4 ms·

Which of the four requirements listed do you object to?

patrickaljord 13y ago
All of them. This is outrageous. Nobody is forced to use Google and their privacy policy is Google to decide and their users to accept or not, no government intervention is needed. The only party that should be fined is the French government for spying on its citizens without their consent and with total disregard for the citizen privacy rights using the French version of the prism program.
- hugoroy 13y ago
  says the guys who surely have read all the privacy policies he supposedly agreed to… right?
  - mike_hearn 13y ago
    One of the points of the new Google privacy policy was to be simple and unified, so you actually could read it. Before that there was a different policy for each service, and they were often long, which practically guaranteed nobody could read them all. CNIL doesn't even deny that the new policy was a good thing but they levied a fine anyway!
  - patrickaljord 13y ago
    So what? I chose to agree with the policy. The state doesn't have any right to get into my decision to agree willingly to a legal contract with another private party. This is just legal State racket at work, and hypocritical on top of that when the government is the only one here spying on me without my content. Screw them. This despicable government that doesn't create anything but debt and harasses people who are actually trying to work and racket innovators who actually create value instead of debt. Maybe if Google went bankrupt, they'd get some money from the state, but Google being innovating and profitable? This is unacceptable for the State and it just has to racket them and punish them for being successful. I'm disgusted by my government who by the way tonight just voted for a law that forces amazon to charge more for its books so retail can compete. Yeah, really, screw them. I don't need their "protection", I just want the State to let us be.
    - gress 13y ago
      The state has exactly the right to regulate contracts. We don't actually live in the libertarian dream you are pretending we do. Many people like to live in a democracy where money is not the only form of power, but where votes are powerful too.
      - patrickaljord 13y ago
        > We don't actually live in the libertarian dream you are pretending we do. What? Our constitution already protects our rights to freely sign legal contracts between each others. Since when is that a libertarian thing? TIL. > Many people like to live in a democracy where money is not the only form of power, but where votes are powerful too. Who's talking about money? People are already free to accept or not their contract with Google. What you want is allow people to vote for other people to be forbidden to sign a contract of _their_ choice with Google, you want people to vote to restrain other's freedom. That's the opposite of freedom and what our constitution is about.
        gress 13y ago
        Which country's constitution are you referring to? In any case, the government clearly has the right to regulate what contracts can be legally entered into.
- hrktb 13y ago
  The fine is not about people agreeing or not to use Google, it's about Google not informing it's users in the frame of this law. Compare it to a retail product: your company can be fined for not listing the right information in the package, weither your customer buys your product or not has nothing to do with the case.
mike_hearn 13y ago
Which of the four "requirements" are precise enough to realistically be laws? They appear to boil down to opinions of some random people on a committee, that's why they contain language like "Google did not do enough" - well, what would be enough? Every single Google account holder was emailed in the runup to the change and there were banners on all the websites for weeks or longer, if I remember correctly. The notification effort was huge.
- onethree 13y ago
  this article is the first i've heard about the policy change, and i have multiple google accounts...

All of them. This is outrageous. Nobody is forced to use Google and their privacy policy is Google to decide and their users to accept or not, no government intervention is needed. The only party that should be fined is the French government for spying on its citizens without their consent and with total disregard for the citizen privacy rights using the French version of the prism program.

hugoroy 13y ago
says the guys who surely have read all the privacy policies he supposedly agreed to… right?
- mike_hearn 13y ago
  One of the points of the new Google privacy policy was to be simple and unified, so you actually could read it. Before that there was a different policy for each service, and they were often long, which practically guaranteed nobody could read them all. CNIL doesn't even deny that the new policy was a good thing but they levied a fine anyway!
- patrickaljord 13y ago
  So what? I chose to agree with the policy. The state doesn't have any right to get into my decision to agree willingly to a legal contract with another private party. This is just legal State racket at work, and hypocritical on top of that when the government is the only one here spying on me without my content. Screw them. This despicable government that doesn't create anything but debt and harasses people who are actually trying to work and racket innovators who actually create value instead of debt. Maybe if Google went bankrupt, they'd get some money from the state, but Google being innovating and profitable? This is unacceptable for the State and it just has to racket them and punish them for being successful. I'm disgusted by my government who by the way tonight just voted for a law that forces amazon to charge more for its books so retail can compete. Yeah, really, screw them. I don't need their "protection", I just want the State to let us be.
  - gress 13y ago
    The state has exactly the right to regulate contracts. We don't actually live in the libertarian dream you are pretending we do. Many people like to live in a democracy where money is not the only form of power, but where votes are powerful too.
    - patrickaljord 13y ago
      > We don't actually live in the libertarian dream you are pretending we do. What? Our constitution already protects our rights to freely sign legal contracts between each others. Since when is that a libertarian thing? TIL. > Many people like to live in a democracy where money is not the only form of power, but where votes are powerful too. Who's talking about money? People are already free to accept or not their contract with Google. What you want is allow people to vote for other people to be forbidden to sign a contract of _their_ choice with Google, you want people to vote to restrain other's freedom. That's the opposite of freedom and what our constitution is about.
      - gress 13y ago
        Which country's constitution are you referring to? In any case, the government clearly has the right to regulate what contracts can be legally entered into.
hrktb 13y ago
The fine is not about people agreeing or not to use Google, it's about Google not informing it's users in the frame of this law. Compare it to a retail product: your company can be fined for not listing the right information in the package, weither your customer buys your product or not has nothing to do with the case.

mike_hearn 13y ago

Which of the four "requirements" are precise enough to realistically be laws? They appear to boil down to opinions of some random people on a committee, that's why they contain language like "Google did not do enough" - well, what would be enough? Every single Google account holder was emailed in the runup to the change and there were banners on all the websites for weeks or longer, if I remember correctly. The notification effort was huge.

onethree 13y ago
this article is the first i've heard about the policy change, and i have multiple google accounts...