3 ms·

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 priva

by 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.
  - r0h1n 13y ago
    > It's called politics & lobbying. That is a generic explanation that offers absolutely zero insight about this particular incident. From the article, the regulator waited for 3 months for Google to comply, after which it threatened to impose fines. Any other regulator around the world would have done the same when faced with a company refusing to abide by its laws.
    - kllrnohj 13y ago
      It's part of a big song and dance. Google doesn't think it violated the law, the regulators think they did. Google is taking the entire amount of time they were given before responding with "no", and now the regulators are banging the pots and pans. This is how it always goes - regardless of guilt or innocence.
      - icebraining 13y ago
        But how does that make it a "publicity stunt"?
  - bsullivan01 13y ago
    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. Ya think Google is short on lawyers to test this in court? My opinion is that a lot of people (regulators included) have just awoken up from a Gkoolaid hangover and that may account for the zeal. They feel betrayed and feel like idiots for having bought it. What Google sold as "hip" or "we just want to have fun and change the world" just isn't going any more. Google is just another money hungry, duplicitous company, but with a lot more power. Maybe more power than Microsoft ever had, since Google control e-commerce and advertising. One algo change and your store will be gone, unless you advertise on Google. That's power. P.S. I suspect that this story will be on page 2 soon, as is common with negative google stories.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
The main differences between Google and Microsoft in this case are a) Google's dominant position in a broad series of online services (Microsoft doesn't come close), and b) Google's utterly disrespectful attitude. The second is what really pisses off regulatory bodies. Google's attitude of "we're right, your stupid foreign laws are wrong, so screw you" is well beyond any arrogance Microsoft ever displayed. Also, European privacy regulators don't need any publicity stunts. The NSA leaks have pretty much ensured privacy protection is top of the political agenda. Their funding is safe for next decade.

by fpgeek 13y ago

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.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  > It's called politics & lobbying. That is a generic explanation that offers absolutely zero insight about this particular incident. From the article, the regulator waited for 3 months for Google to comply, after which it threatened to impose fines. Any other regulator around the world would have done the same when faced with a company refusing to abide by its laws.
  - kllrnohj 13y ago
    It's part of a big song and dance. Google doesn't think it violated the law, the regulators think they did. Google is taking the entire amount of time they were given before responding with "no", and now the regulators are banging the pots and pans. This is how it always goes - regardless of guilt or innocence.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      But how does that make it a "publicity stunt"?
- bsullivan01 13y ago
  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. Ya think Google is short on lawyers to test this in court? My opinion is that a lot of people (regulators included) have just awoken up from a Gkoolaid hangover and that may account for the zeal. They feel betrayed and feel like idiots for having bought it. What Google sold as "hip" or "we just want to have fun and change the world" just isn't going any more. Google is just another money hungry, duplicitous company, but with a lot more power. Maybe more power than Microsoft ever had, since Google control e-commerce and advertising. One algo change and your store will be gone, unless you advertise on Google. That's power. P.S. I suspect that this story will be on page 2 soon, as is common with negative google stories.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

The main differences between Google and Microsoft in this case are a) Google's dominant position in a broad series of online services (Microsoft doesn't come close), and b) Google's utterly disrespectful attitude. The second is what really pisses off regulatory bodies. Google's attitude of "we're right, your stupid foreign laws are wrong, so screw you" is well beyond any arrogance Microsoft ever displayed. Also, European privacy regulators don't need any publicity stunts. The NSA leaks have pretty much ensured privacy protection is top of the political agenda. Their funding is safe for next decade.