3 ms·

> This looks like they are confusing two different things (Latitude and Location Services, though maybe Latitude required Location Services to be enabled). The

> This looks like they are confusing two different things (Latitude and Location Services, though maybe Latitude required Location Services to be enabled). The Google Latitude case also resulted in an actual fine levied. Your stance is that this fine was all because the regulatory body "was confused"?

lern_too_spel 5y ago
No, you're confused about that because your article mixed up Street View and Latitude claims. The fine for Latitude was for processing location data collected from French users in France, which requires filing with the French government, not for any nonconsensual data collection. https://larevue.squirepattonboggs.com/google-street-view-and-google-latitude-100000-fine-ordered-by-the-french-data-protection-authority-cnil_a1439.html https://larevue.squirepattonboggs.com/google-street-view-and...
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > not for any nonconsensual data collection. It was absolutely for nonconsensual data collection. From the very link that you provided: > The CNIL held that since it was carried out without the knowledge of the data subjects, the collection of data using the “Google Cars” or the mobile phones of “Google Latitude” users was carried out unfairly and therefore in breach of article 6.1° of the French data protection law.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    And if you read the article, the complaint is that Latitude used the data illegally collected from "Google Cars" to perform its service, which it considered an unfair advantage. Latitude itself did not collect any data without user consent. > In order to implement this service, the company used the same vehicles used for “Google Street View” – the “Google Cars”, equipped with 360° cameras and sensors to enable different types of data to be collected. If there were any nonconsensual data collection in Latitude, you would expect to see other fines or Google changing the service. Neither happened. On the other hand, there were other fines for Wi-Fi data collection from the Street View cars, and Google did make fixes to it in response.
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      I am not sure why you continue to misrepresent this case. Using Google Car data was only one of the privacy violations, the other was mobile phone data. I will post the quotation one more time: > The CNIL held that since it was carried out without the knowledge of the data subjects, the collection of data using the “Google Cars” or the mobile phones of “Google Latitude” users was carried out unfairly and therefore in breach of article 6.1° of the French data protection law. Notice the whole "or the mobile phones" section, which comes after the Google Cars section which you are pretending is the only pertinent section?
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        And I am not sure why you keep pretending there was any nonconsensual data collection from the phone, quoting the article author's poor wording instead of the actual claims brought against Google. The article specifically describes which data was nonconsensually obtained by the cars. Can you tell me which data was nonconsensually obtained from phones? Look at the numbered claims. Edit: I can't respond because you've made this thread too long. Once again, reread the numbered claims that CNIL brought against Google. None of your quotes are supported by the claims. (Technically, you're misinterpreting the first quote in your comment below, which is about data collected for Latitude, not data collected by Latitude. To avoid making mistakes of interpreting the author's interpretation, simply read the numbered claims.)
        Ansil849 5y ago
        > Can you tell me which data was nonconsensually obtained from phones? This is clearly explained, multiple times, in the article that you yourself linked to: > This time, the CNIL decision, dated 17 March 2011, concerns data collected for the implementation of the “Google Latitude” service, which enables geolocation of users that have a Google account and a “smartphone”. > The users’ phones themselves since they are used for the purposes of geolocation. If you are claiming that no phone data was collected, then how do you explain this quotation which I have now quoted three times: >>> The CNIL held that since it was carried out without the knowledge of the data subjects, the collection of data using the “Google Cars” or the mobile phones of “Google Latitude” users was carried out unfairly and therefore in breach of article 6.1° of the French data protection law.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

No, you're confused about that because your article mixed up Street View and Latitude claims. The fine for Latitude was for processing location data collected from French users in France, which requires filing with the French government, not for any nonconsensual data collection. https://larevue.squirepattonboggs.com/google-street-view-and-google-latitude-100000-fine-ordered-by-the-french-data-protection-authority-cnil_a1439.html https://larevue.squirepattonboggs.com/google-street-view-and...

Ansil849 5y ago
> not for any nonconsensual data collection. It was absolutely for nonconsensual data collection. From the very link that you provided: > The CNIL held that since it was carried out without the knowledge of the data subjects, the collection of data using the “Google Cars” or the mobile phones of “Google Latitude” users was carried out unfairly and therefore in breach of article 6.1° of the French data protection law.
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  And if you read the article, the complaint is that Latitude used the data illegally collected from "Google Cars" to perform its service, which it considered an unfair advantage. Latitude itself did not collect any data without user consent. > In order to implement this service, the company used the same vehicles used for “Google Street View” – the “Google Cars”, equipped with 360° cameras and sensors to enable different types of data to be collected. If there were any nonconsensual data collection in Latitude, you would expect to see other fines or Google changing the service. Neither happened. On the other hand, there were other fines for Wi-Fi data collection from the Street View cars, and Google did make fixes to it in response.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    I am not sure why you continue to misrepresent this case. Using Google Car data was only one of the privacy violations, the other was mobile phone data. I will post the quotation one more time: > The CNIL held that since it was carried out without the knowledge of the data subjects, the collection of data using the “Google Cars” or the mobile phones of “Google Latitude” users was carried out unfairly and therefore in breach of article 6.1° of the French data protection law. Notice the whole "or the mobile phones" section, which comes after the Google Cars section which you are pretending is the only pertinent section?
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      And I am not sure why you keep pretending there was any nonconsensual data collection from the phone, quoting the article author's poor wording instead of the actual claims brought against Google. The article specifically describes which data was nonconsensually obtained by the cars. Can you tell me which data was nonconsensually obtained from phones? Look at the numbered claims. Edit: I can't respond because you've made this thread too long. Once again, reread the numbered claims that CNIL brought against Google. None of your quotes are supported by the claims. (Technically, you're misinterpreting the first quote in your comment below, which is about data collected for Latitude, not data collected by Latitude. To avoid making mistakes of interpreting the author's interpretation, simply read the numbered claims.)
      - Ansil849 5y ago
        > Can you tell me which data was nonconsensually obtained from phones? This is clearly explained, multiple times, in the article that you yourself linked to: > This time, the CNIL decision, dated 17 March 2011, concerns data collected for the implementation of the “Google Latitude” service, which enables geolocation of users that have a Google account and a “smartphone”. > The users’ phones themselves since they are used for the purposes of geolocation. If you are claiming that no phone data was collected, then how do you explain this quotation which I have now quoted three times: >>> The CNIL held that since it was carried out without the knowledge of the data subjects, the collection of data using the “Google Cars” or the mobile phones of “Google Latitude” users was carried out unfairly and therefore in breach of article 6.1° of the French data protection law.