Google Avoids Fine In UK But Will Change Its Privacy Policies 57
DW100 (2227906) writes Google has avoided a fine from UK data regulators for its privacy policies that were introduced in 2012. While French and Spanish regulators issued fines of €150,000 and €900,000 respectively, the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) appears happy to simply ask Google to change the wording of its policies and make them clearer to users so that they can understand more clearly how their data is being gathered and used by the search giant.
Assholes (Score:1, Interesting)
These people will ruin America as it was envisioned by Ben Franklin and that the Europeans hold dear.
Re: Assholes (Score:1)
We Europeans hold America dear? When did I miss that movement?
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure who the parent post refers to as 'these people'.
But the story shows how there is a contrast, in attitudes towards big-business mistreatment of customers, between UK government regulators (easy, cuddly, "just toe the line, will you please Mr Bigco"), and other European organisations (less messing about, more ready to hand out fines for violations).
Not difficult to see where customers are more likely to be better protected by law.
-wb-
Re: (Score:1)
easy, cuddly, "just toe the line, will you please Mr Bigco"
Or..
Reasonable request that you adhere to our laws, we are quite happy to fine you, but choose to speak with you first.
Can't win with morons like you either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Not difficult to see where customers are more likely to be better protected by law.
Also not difficult to see where those customers are more likely to have a job, because their governments are not openly hostile to the businesses that create those jobs.
Unemployment rate in the UK: 5.6%
Unemployment rate in France: 10.5%
Unemployment rate in Spain: 24%
Could have been worse (Score:5, Insightful)
People are shocked, shocked! to discover that the email service that makes money by showing them targeted ads based on their messages examines the content of the messages for this purpose.
I mean, come on: nobody was forced to sign up for gmail.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, no. Having a Gmail account that you never use, does not dimish your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, then your issue is not with Gmail, but with deep Google account integration into Android.
I happen to agree: I'd far rather my phone be clear about these things.
Re: (Score:1)
I am so sick of hearing this argument. Google is one the most powerful companies in the world. They've woven their way into all of our lives through buying companies, content, indexing everything we do and put online (gmail or not), and consolidating all of these services under Google accounts. Just like Microsoft, they donate computers to schools that require gmail accounts to even login. So, no, its not necessarily true that you can avoid Google learning about you. And just because their services are "vol
Re: (Score:3)
A draft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about people who didn't sign up for a Gmail account? Their mail gets scanned when someone with a Gmail account receives it. I wonder if Google creates "shadow profiles" like Facebook does?
The recipient is giving the message to Google (Score:2)
What about people who didn't sign up for a Gmail account? Their mail gets scanned when someone with a Gmail account receives it. I wonder if Google creates "shadow profiles" like Facebook does?
Suppose you send me a snail-mail letter and my secretary reads it to decide if it deserves my attention. Has your privacy been violated? Suppose I take your letter and put in on the company bulletin board so everyone can read it. It may offend you, it may be socially gauche, but would it be illegal?
My e-mail secretary is called GMail, and I chose to let it read all my incoming mail. That's between me and Google, and I don't see why you (the sender of my incoming messages) has any right to complain. More
Re: (Score:2)
Given this entire hooha was kicked off by Google redrafting its policies to try and make things clearer and simpler (collapsing hundreds of slightly different policies down to about four or five), this outcome is both dumb and an embarrassment to the UK. The British government runs a massive deficit. Doesn't it have anything better to do with its money than micro-manage the wording of random internet privacy policies? How much do yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except it's not just their messages. It's messages sent to and from others, who didn't sign up for gmail, just corresponded with it.
And you're at least a decade slow if you think that google is "an email service".
Re: (Score:2)
What about people who have to talk to people using Gmail?
Given its popularity, you can avoid using Google products and still have Google have a significant (50-75%) chunk of your email correspondence.
This coming from UK, it's pure hypocrisy. (Score:1)
We all know how UK love its citizens to be free of surveillance. After all, there is only one surveillance camera for every 11 people in Britain [telegraph.co.uk] and UK data retention law [out-law.com] protects the citizens of abuse.
Re: This coming from UK, it's pure hypocrisy. (Score:1)
You really don't get it and probably never will. Most cameras are private and we're not in an eternal battle against our government that you seem to imagine in the US. So yes, we'll keep our cameras and have low crime rates. Oh and if you want to do business in our country, you will follow the law - I know that's a strange concept to American capitalists.
Re: This coming from UK, it's pure hypocrisy. (Score:2)
Re: This coming from UK, it's pure hypocrisy. (Score:1)
Re:This coming from UK, it's pure hypocrisy. (Score:4, Informative)
Oh for crying out loud, can't that myth fucking die?
Even the police suggest its as low as 1.85 million...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-1... [bbc.co.uk]
So long as you abide by the Data Protection Act, the British Government have no issues with you operating a CCTV camera. Let me repeat that - so long as you abide by the Data Protection Act...
So, if you follow the rules you are fine. Just as Google would have been if they had followed the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual estimate of public area CCTV in the UK is around 30,000, but this seems to be extrapolated from Cheshire, which is way too small a sample. They also mention a report from the CCTV user group which gives a similar figure but I can't find how that was arrived at. I get the feeling that these are the cameras people are most concerned about.
The rest ar
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so the average Briton is only recorded by CCTV 70 times a day instead of 130 times, that's reassuring. Your article is from 2011, in the mean time costs have come down a lot and more and more individuals are getting CCTV installed. I know, I installed some of it. Individuals are not subject to the same data protection rules, and currently are basically unaccountable unless someone can prove harassment.
The police are regularly making installing CCTV covering the street outside shops and pubs a condition
Tories (Score:2)
In conservative eyes corporations can do no wrong, anything goes, just pay the party, or nudge wink give them a directorship when they leave govt.