8 ms·

Google accused of GDPR privacy violations by seven countries

250 points by _of 8y ago

ForHackernews 8y ago
Can any Googlers answer: Does turning off these "history" sliders actually affect the data Google gathers from you? Or does it just mean that the information is hidden from your own account view?
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  Judging by Google /FB modus operandi I doubt it, they'll collect all. Googlers that really know would probably not tell. Looks like EU might put the brakes on a lot of this creepy crap. As much 4% of revenue or close to $5 billion fine....$5 billion for this, $4b for another...and all of the sudden we're talking real money.
  - tcd 8y ago
    No, they won't. They've already fined Google billions, but have they got the money? Not a chance. Any fine will be fought for at least a decade (see Oracle v Google) and will end up in limbo forever. They could fine Google $1 trillion, wouldn't make a difference.
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      Even if appeal it 500 times and lose, Google will have to pay, along with interest.
      - thrower123 8y ago
        If the cost-benefit analysis comes out that far in the red, Google could just bail, and what would the EU regulatory agencies do? Seizing a few office complexes and a data center or two isn't going to amount to much in the way of actual value. It's not like Google is an old-time capital-intensive manufacturing or resource-extraction company.
        notfromhere 8y ago
        Google is going to lock itself out of a quarter of the globe's GDP?
        skj 8y ago
        If the other option costs $1T? It's a bit of a hypothetical since that won't be the only other option, but that was the thought experiment.
        kkarakk 8y ago
        remember when google left china, the good old days of don't be evil
  - mda 8y ago
    Any proof of your claims? By law, If they say they do not, they do not.
    - onetimemanytime 8y ago
      >>Any proof of your claims? Google, FB, LinkedIn etc engage in super creepy procedures and suck as much data as they can. Some to be used today and directly, other data to be used indirectly...or just to be there just in case. Plus, if you read it again, it's clear I was saying what I believe it to be likely. >>By law, If they say they do not, they do not. Ummm, no. Justice system isn't based on what the accused says. That's only part of it, called (more or less) the defense. Others chime in too
      - mda 8y ago
        So zero proof just hand waving.
    - ionised 8y ago
      because Google has never lied?
      - mda 8y ago
        Examples?
        niutech 8y ago
        > Google misled the public about the size of the company’s contract to develop AI for the Pentagon, and its executives chose against publicizing its participation in the project, leaked emails obtained by The Intercept show.
- remify 8y ago
  I'm no Googlers but I've disable history and I think it does. I mostly have Dating Adds now.but a few month ago, I use to have a lot of wedding related stuff.
  - Sylos 8y ago
    And to expand on this: Assuming that they properly stop personalizing ads, there should be little reason for them to continue collecting as much data. It would especially also be a very clear violation of the law in many countries, if they did. And since it's opt-out without a direct path to opting out, the number of users that will opt out is probably below 0.1%. So, it would likely be more damaging reputation-wise and in legal fees for them to not stop collecting this data, than to just let those <0.1% get away. That's what I consider logical and is giving Google the benefit of the doubt. But it's your privacy. You don't need to give anyone any benefit. If you prefer, you absolutely should choose a doubt-free solution instead.
- tylerl 8y ago
  Yeah, despite everything you read, Google doesn't "want your data". Google is one of only a handful of companies that have matured beyond the point of thinking that personal data is, in and of itself, valuable if the user doesn't want them to have it. Sure, there are a lot of companies who profit in keeping data without your knowledge, but they're in a different kind of business, where "delighting your users" is not really an objective. Google stores your personal data in order to serve it back to you in one form or another. If you no longer want Google to serve that data back to you, if you're no longer happy with Google having a copy of that data, then it immediately becomes a liability rather than an asset. It's like poison in the sugar bowl, nothing good comes from it. Google does not want that kind of data, and there are lots of people whose job is to ensure that no data of that category is ever collected or retained. You probably want to tell me that advertising targeting is just as effective if data is unwanted, or something similar about hypothetical incentives. But no, the costs outweigh the returns in the long game. This is a dead end. In this particular case, there is a feature called Location History. It collects and allows you to query you location history. You can turn the feature on or off. But because of its clever name, some privacy wathdog organizations felt like turning this feature off should be expected cause all information relating to locations to be scrubbed from all the history from all the other products and features. That sounds absurd when you say it like that. But when you're dying for a reason to sue Google, you take what you can get. The irony is that this level of scrutiny is only possible because Google is exceptionally careful about making available to users all the information that they have relating to those users, and allowing users to delete or edit it. They've been doing it long before the GDPR was even a concept, in fact for the most part the GDPR was just a codification of Google's existing (and often unique) practices as law.
tssva 8y ago
The title of the submitted article is deceptive. No countries have accused Google of GDPR violations. Consumer groups in 7 countries have submitted complaints to their country's GDPR enforcement authorities. The title of the Reuters article this is sourced from is more accurate, "European consumer groups want regulators to act against Google tracking". The article can be found at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-privacy/european-consumer-groups-want-regulators-to-act-against-google-tracking-idUSKCN1NW0BS https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-privacy/europea...
- hadrien01 8y ago
  It is a GDPR violation: > In our opinion, the scale in which Google tracks the location of its users breaches the GDPR. Users have not given free, specific, informed and unambiguous consent to the collection and use of location data, particularly considering the scale of tracking going on, says Gro Mette Moen. https://www.forbrukerradet.no/side/google-manipulates-users-into-constant-tracking/ https://www.forbrukerradet.no/side/google-manipulates-users-...
  - merb 8y ago
    it's only a violation IF the authorities think it's a violation. they decide the fine, if any at all.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - akvadrako 8y ago
      That's getting very philosophical. If a tree breaks a regulation in the forest and no agency is around to issue a fine, was it a violation?
      - nradov 8y ago
        There's no philosophy here. That's literally how regulations work.
pointillistic 8y ago
Why are Europeans are so much ahead on USA on this? I can guess the reasons but would like to hear what people think. Thanks.
- remify 8y ago
  Be carefull HN being tech and business oriented has a very biased opinion on GDPR.
- robert_foss 8y ago
  Consumer rights are generally valued lower in the US, and conversely Corporate rights are valued lower in the EU.
- superkuh 8y ago
  The EU countries (generally) believe in positive liberty where people believe those they vote into power then have the right to tell people what to do for the greater good of some ideology. The USA (generally) believes in negative liberty which is based around the individual being able to do whatever they want unless it actually harms another person. Both positive and negative liberty are valid views but generally positive liberty leads towards trouble in the form of authoritarian issues.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    Whereas negative liberty by your definition tends towards trouble in the form of oligopoly and inequality.
    - superkuh 8y ago
      Well, it's not my definition. It's Isaiah Berlin's and was the foundation of US policy from 1960 to about 2000. A bit less lately. Do you want to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
      - 8y ago
merb 8y ago
to be fair, it's only a claim. not a case (yet). The national data protection authorities can now actually look into it and maybe make fines for that. however I guess proceeding could take a while.
chopin 8y ago
>As a new piece of legislation enacted in May, ... It's in effect since 2016. I wish there was better research in these articles...
- hodwic 8y ago
  Signed into law in 2016. Most of the major provisions did not come into effect until May 2018.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ccnafr 8y ago
Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18541650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18541650
balibebas 8y ago
If you're on Android it's possible to completely block the GPS daemon from phoning home, usually to 1e100.net based on my observation. To do this you can install an app called NetGuard from F-Droid and enable service blocking. This app is non-root, and it uses a local VPN to provide an almost impenetrable firewall. Google's GPS daemon hides itself under a process called "1021" block that and enable notifications and see the connection attempts every few minutes to 1e100.net getting blocked—you don't even need to have any Google services enabled to see the connection attempts occurring.

250 points by _of 8y ago

Can any Googlers answer: Does turning off these "history" sliders actually affect the data Google gathers from you? Or does it just mean that the information is hidden from your own account view?

onetimemanytime 8y ago
Judging by Google /FB modus operandi I doubt it, they'll collect all. Googlers that really know would probably not tell. Looks like EU might put the brakes on a lot of this creepy crap. As much 4% of revenue or close to $5 billion fine....$5 billion for this, $4b for another...and all of the sudden we're talking real money.
- tcd 8y ago
  No, they won't. They've already fined Google billions, but have they got the money? Not a chance. Any fine will be fought for at least a decade (see Oracle v Google) and will end up in limbo forever. They could fine Google $1 trillion, wouldn't make a difference.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    Even if appeal it 500 times and lose, Google will have to pay, along with interest.
    - thrower123 8y ago
      If the cost-benefit analysis comes out that far in the red, Google could just bail, and what would the EU regulatory agencies do? Seizing a few office complexes and a data center or two isn't going to amount to much in the way of actual value. It's not like Google is an old-time capital-intensive manufacturing or resource-extraction company.
      - notfromhere 8y ago
        Google is going to lock itself out of a quarter of the globe's GDP?
        skj 8y ago
        If the other option costs $1T? It's a bit of a hypothetical since that won't be the only other option, but that was the thought experiment.
        kkarakk 8y ago
        remember when google left china, the good old days of don't be evil
- mda 8y ago
  Any proof of your claims? By law, If they say they do not, they do not.
  - onetimemanytime 8y ago
    >>Any proof of your claims? Google, FB, LinkedIn etc engage in super creepy procedures and suck as much data as they can. Some to be used today and directly, other data to be used indirectly...or just to be there just in case. Plus, if you read it again, it's clear I was saying what I believe it to be likely. >>By law, If they say they do not, they do not. Ummm, no. Justice system isn't based on what the accused says. That's only part of it, called (more or less) the defense. Others chime in too
    - mda 8y ago
      So zero proof just hand waving.
  - ionised 8y ago
    because Google has never lied?
    - mda 8y ago
      Examples?
      - niutech 8y ago
        > Google misled the public about the size of the company’s contract to develop AI for the Pentagon, and its executives chose against publicizing its participation in the project, leaked emails obtained by The Intercept show.
remify 8y ago
I'm no Googlers but I've disable history and I think it does. I mostly have Dating Adds now.but a few month ago, I use to have a lot of wedding related stuff.
- Sylos 8y ago
  And to expand on this: Assuming that they properly stop personalizing ads, there should be little reason for them to continue collecting as much data. It would especially also be a very clear violation of the law in many countries, if they did. And since it's opt-out without a direct path to opting out, the number of users that will opt out is probably below 0.1%. So, it would likely be more damaging reputation-wise and in legal fees for them to not stop collecting this data, than to just let those <0.1% get away. That's what I consider logical and is giving Google the benefit of the doubt. But it's your privacy. You don't need to give anyone any benefit. If you prefer, you absolutely should choose a doubt-free solution instead.
tylerl 8y ago
Yeah, despite everything you read, Google doesn't "want your data". Google is one of only a handful of companies that have matured beyond the point of thinking that personal data is, in and of itself, valuable if the user doesn't want them to have it. Sure, there are a lot of companies who profit in keeping data without your knowledge, but they're in a different kind of business, where "delighting your users" is not really an objective. Google stores your personal data in order to serve it back to you in one form or another. If you no longer want Google to serve that data back to you, if you're no longer happy with Google having a copy of that data, then it immediately becomes a liability rather than an asset. It's like poison in the sugar bowl, nothing good comes from it. Google does not want that kind of data, and there are lots of people whose job is to ensure that no data of that category is ever collected or retained. You probably want to tell me that advertising targeting is just as effective if data is unwanted, or something similar about hypothetical incentives. But no, the costs outweigh the returns in the long game. This is a dead end. In this particular case, there is a feature called Location History. It collects and allows you to query you location history. You can turn the feature on or off. But because of its clever name, some privacy wathdog organizations felt like turning this feature off should be expected cause all information relating to locations to be scrubbed from all the history from all the other products and features. That sounds absurd when you say it like that. But when you're dying for a reason to sue Google, you take what you can get. The irony is that this level of scrutiny is only possible because Google is exceptionally careful about making available to users all the information that they have relating to those users, and allowing users to delete or edit it. They've been doing it long before the GDPR was even a concept, in fact for the most part the GDPR was just a codification of Google's existing (and often unique) practices as law.

tssva 8y ago

The title of the submitted article is deceptive. No countries have accused Google of GDPR violations. Consumer groups in 7 countries have submitted complaints to their country's GDPR enforcement authorities. The title of the Reuters article this is sourced from is more accurate, "European consumer groups want regulators to act against Google tracking". The article can be found at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-privacy/european-consumer-groups-want-regulators-to-act-against-google-tracking-idUSKCN1NW0BS https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-google-privacy/europea...

hadrien01 8y ago
It is a GDPR violation: > In our opinion, the scale in which Google tracks the location of its users breaches the GDPR. Users have not given free, specific, informed and unambiguous consent to the collection and use of location data, particularly considering the scale of tracking going on, says Gro Mette Moen. https://www.forbrukerradet.no/side/google-manipulates-users-into-constant-tracking/ https://www.forbrukerradet.no/side/google-manipulates-users-...
- merb 8y ago
  it's only a violation IF the authorities think it's a violation. they decide the fine, if any at all.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    That's getting very philosophical. If a tree breaks a regulation in the forest and no agency is around to issue a fine, was it a violation?
    - nradov 8y ago
      There's no philosophy here. That's literally how regulations work.

pointillistic 8y ago

Why are Europeans are so much ahead on USA on this? I can guess the reasons but would like to hear what people think. Thanks.

remify 8y ago
Be carefull HN being tech and business oriented has a very biased opinion on GDPR.
robert_foss 8y ago
Consumer rights are generally valued lower in the US, and conversely Corporate rights are valued lower in the EU.
superkuh 8y ago
The EU countries (generally) believe in positive liberty where people believe those they vote into power then have the right to tell people what to do for the greater good of some ideology. The USA (generally) believes in negative liberty which is based around the individual being able to do whatever they want unless it actually harms another person. Both positive and negative liberty are valid views but generally positive liberty leads towards trouble in the form of authoritarian issues.
- barrkel 8y ago
  Whereas negative liberty by your definition tends towards trouble in the form of oligopoly and inequality.
  - superkuh 8y ago
    Well, it's not my definition. It's Isaiah Berlin's and was the foundation of US policy from 1960 to about 2000. A bit less lately. Do you want to know more? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
    - 8y ago

merb 8y ago

to be fair, it's only a claim. not a case (yet). The national data protection authorities can now actually look into it and maybe make fines for that. however I guess proceeding could take a while.

chopin 8y ago

>As a new piece of legislation enacted in May, ... It's in effect since 2016. I wish there was better research in these articles...

hodwic 8y ago
Signed into law in 2016. Most of the major provisions did not come into effect until May 2018.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ccnafr 8y ago

Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18541650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18541650

balibebas 8y ago

If you're on Android it's possible to completely block the GPS daemon from phoning home, usually to 1e100.net based on my observation. To do this you can install an app called NetGuard from F-Droid and enable service blocking. This app is non-root, and it uses a local VPN to provide an almost impenetrable firewall. Google's GPS daemon hides itself under a process called "1021" block that and enable notifications and see the connection attempts every few minutes to 1e100.net getting blocked—you don't even need to have any Google services enabled to see the connection attempts occurring.