
Google to be Punished in France for Failing to Pare Back its Privacy Policy - aelaguiz
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/30/cnil-slaps-google/
======
methodin
"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
I wonder what would occur if EU privacy laws were weakened so that no
violation would occur.

~~~
methodin
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.

------
fpgeek
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-
expan...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/technology/microsoft-expands-
gathering-and-use-of-data-from-web-products.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

[http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-
att...](http://marketingland.com/microsoft-privacy-change-google-
attacked-23598)

~~~
r0h1n
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
> 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
> 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
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
But how does that make it a "publicity stunt"?

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

~~~
dingaling
Quite; Google's Paris office building alone cost €100 _million_.

[http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-
headquarters...](http://www.vincentabry.com/en/new-google-french-headquarters-
photos-1253)

------
snide
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
minus all the capitals which add no value and make it harder to read

------
EGreg
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
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.

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

~~~
Gmo
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
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.

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

------
tunispy
lol

