4 ms·

Google to be Punished in France for Failing to Pare Back its Privacy Policy

44 points by aelaguiz 13y ago

tunispy 13y ago
lol
easytiger 13y ago
subtext: France to punish google for recognising their EU revenue in Ireland and not in France.
- Gmo 13y ago
  subtext: easytiger spreading FUD First, this is about privacy rights. Second, this is an independent agency. Third, it is actually rumored that other equivalent agencies in the EU will take the same kind of measures.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    Yes. The CNIL and the tax service have really nothing to do with each other. Not to say that Google shouldn't pay taxes like normal businesses do, but this has nothing to do with it.
  - easytiger 13y ago
    You seriously don't think there is a political motive behind this and the other French Google issues? That and the grasp the copywrite lobby have on the french government are certainly influences behind creating an atmosphere behind this. Not to mention the unrealistic and technically infeasible nature of the demands. The french government are a madman loose in the room. On many levels and issues.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Not being a french company I think you mean ;-) guess which companies got raided over the 35 hours law a few years back.
fpgeek 13y ago
Yawn. I'll believe this is something other than a publicity stunt when they start going after Microsoft with the same zeal for making essentially the same privacy policy changes: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expands-gathering-and-use-of-data-from-web-products.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expan... http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-attacked-23598 http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-att...
- judk 13y ago
  Per the article, Google was punished for NOT amending its privacy policy before amending its practices. Please edit your comment to correct the error.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  How did we reach the point where we suspect a country's privacy regulator of engaging in a publicity stunt (why? what do they gain from publicity?) while ignoring the point they're making - that Google waited for the last day of a 90-day deadline to amend its privacy policies to comply with French law, only to question the regulator's reasoning. Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model?
  - kllrnohj 13y ago
    > How did we reach the point where we suspect a country's privacy regulator of engaging in a publicity stunt (why? what do they gain from publicity?) Are you new to the world? Or just hopelessly naive? It's called politics & lobbying. > Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model? Occam's Razor doesn't apply here. It never applies to law, because law is not about simple, concise rules of logic. And second, it doesn't apply because your scenario doesn't make any fewer assumptions than other scenarios. It's possible that French law is right and Google is wrong. It's possible that Google is right and French law is wrong. It's possible that Google is right, French law is right, and the regulators are wrong. And really all of those are equally likely possibilities.
bwooceli 13y ago
400k fine for multi-billion $ company is hardly a newsworthy punishment. It's a parking ticket.
- dingaling 13y ago
  Quite; Google's Paris office building alone cost €100 million. http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-headquarters-photos-1253 http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-headquarters...
- mathattack 13y ago
  It seems to balance "Yes, we fined them" with "No, we didn't scare a high tech employer out of the country."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
snide 13y ago
This title doesn't need to be this vague. The original spells it out pretty well. "Google To Be Punished In France For Failing To Pare Back Its Overreaching Privacy Policy"
- stinos 13y ago
  minus all the capitals which add no value and make it harder to read
- aelaguiz 13y ago
  Length limit, I probably should have just rephrased so it was 80 chars.
EGreg 13y ago
Can the fine be unlimited, by the way, up to e.g. half the value that France thinks it's worth it for Google to remain in France? What is the recourse that Google would have?
- lmm 13y ago
  According to the CNIL site the maximum fine is 150,000 Euros, or 300,000 for a repeat offense. I'm not familiar with the CNIL specifically, but normally this kind of decision would be subject to judicial review if Google felt it merited it. Or they could refuse to pay, in which case the matter would ultimately go to court.
methodin 13y ago
"Define specified and explicit purposes;" What does this even mean? For every piece of data they have to detail where and how it is used? I don't think any major company could do this reliably. "Inform users with regard to the purposes of the processing implemented;" Seems like an extension of the first. "Define retention periods for the personal data processed;" Forever, but valid. "Not proceed, without legal basis, with the potentially unlimited combination of users’ data;" What? Are they saying that the use of data can never change? "Fairly collect and process passive users’ data ;" A good one. "Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal." Their cookie law is freaking ridiculous so they should probably get their head out of there ass to begin with. Most of this seems like FUD - are there any companies that have these policies in place currently?
- yuhong 13y ago
  I wonder what would occur if EU privacy laws were weakened so that no violation would occur.
  - methodin 13y ago
    Or if they altered them to be reasonable - knowing what "processes" your data, especially if it's a ton of things, in no way protects your rights as a consumer since most consumers wouldn't understand it anyway.
- hack37 13y ago
  Google is not "any" company. In light of recent allegations, they collect far too much data for purposes that we don't know. Hence "Define specified and explicit purposes;". Every user is entitled to know what data a company is storing on them. Remember that CNIL protects user interests.
anentropic 13y ago
skim-read this headline as "Google to be Punched in Face..."

44 points by aelaguiz 13y ago

tunispy 13y ago

lol

easytiger 13y ago

subtext: France to punish google for recognising their EU revenue in Ireland and not in France.

Gmo 13y ago
subtext: easytiger spreading FUD First, this is about privacy rights. Second, this is an independent agency. Third, it is actually rumored that other equivalent agencies in the EU will take the same kind of measures.
- mercurial 13y ago
  Yes. The CNIL and the tax service have really nothing to do with each other. Not to say that Google shouldn't pay taxes like normal businesses do, but this has nothing to do with it.
- easytiger 13y ago
  You seriously don't think there is a political motive behind this and the other French Google issues? That and the grasp the copywrite lobby have on the french government are certainly influences behind creating an atmosphere behind this. Not to mention the unrealistic and technically infeasible nature of the demands. The french government are a madman loose in the room. On many levels and issues.
walshemj 13y ago
Not being a french company I think you mean ;-) guess which companies got raided over the 35 hours law a few years back.

fpgeek 13y ago

Yawn. I'll believe this is something other than a publicity stunt when they start going after Microsoft with the same zeal for making essentially the same privacy policy changes: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expands-gathering-and-use-of-data-from-web-products.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expan... http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-attacked-23598 http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-att...

judk 13y ago
Per the article, Google was punished for NOT amending its privacy policy before amending its practices. Please edit your comment to correct the error.
r0h1n 13y ago
How did we reach the point where we suspect a country's privacy regulator of engaging in a publicity stunt (why? what do they gain from publicity?) while ignoring the point they're making - that Google waited for the last day of a 90-day deadline to amend its privacy policies to comply with French law, only to question the regulator's reasoning. Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model?
- kllrnohj 13y ago
  > How did we reach the point where we suspect a country's privacy regulator of engaging in a publicity stunt (why? what do they gain from publicity?) Are you new to the world? Or just hopelessly naive? It's called politics & lobbying. > Is it not possible that the answer could be the simplest one, Occam's Razor and all, that Google doesn't want to comply with French privacy law because it interferes with its business model? Occam's Razor doesn't apply here. It never applies to law, because law is not about simple, concise rules of logic. And second, it doesn't apply because your scenario doesn't make any fewer assumptions than other scenarios. It's possible that French law is right and Google is wrong. It's possible that Google is right and French law is wrong. It's possible that Google is right, French law is right, and the regulators are wrong. And really all of those are equally likely possibilities.

bwooceli 13y ago

400k fine for multi-billion $ company is hardly a newsworthy punishment. It's a parking ticket.

dingaling 13y ago
Quite; Google's Paris office building alone cost €100 million. http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-headquarters-photos-1253 http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-headquarters...
mathattack 13y ago
It seems to balance "Yes, we fined them" with "No, we didn't scare a high tech employer out of the country."
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

snide 13y ago

This title doesn't need to be this vague. The original spells it out pretty well. "Google To Be Punished In France For Failing To Pare Back Its Overreaching Privacy Policy"

stinos 13y ago
minus all the capitals which add no value and make it harder to read
aelaguiz 13y ago
Length limit, I probably should have just rephrased so it was 80 chars.

EGreg 13y ago

Can the fine be unlimited, by the way, up to e.g. half the value that France thinks it's worth it for Google to remain in France? What is the recourse that Google would have?

lmm 13y ago
According to the CNIL site the maximum fine is 150,000 Euros, or 300,000 for a repeat offense. I'm not familiar with the CNIL specifically, but normally this kind of decision would be subject to judicial review if Google felt it merited it. Or they could refuse to pay, in which case the matter would ultimately go to court.

methodin 13y ago

"Define specified and explicit purposes;" What does this even mean? For every piece of data they have to detail where and how it is used? I don't think any major company could do this reliably. "Inform users with regard to the purposes of the processing implemented;" Seems like an extension of the first. "Define retention periods for the personal data processed;" Forever, but valid. "Not proceed, without legal basis, with the potentially unlimited combination of users’ data;" What? Are they saying that the use of data can never change? "Fairly collect and process passive users’ data ;" A good one. "Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal." Their cookie law is freaking ridiculous so they should probably get their head out of there ass to begin with. Most of this seems like FUD - are there any companies that have these policies in place currently?

yuhong 13y ago
I wonder what would occur if EU privacy laws were weakened so that no violation would occur.
- methodin 13y ago
  Or if they altered them to be reasonable - knowing what "processes" your data, especially if it's a ton of things, in no way protects your rights as a consumer since most consumers wouldn't understand it anyway.
hack37 13y ago
Google is not "any" company. In light of recent allegations, they collect far too much data for purposes that we don't know. Hence "Define specified and explicit purposes;". Every user is entitled to know what data a company is storing on them. Remember that CNIL protects user interests.

anentropic 13y ago

skim-read this headline as "Google to be Punched in Face..."