Google May Face Fine Under EU Privacy Laws 88
angry tapir writes "Google faces financial sanctions in France after failing to comply with an order to alter how it stores and shares user data to conform to the nation's privacy laws. The enforcement follows an analysis led by European data protection authorities of a new privacy policy that Google enacted in 2012. France's privacy watchdog, the Commission Nationale de L'Informatique et des Libertes, in June ordered Google to comply with French data protection laws within three months. But Google had not changed its policies to comply with French laws by a deadline last week."
Now they're in trouble (Score:2)
Google is about to get rapporteured. C'est la vie.
Re:Now they're in trouble (Score:4, Funny)
Google: Just a sec...
Google: Hello NSA? uh, anything you can do here?
NSA: We knew you'd be calling...
Re: (Score:2)
And Google's bottom line would not suffer.
I suspect Google could deal head and link that lead to an ip in France and France would pass a law demanding it be undone.
When you look at what France was demanding it was idiotic. They essentially wanted the scatter shot approach to privacy where the user has no control and less of a clue about which data is used for what.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
every fucking time some company is fined somewhere some fucking jackass comes up with this "well don't do business there".
well fuck, they want to do business there. that's why they translated their services. if they don't do business there then someone else does. altavista, yahoo or whoever.
more importantly they want specifically to have local presence inside france. ..and are you suggesting they leave eu alltogether? stupid much? eu can live without google but google can't be global leader without eu. sure
Re: (Score:1)
they could limit themselves to just USA.. and end up on government subsidies.
They won't be getting government subsidies in the US.
What's to stop Europeans from continuing to use Google even if they don't have a local presence in the EU?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:LOL (Score:5, Funny)
So you're replying to comments not yet made? GOD I hope there won't be any fanboy replies.
I'm a fanboi of the French you insensitive clod
Data Retention Directive (Score:5, Insightful)
And would this be the same EU that has the data retention directive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
As bad as Google can get, it's a paragon of privacy compared to our Glorious Leaders.
Tony Blair did that one (Score:3, Insightful)
He pushed it through when UK had the EU Presidency.
It established the principle that you are innocent now, but maybe in future you're not, ergo we require companies to track you. Move forward nearly a decade and that data is handed to a foreign spy agency who data mines it, and trades it with other countries in exchange for more data.
Where's Tony Blair now? Well New York mostly, with his 30 pieces of silver.
Go, France! (Score:2, Insightful)
As this should be. No company should be allowed to store data on any person -- anywhere in the world -- without that persons' consent or knowledge. Time to take the big companies down a few notches.
Re:Go, France! (Score:4, Insightful)
No country has any authority to pass laws about a company which doesn't operate there. When a user in country A goes to a server in country B, the laws of country B are what matter. Just like when you travel to a country on vacation, it's THAT countries laws which apply, not the laws of the country you're coming from.
So, what about google.fr [google.fr]?
Re: Go, France! (Score:1)
Lol, google FATCA for an example how the US is not dictating business practices to foreign banks.
Re:Go, France! (Score:5, Insightful)
When a user in country A goes to a server in country B, the laws of country B are what matter. Just like when you travel to a country on vacation, it's THAT countries laws which apply, not the laws of the country you're coming from.
America can't have it both ways. They made online gambling illegal and then go after the companies offering online gambling from elsewhere. Dudes, it's not the online gambling that's the problem, it's your citizens being bad by ignoring your retarded online gambling laws!
Re: (Score:2)
The US is not a party to this issue.
Its between France and Google.
Maybe you'd like to dictate US Foreign Policy simply because the US exports more wine than France while you're at it?
Re: (Score:2)
America can't have it both ways.
Our military budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined, so we can pretty much have it any way we please. But don't worry, we've spent ourselves into bankruptcy, so that won't last another decade. I do expect a bit of payback from the EU as our leverage wanes - petty, but who could blame them?
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to live under the assumption that it is easy for a powerful armed force to coerce any country.
Need I remind you that the US lost several wars in the past half century, Vietnam being the one most well known? And that was despite fighting uneducated people armed with sticks in the jungle or caves and using banned weapons or torture techniques.
Now imagine attacking France, which has its own elite forces, fighter jets, submarines, intercontinental missiles and nuclear weapons. And that's just one coun
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean French defeats? -- sorry I just had to say it.
But yes, not only would it be terribly difficult to put up with one (probably more than one because of EU defensive pacts) relativly well militarized nation. This would add to the fact that it would also be economic suicide.
Re: (Score:1)
No country has any authority to pass laws about a company which doesn't operate there
Google Paris
8 Rue de Londres
75009 Paris
France
Re: (Score:3)
No country has any authority to pass laws about a company which doesn't operate there
Google Paris
8 Rue de Londres
75009 Paris
France
Ah, I see the problem. Google thought they were in England!
Re: (Score:1)
Just like when you travel to a country on vacation, it's THAT countries laws which apply, not the laws of the country you're coming from.
Not true. If I was to travel to a part of the world where abusing children was legal, it would still be illegal for me to do so as an American citizen - even if I only did it while there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no.
As I understand it, if you travel to a country /to/ skirt US laws, and the US knows, they'll try to nab you. /happen/ to do something against US law, you're generally in the clear.
If, while in another country, you just
Re: (Score:2)
When a company in country A sells a product or service to a person in country B, it has to comply by country B's rules.
That's how international sales work.
Re: (Score:2)
As this should be. No company should be allowed to store data on any person -- anywhere in the world -- without that persons' consent or knowledge. Time to take the big companies down a few notches.
What about the fact that everyone using Google Already Consented?
Or what about the fact that the whole issue is not at all about what you say it is.
Go do your homework.
Re: (Score:3)
What about the fact that everyone using Google Already Consented?
As in consented to a legalese riddled EULA that only a small minority understand and an even smaller group ever read, wherein Google reserve the right to change the conditions at any time, right? That people have consented in the legal meaning of the word doesn't mean that they ultimately know or understand how much of their privacy they have given away for the dubious benefit of becoming Google's product.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, so French citizens can't read the EULA. Isn't that an indication that the French education system needs reform more than Google's very clear EULA? [google.com] I'm sure if your comment warranted it I could dig up the french version
I mean, google's policy is written for the much lamented 8th grade education in US Public Schools. If the French can't read that then they probably don't use google's services anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The laws of California, U.S.A., excluding California’s conflict of laws rules, will apply to any disputes arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services. All claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts.
So even if I am very well versed in the laws of my country that is of of no use for me to determine if it would even be worth the effort to start a litigation, as even if I would have good grounds in my home country that might not be the case in California.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this unusual?
Don't French websites have the same provisions? How about France24 [france24.com] a popular news site:
These Conditions of Use will be subject to and interpreted in accordance with French law. Any dispute which cannot be resolved by agreement will be referred to the courts of Nanterre. In the event that any of the provisions of the Conditions of Use is held to be null or void, the remaining provisions will automatically be deemed to apply.
How about Russian web sites? Yandex for instance: [yandex.com]
10.2. This Agreement shall be regulated and interpreted according to laws of the Russian Federation. Any issues not regulated hereby shall be settled according to Russian law. Any disputes arising out of relations regulated by this Agreement shall be settled as prescribed by applicable Russian laws according to Russian legal standards. In any part of this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, the term “law” shall mean laws of the Russian Federation as well as laws of the country of the User’s location.
People choose these types of restrictions EVERY TIME they sign up or use any site. Its the same everywhere in the world. You play in their arena, you play by their rules. And its not like neither of those examples or 100 others have foreign offices. They both do.
There is no reason Google should have to do anything other than that. The internationa
Re: (Score:2)
If YOU agreed to the terms, and YOUR country makes that illegal, that's YOUR problem.
Maybe YOU committed a crime by agreeing to follow a foreign company's rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Since a EULA cannot be edited, it is really Google telling consumers the law doesn't apply to them. Agreeing that Google is above the law does not put Google above the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Since a EULA cannot be edited, it is really Google telling consumers the law doesn't apply to them. Agreeing that Google is above the law does not put Google above the law.
You're an idiot.
Can you possibly imagine running a internet service where each user gets to pick their own terms? How would you possibly keep track of that?
Do you even think for one minute before you rush in to post something?
Re: (Score:2)
G'day. Many of the webpages I use make requests to Google servers without my knowledge. In fact, unless I was using wget and basically manually downloading everything it's almost impossible to visit any contemporary web site and not let Google, or some other datamining third party, know. Even if you've got an adblocker turned on (because of things like jQuery hosting).
It's extremely difficult to say that I consented. Rather, at most, you can say I failed to opt out; but opting out cuts you out of a huge par
A fine??! (Score:2)
Oh no!
Re: (Score:2)
150K Euros is a slap on the wrist to a company Google's size, and almost certainly much less than the cost of coming into compliance.
The question is, after Google ignores the rules and just pays the fine, what's CNIL's next step? How far can the dispute escalate?
Re: (Score:1)
Truly though, 3 months for a massive software project (to the tune of changing the business model) from requirements to going live is just ludicrous
I know, when I break the law I expect to be given ample time to correct my behavior.
chump change (Score:5, Informative)
FTA: " Google could be fined a maximum of €150,000 (US$202,562), or €300,000 for a second offense"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah? that would hurt France more than Google.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree - it could be a serious blow to Google. Google has nothing special, nothing competitors don't do well enough. No one has any loyalty to web services, the only way to keep your customers is to keep them from looking around. When the differences between services come down to subjective preferences (UI and whatnot), if your user base looks elsewhere, a significant percentage will discover they like another service better. At the scale of France, that's going to be a heck of a lot of people telli
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing special?
Somehow 70% market share in search engine WITH a viable business plan makes the next closest competitor look sick by comparison.
French companies would still advertise on Google even if google closed up shop in France entirely. They would just do it elsewhere. Its not that hard.
But don't forget, most other search engines simply scrape Google [searchengineland.com]. So if Google makes your country go dark, its pretty much dark.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you actually think anyone has any loyalty to a search engine? If they get in the habit of using something else, it's not like they'll notice a difference.
At least with email and web apps there are real differences noticeable to the non-technical user.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, *if* the assertion that "most of the other search engines are just scraping Google" is correct, and Google stopped covering France (unlikely, but if they stopped doing business there the coverage would probably cease growing, and might shrink) then the other search engines wouldn't have the information either. So perhaps "go dark" is a bit excessive, but "go dim" sound correct.
This, of course, hinges on the correctness of the primary assertion. I'm certainly aware that SOME of the other search engin
Re: (Score:2)
Do most other search engines just scrape Google? After reading the one you linked to and its follow up, I can conclude that Bing doesn't scrape Google (although they do use a combination of a search and a following page visit to raise the relevance of a pageâ"far from simple scraping and not particular to Google). But I have no idea about any other search engine, like Duck Duck Go for instance, because it didn't cover anything else.
What's the point of providing a link if it only says in one case your s
Re:chump change (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems like a dig for France to extort money more than anything else.
Are you actually serious and believe the 5th largest economy in the world spend more money in legal costs alone than they ever will recuperate from fines just so they can extort Google out of 150K? I normally refrain from insulting people but will make an exception in your case as you just displayed a level of intelligence that genuinely make me wonder how many chromosomes you are equipped with.
Re: (Score:2)
FTA: " Google could be fined a maximum of €150,000 (US$202,562), or €300,000 for a second offense"
TFA isn't clear if there's anything more than that on a 3rd, 4th . . . Nth offense. If the max is 450k, that's just a cost of doing business to them.
Re: (Score:1)
That's probably cheaper than even asking Google's legal department for their opinion on this.
Re: (Score:3)
yes, I agree, the French would run out on the 3rd strike.
Speaking of Google and Privacy (Score:3)
Anyone know how to prevent Android Device Manager being able to access my location anytime it feels like it?
https://www.google.com/android/devicemanager [google.com]
I'm on a Droid Razr Maxx.
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, I don't want to disable location services completely. I just find this to be intrusive.
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like fine grained permissions control is coming in 4.3 (App ops).
My phone is rooted so there may be other options.
I found a web page that shows a setting in the security->Device administration that looks like it would disable it but not available on my phone.
http://www.stopcellphonetracking.com/google-helps-find-your-stolen-android-device/ [stopcellph...acking.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which version are you on? I don't see this on my 4.1 Droid Maxx.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know how to prevent Android Device Manager being able to access my location anytime it feels like it?
Find the Google Settings app (note that this is not the same as the "Settings" app -- that's general Android stuff, "Google Settings" is specific to the Google apps), open it, click on "Android Device Manager" and then uncheck "Remotely locate this device".
Note that this means that if you use your device you will not be able to use Device Manager to find its GPS location. I think you'll still be able to use it to remotely ring, lock or erase the device, unless you disable that as well.