6 ms·

I would pay to see this happen. "Google, we believe in our user's right to privacy and are looking for ways to improve their experience on our platforms. Due t

I would pay to see this happen. "Google, we believe in our user's right to privacy and are looking for ways to improve their experience on our platforms. Due to your non-compliance with the upcoming GDPR and past misdeeds we have classified all your services as spyware and will be protecting our users accordingly should you fail to address this matter in 90 days from now. Kisses, Microsoft."

mtgx 8y ago
I think you know why Microsoft won't do that. They do the same kind of tracking in Windows 10. They had an opportunity to actually hurt Google by blocking tracking scripts long ago with their "Do Not Track" feature enabled by default in its browser. And they wasted it by simply asking advertisers like Google nicely if they'd like to stop tracking users or not (you'll never guess what happened next!). Microsoft has already been found violating previous and less strict EU privacy laws recently. I think Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon - they'll all end-up paying big fines in the EU within 18 months after the GDPR passes, because neither take it seriously enough and they still think they can use "angles" to trick the regulators as well as users into getting that data without real consent. They can't, and they'll learn it the hard way. Oh, and the Privacy Shield will likely fall by the end of the year, too. So brace yourselves, it's going to be a wild ride for these privacy violators.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  On an unrelated note, I think that's a really smart move on the part of the EU. Most of these companies do what they can not to pay taxes in Europe, and counteracting it is difficult without hurting other businesses or creating other kinds o bureaucracy. But with the GDPR, the EU can easily put million-dollar fees on these companies easily.
  - C14L 8y ago
    Any fines would likely go to court many times, before they actually have to be paid. And all those large corporations will show up with a huge mountain of lawyers to try and get around any law that may exist. Taxing the large companies is difficult, because of individual countries (like Ireland and Netherlands) free-riding to attract investment, while hurting all other EU members. "Tragedy of the Commons" that sort of thing.
    - _o_ 8y ago
      Fortunately GDPR includes class action against corporations and there was already one rejected (prior to GDPR) fro EU high court with 25.000 FB users. Now it wont be rejected.
  - home_boi 8y ago
    > Most of these companies do what they can not to pay taxes This applies to all companies, everywhere. The problem is that the EU don't close their loopholes.
- bionoid 8y ago
  > They can't, and they'll learn it the hard way. I doubt it. The fines will be completely irrelevant, and they won't even need to notify more than 1% of their lawyers and lobbyists to ensure they can keep it up for the next decade.
  - laurentl 8y ago
    GDPR fines can be up to 4% of a company’s turnover (at group level too, not just the turnover of the local subsidiary). Whether the courts will actually use the maximum fine remains to be seen, but on paper it’s enough to give you pause - 4% of revenues is a large chunk of money for anyone. I work for a large EU company and this possibility is taken very seriously.
    - bionoid 8y ago
      All I'm saying is I don't think the result will be a real improvement to privacy or data safety. I think it'll be some adjustments on paper, then business as usual.
- nl 8y ago
  Google has no problem with the GDPR. They helped draft it and are very prepared for it.
  - _o_ 8y ago
    Google has huge problem with GDPR, their whole bussiness model is standing on tracking users, they are only smart enough not to piss into the wind. Actually they know far more about you than FB, imagine that they have almost everything you have on your android phone. And let me explain "draft it". They lobbied. The proof for that is fb and ggl attack on Canada to prevent legalising something similar as GDPR. Please (PLEASE, FOR GOD SAKE!), stop beeing protective to corporations, either FB, CocaCola, Tesla, Google or whatever comes to your mind. None is have priority in making world a better place, their only priority is money and power and money and they do not care about you more then a milking cow. If you disagree, you have fundamential lack of understanding how world functions.
    - _o_ 8y ago
      When I will finally be able to speak my personal thoughts without beeing downvoted by fanboys with low self value who are bonding their self worth with a popular brand. Guys seriously, you need psychiatric care, you ARE WRONG but due to your own personal problems you are beeing pestilence to the world. It is simple to diagnose, just check your posts, if you are defending one brand, infront others you are flawed. Every brand does something wrong, but your perception is it is better. Here you are having a study, about your behaviour, READ IT, you will thank me later, you are having issues worth psychiatrical care, help yourself and stop annoying the human race: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_brand_alone https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_br...
      - dang 8y ago
        You're likely being downvoted because your comments break the site guidelines by being unsubstantive and/or uncivil. It's possible to make substantive points thoughtfully; when commenting here, please do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- csydas 8y ago
  To be clear, DNT being enabled by default was probably more harmful to DNT than helpful. DNT should have been a choice from users and a clear indication of intent; by making it Default, there was no conscious decision like there is with Ad-blocking. DNT should have been (be) the clear message from users they do or do not want something, an undeniable response to over-reaching TOSes. Microsoft making it default felt less like something to help consumers and more just bandwagoning. Whether or not DNT was particularly effective as a means of __blocking__ tracking has always been irrelevant. The point was the __message__ sent by those who enabled it.
- s2g 8y ago
  > they wasted it by simply asking advertisers like Google nicely if they'd like to stop tracking users or not This is pretty blatant re-writing of history. DNT was a piss poor standard that relied on advertisers respecting it. As soon as Microsoft put it on by default they got shit on endlessly for it, and advertisers just bailed anyway. again, HN was upset at Microsoft for doing it.
Oletros 8y ago
" Due to your non-compliance with the upcoming GDPR " Honest question, why is Google not in compliance with GDPR?

mtgx 8y ago

I think you know why Microsoft won't do that. They do the same kind of tracking in Windows 10. They had an opportunity to actually hurt Google by blocking tracking scripts long ago with their "Do Not Track" feature enabled by default in its browser. And they wasted it by simply asking advertisers like Google nicely if they'd like to stop tracking users or not (you'll never guess what happened next!). Microsoft has already been found violating previous and less strict EU privacy laws recently. I think Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon - they'll all end-up paying big fines in the EU within 18 months after the GDPR passes, because neither take it seriously enough and they still think they can use "angles" to trick the regulators as well as users into getting that data without real consent. They can't, and they'll learn it the hard way. Oh, and the Privacy Shield will likely fall by the end of the year, too. So brace yourselves, it's going to be a wild ride for these privacy violators.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
On an unrelated note, I think that's a really smart move on the part of the EU. Most of these companies do what they can not to pay taxes in Europe, and counteracting it is difficult without hurting other businesses or creating other kinds o bureaucracy. But with the GDPR, the EU can easily put million-dollar fees on these companies easily.
- C14L 8y ago
  Any fines would likely go to court many times, before they actually have to be paid. And all those large corporations will show up with a huge mountain of lawyers to try and get around any law that may exist. Taxing the large companies is difficult, because of individual countries (like Ireland and Netherlands) free-riding to attract investment, while hurting all other EU members. "Tragedy of the Commons" that sort of thing.
  - _o_ 8y ago
    Fortunately GDPR includes class action against corporations and there was already one rejected (prior to GDPR) fro EU high court with 25.000 FB users. Now it wont be rejected.
- home_boi 8y ago
  > Most of these companies do what they can not to pay taxes This applies to all companies, everywhere. The problem is that the EU don't close their loopholes.
bionoid 8y ago
> They can't, and they'll learn it the hard way. I doubt it. The fines will be completely irrelevant, and they won't even need to notify more than 1% of their lawyers and lobbyists to ensure they can keep it up for the next decade.
- laurentl 8y ago
  GDPR fines can be up to 4% of a company’s turnover (at group level too, not just the turnover of the local subsidiary). Whether the courts will actually use the maximum fine remains to be seen, but on paper it’s enough to give you pause - 4% of revenues is a large chunk of money for anyone. I work for a large EU company and this possibility is taken very seriously.
  - bionoid 8y ago
    All I'm saying is I don't think the result will be a real improvement to privacy or data safety. I think it'll be some adjustments on paper, then business as usual.
nl 8y ago
Google has no problem with the GDPR. They helped draft it and are very prepared for it.
- _o_ 8y ago
  Google has huge problem with GDPR, their whole bussiness model is standing on tracking users, they are only smart enough not to piss into the wind. Actually they know far more about you than FB, imagine that they have almost everything you have on your android phone. And let me explain "draft it". They lobbied. The proof for that is fb and ggl attack on Canada to prevent legalising something similar as GDPR. Please (PLEASE, FOR GOD SAKE!), stop beeing protective to corporations, either FB, CocaCola, Tesla, Google or whatever comes to your mind. None is have priority in making world a better place, their only priority is money and power and money and they do not care about you more then a milking cow. If you disagree, you have fundamential lack of understanding how world functions.
  - _o_ 8y ago
    When I will finally be able to speak my personal thoughts without beeing downvoted by fanboys with low self value who are bonding their self worth with a popular brand. Guys seriously, you need psychiatric care, you ARE WRONG but due to your own personal problems you are beeing pestilence to the world. It is simple to diagnose, just check your posts, if you are defending one brand, infront others you are flawed. Every brand does something wrong, but your perception is it is better. Here you are having a study, about your behaviour, READ IT, you will thank me later, you are having issues worth psychiatrical care, help yourself and stop annoying the human race: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_brand_alone https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/leave_my_br...
    - dang 8y ago
      You're likely being downvoted because your comments break the site guidelines by being unsubstantive and/or uncivil. It's possible to make substantive points thoughtfully; when commenting here, please do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
csydas 8y ago
To be clear, DNT being enabled by default was probably more harmful to DNT than helpful. DNT should have been a choice from users and a clear indication of intent; by making it Default, there was no conscious decision like there is with Ad-blocking. DNT should have been (be) the clear message from users they do or do not want something, an undeniable response to over-reaching TOSes. Microsoft making it default felt less like something to help consumers and more just bandwagoning. Whether or not DNT was particularly effective as a means of __blocking__ tracking has always been irrelevant. The point was the __message__ sent by those who enabled it.
s2g 8y ago
> they wasted it by simply asking advertisers like Google nicely if they'd like to stop tracking users or not This is pretty blatant re-writing of history. DNT was a piss poor standard that relied on advertisers respecting it. As soon as Microsoft put it on by default they got shit on endlessly for it, and advertisers just bailed anyway. again, HN was upset at Microsoft for doing it.

Oletros 8y ago

" Due to your non-compliance with the upcoming GDPR " Honest question, why is Google not in compliance with GDPR?