Posts by Pseu Donyme 404 publicly visible posts • joined 10 May 2011
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).
>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.
>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.
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 ...)
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.
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).
>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)).
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.
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)).
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).
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.
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.
>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.
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).
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).
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).
>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)
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.
"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.
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.
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)
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 (?).
> 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 ;).
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).
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/ ).
>... 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/).
>... 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/)
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. :)
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).
>...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.
Realistically, though, we are going to see no such thing. Instead, Google will either relent soonish and start following the law or be forced to do so after a (more or less prolonged) court battle. Although the initial fines may be of no consequece to them as such, they cannot simply pay and continue to operate as if nothing had happened as this would amount to an admission of guilt and continuing breaking the law, which, in turn, would just result in litigation, criminal and civil, from the hopeless position of having admitted guilt and continuing with the offense.
>If they were to win this lawsuit that would surely put paid to any
>e-mail anti-spam and anti-virus scanning at the server level?
Not really, as long as no information about the scanned emails leaks from the scanning process (i.e. is kept in a form that may allow linking it back to sender / recipient(s)).
I'm not so sure of that, even for Gmail account holders: Google's privacy statement and/or Gmail T&Cs do not explicitly mention scanning emails for profiling (for advertising) or at least finding that takes quite a bit of interpretation, which makes meaningful consent rather suspect. As for senders from other providers, there is not even that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
