Google's right to fight these charges. Things like the EU cookie directive are stupid laws that allow legislators to pretend to be doing something but do nothing beyond making websites less user friendly.
It's one of the points mentioned in the report on Google. It's one of the reasons they are being fined. And the cookie directive is an incredibly stupid idea floated by people who don't understand technology.
Sure it's stupid, but the other reasons are not, so encouraging google to fight the whole thing because of the stupidity of the cookie directive is to gloss over the issue.
Perhaps they shouldn't be harping on the point about the cookie directive with equal weight then, as they are. It's as if they have an equally asinine rule that footers must be blue and Google's footer were red. Even if the other 3 points are valid, they're undermined by having a nonsense point alongside them. A point that is incredible silly to any sane person alongside other points that require a more nuanced understanding of the issues is detrimental to the overall argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Comments
Google's right to fight these charges. Things like the EU cookie directive are stupid laws that allow legislators to pretend to be doing something but do nothing beyond making websites less user friendly.
This has only a little to do with the cookie directive which I agree is stupid. Why are you using this as a straw man to defend google?
It's one of the points mentioned in the report on Google. It's one of the reasons they are being fined. And the cookie directive is an incredibly stupid idea floated by people who don't understand technology.
Sure it's stupid, but the other reasons are not, so encouraging google to fight the whole thing because of the stupidity of the cookie directive is to gloss over the issue.
Perhaps they shouldn't be harping on the point about the cookie directive with equal weight then, as they are. It's as if they have an equally asinine rule that footers must be blue and Google's footer were red. Even if the other 3 points are valid, they're undermined by having a nonsense point alongside them. A point that is incredible silly to any sane person alongside other points that require a more nuanced understanding of the issues is detrimental to the overall argument.
Are you really claiming that the other points are less valid because they are contained in the same document as the point about the cookie directive?
Which of the four requirements listed do you object to?
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.
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.
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.
says the guys who surely have read all the privacy policies he supposedly agreed to… right?
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.
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.
What? Our constitution already protects our rights to freely sign legal contracts between each others. Since when is that a libertarian thing? TIL.
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.
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.
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!