44PM
Consumers more often than not defend Google because of the decent user experience and because it is free. However, advertisers are only too well aware of Google's market dominance and the opacity of its pricing and business practices. Yellow pages was straightforward in comparison. We also notice that we are billed from Ireland for services bought by UK companies selling to UK consumers. It may seem free, but Google's supernormal profits from its dominant market position are paid for by all of us in higher prices. That Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, has the nerve to lecture us on our education system whilst Google does everything it can to avoid contributing to UK plc is nauseating.
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 7:09PM
I have had misgivings about Googles abuse of market power for a long time. For me the EU should be looking at Google not only from a Data privacy point of view but also from an anti competitive and tax avoidance standpoint.
I would want extreme sanctions such as forcing google to:
Enable users to delete specific data items at will
Share search assisted data with competitors (as it has become a blocker to new market entrants) and after all it is my data and if it exists i should be able to let other companies use it to assist my experience with them too.
Force them to contribute properly to the tax systems of markets they want to operate in
In my view these rules should also apply to others not just Google
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 8:12PM
If I am not mistaken, the EU Council (which is the ministers of all member states) was involved with ACTA much more than the EU Commission (which is a totally different organ).
Anyway, it is not unusual for one institution to be working against another institution, as a result of having competences and priorities which are different but which nevertheless impact on each other in practice. This is not unique to the EU, it happens in every state bureaucracy no matter how small.
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 11:11PM
Share search assisted data with competitors (as it has become a blocker to new market entrants) and after all it is my data and if it exists i should be able to let other companies use it to assist my experience with them too
.
Care to point out which data you want to download, Again you can download your search history easily enough. I am sure it be easy enough for a rival search engine allow the user to upload this data to their search engines. An you can delete specific information in your account.
Force them to contribute properly to the tax systems of markets they want to operate in
That goes fundamentally against the reason the EU was set up, to provide a single market for companies to operate in and that why it difficult, if not impossible to close down the loops holes Google are using, not without the UK withdrawing from the EU altogether.
An why you may be collect more taxes from Google, my guest is that lot of smaller companies will get caught in the cross fire and such changes in the tax system, even if they could be implemented without us leaving the single market, may cost UK government more taxes than it every gains because because as it would limit the amount of trade small companies could do outside of the UK if other countries choose to go down the same route, and inside the UK.
Link to this comment:
9 October 2012 11:51PM
I reckon this will ultimately be defeated in a court of law anyway, after a decade of fighting and at great expense to tax payers and Google as it a major reinterpretation of current laws and Google will have no shortage of friends with in the UK government and private industry to help them fight this, an if it is not defeated expect the law to be change.
I am sure other governments will also join the fight against this new interpretation of the law especially when they see how much added bureaucracy and expense it will add, when they want to change anything within there government involving the transfer or merging together of data, potentially leaving them with decades worth of legacy systems that they will have to keep running because people refuse to transfer there data over to new systems.
This ruling will not apply to new claimants and new people entering the tax system and being issue with NI numbers as it seems their main objection is that people were force to join their account data together and were not given the option keep the data separated and under the old 80 odd privacy policies not the new privacy policy itself. The new universal benefit system will only initially apply to new claimants anyway.
There a simple solution for the government to implement, they simply freeze the amount of benefit people receive on the old system and that the yearly increases in benefits will only apply to people on the new universal benefits system. Expect to see web apps developers use the same techniques, denying new features to old accounts and policies users to force the users to migrate over to the new policies.
Link to this comment:
10 October 2012 7:38AM
It's good that policy makers and commissioners are worried about interest of the public. some people claim that interests of big companies such as British Petroleum, Google, Walmart, McDonalds coincide with its interest of the public because of the size of these companies but it's not true. Privacy of people is not respected by these big companies. Let me remind you big scandals: Google Street View and intersept of information transmitted by private wi-fi channels, Google's user tracking in safari.
Link to this comment:
10 October 2012 10:40AM
In that case we should fiscally reform the EU to enable it to directly tax multinational companies and offset this by reducing the funding required by member states. Win and Win again.
As for data i am not only referring to search data but all data from maps and general browsing that they collect regardless. I don't think this is an unfair idea and I don't see why it should be so troubling for the consumer to do. IT should be managed as per the current data management designs for smart metering data.
I didnt know you could delete specific items. Do you need to have a google account somewhere to do that? Because i dont.
Link to this comment:
10 October 2012 10:58AM
Taking this out of the abstract, Google has more than 91% of the search market in the UK and increasing. Microsoft has less than 4% and Yahoo less than 3%. Because of its supernormal profits and market dominance, Google can behave as it likes in relation to pricing, taxation, privacy and competition legislation. Google needs to be broken into at least three competing companies, so that advertisers and consumers have somewhere else to go, if they seek lower pricing, higher standards of corporate responsibility or less invasion of privacy. Search is too important to both our democracy and economy to allow one overseas corporation to dominate to the extent that Google does today.
Link to this comment:
10 October 2012 11:03AM
Got to agree that Google + and search results are two very separate things. Youtube seems just a search result.
User generated data can certainly irritate. This becomes apparent when auto generated emails try to sell you something you yourself sold.
Link to this comment:
Comments on this page are now closed.
Turn autoplay off
Turn autoplay on
Please activate cookies in order to turn autoplay off
Edition: UK
About us
Today's paper
Subscribe
EU data protection commissioners are believed to have determined that pooling of data by Google breaches privacy laws
Google's unilateral change to its privacy policy in March will come under fire from European data protection commissioners within days, sources say.
The controversial changes, in which Google tied together the previously separate data collected under services including its search engine, YouTube and Google+ were announced in January and implemented two months later. While creating a unified privacy policy across all the services, it also in effect amassed the data into a single location.
That attracted widespread criticism – and now the group of 30 data protection commissioners from across the European Union are believed to have determined that Google has breached EU privacy laws.
Now Google might be required to undo the changes – although Auke Haagsma, a lawyer advising the lobby group Icomp, which is critical of Google's policies, said that would be like trying to "unscramble the egg".
Data protection commissioners in a number of countries have varying powers. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) in the UK declined to comment on the decision, but said that generally it can use its powers to force any company that breaks the law in altering its privacy policy to reverse the change. "We can issue an enforcement notice," said a spokesperson.
The internet firm is already being investigated by the European commission's competition arm, which says that the way it orders its search results, uses other sites' content, and controls some elements of advertising is anti-competitive.
The two sides have been locked in negotiations since July. Joaquín Almunia, the EC competition commissioner, warned Google in September that it could face court action if it was not more flexible in the negotiations.
Some German data protection authorities are also considering their response to the news that Google has not destroyed all the data its Street View cars collected when they scanned Wi-Fi networks in houses and businesses adjacent to roads.
The changes to Google's privacy policies had already been described as being possibly in breach of EU law by the justice commissioner, Viviane Reding, in March.
Data protection commissioners, led by the French national agency CNIL, criticised Google at the time for making the change without offering consumers the chance to opt out by remaining with the existing policy. The only choices Google offered users were to move to the new policy, or delete their entire user profile. The CNIL and others wanted them to be offered the option of remaining with the existing segmented profile.
Google said at the time that the changes would simplify the experience of using its services and that it was confident that they respected "all European data protection laws and principles". It said users would benefit because it would be able to tailor search results and advertising more specifically to users.
