EU Demands Google Stop Retaining Personal Search Info

L

Luminoso

Guest
via bbc news

Google has been told that it may be breaking European privacy laws by
keeping people's search information on its servers for up to two
years.

A data protection group that advises the European Union has written to
the search giant to express concerns.

The Article 29 group, made up of data protection commissioners around
the EU, has asked Google to clarify its policy.

Peter Fleischer, Google's global privacy counsel, said the firm was
committed to dialogue with the group.

"We believe it's an important part of our commitment to respect user
privacy while balancing a number of important factors, such as
maintaining security and preventing fraud and abuse," Mr Fleischer
said.

"This group has addressed a letter to Google raising a number of
questions," EU spokesman Pietro Petrucci said, adding that the Union's
Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini was backing the investigation.

"He considers those questions raised by the letter to be appropriate
and legitimate," Mr Petrucci said.

A spokeswoman for Google said the firm would answer the EU's privacy
concerns before the panel's next meeting at the end of June.

"The concern is about keeping information about people's search for a
definite period of time ranging from 18 to 24 months," she said.

"They (the working party) believe it is too long."



How about NOT KEEPING DATA AT ALL ???

Googles purposes could be served simply by collecting
generic statistics, how many hits and repeat hits on
sites and ads from whatever zip codes.

Even more embarassing, why is the normally antilibertarian
EU pushing ahead with this issue while "The Land Of The Free"
dicks around and does nothing ?
 
"Luminoso" <luminoso@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:465c0c85.15845@news.east.earthlink.net...
> via bbc news
>
> Google has been told that it may be breaking European privacy laws by
> keeping people's search information on its servers for up to two
> years.
>
> A data protection group that advises the European Union has written to
> the search giant to express concerns.
>
> The Article 29 group, made up of data protection commissioners around
> the EU, has asked Google to clarify its policy.
>
> Peter Fleischer, Google's global privacy counsel, said the firm was
> committed to dialogue with the group.
>
> "We believe it's an important part of our commitment to respect user
> privacy while balancing a number of important factors, such as
> maintaining security and preventing fraud and abuse," Mr Fleischer
> said.
>
> "This group has addressed a letter to Google raising a number of
> questions," EU spokesman Pietro Petrucci said, adding that the Union's
> Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini was backing the investigation.
>
> "He considers those questions raised by the letter to be appropriate
> and legitimate," Mr Petrucci said.
>
> A spokeswoman for Google said the firm would answer the EU's privacy
> concerns before the panel's next meeting at the end of June.
>
> "The concern is about keeping information about people's search for a
> definite period of time ranging from 18 to 24 months," she said.
>
> "They (the working party) believe it is too long."
>
>
>
> How about NOT KEEPING DATA AT ALL ???
>
> Googles purposes could be served simply by collecting
> generic statistics, how many hits and repeat hits on
> sites and ads from whatever zip codes.
>
> Even more embarassing, why is the normally antilibertarian
> EU pushing ahead with this issue while "The Land Of The Free"
> dicks around and does nothing ?
>


I don't see what the problem is over storing search results against an IP
number. What people seem scared of is how far back records were kept and
what the police can use them for. Many paedophiles have been trapped and
caught for example using this kind of information. Potential employers can
even search newsgroups to see what sort of person might be applying for a
job. Two very different uses of stored information. We need to look at why
Google wants to keep the records. Fine if it is to show site or search
popularity, it is their search engine people are using.
Don't forget that your ISP keeps details anyway of your internet use.
People wanting complete anonymity have something to hide, those wanting
privacy do not. If we had names and addresses attached to newsgroup
postings I doubt there would be any abuse.
What people seem to be objecting to is being caught out when they do
something they know is illegal.
 
On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:43:29 +0100, "ST150" <no.reply@none.com> wrote:

>
>"Luminoso" <luminoso@everywhere.net> wrote in message
>news:465c0c85.15845@news.east.earthlink.net...
>> via bbc news
>>
>> Google has been told that it may be breaking European privacy laws by
>> keeping people's search information on its servers for up to two
>> years.
>>
>> A data protection group that advises the European Union has written to
>> the search giant to express concerns.
>>
>> The Article 29 group, made up of data protection commissioners around
>> the EU, has asked Google to clarify its policy.
>>
>> Peter Fleischer, Google's global privacy counsel, said the firm was
>> committed to dialogue with the group.
>>
>> "We believe it's an important part of our commitment to respect user
>> privacy while balancing a number of important factors, such as
>> maintaining security and preventing fraud and abuse," Mr Fleischer
>> said.
>>
>> "This group has addressed a letter to Google raising a number of
>> questions," EU spokesman Pietro Petrucci said, adding that the Union's
>> Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini was backing the investigation.
>>
>> "He considers those questions raised by the letter to be appropriate
>> and legitimate," Mr Petrucci said.
>>
>> A spokeswoman for Google said the firm would answer the EU's privacy
>> concerns before the panel's next meeting at the end of June.
>>
>> "The concern is about keeping information about people's search for a
>> definite period of time ranging from 18 to 24 months," she said.
>>
>> "They (the working party) believe it is too long."
>>
>>
>>
>> How about NOT KEEPING DATA AT ALL ???
>>
>> Googles purposes could be served simply by collecting
>> generic statistics, how many hits and repeat hits on
>> sites and ads from whatever zip codes.
>>
>> Even more embarassing, why is the normally antilibertarian
>> EU pushing ahead with this issue while "The Land Of The Free"
>> dicks around and does nothing ?
>>

>
>I don't see what the problem is over storing search results against an IP
>number. What people seem scared of is how far back records were kept and
>what the police can use them for. Many paedophiles have been trapped and
>caught for example using this kind of information. Potential employers can
>even search newsgroups to see what sort of person might be applying for a
>job. Two very different uses of stored information. We need to look at why
>Google wants to keep the records. Fine if it is to show site or search
>popularity, it is their search engine people are using.
>Don't forget that your ISP keeps details anyway of your internet use.
>People wanting complete anonymity have something to hide, those wanting
>privacy do not. If we had names and addresses attached to newsgroup
>postings I doubt there would be any abuse.
>What people seem to be objecting to is being caught out when they do
>something they know is illegal.



Ah ... "Only the guilty need fear".

Haven't we heard that one before, over and over ?

Clue : "Guilt" depends on the whim of the State and
the interpretations of prosecutors & judges. Your
perfectly legit activity yesterday can be used to
prosecute/persecute you tomorrow.
 
"ST150" <no.reply@none.com> wrote:

> People wanting complete anonymity have something to hide, those wanting
> privacy do not. If we had names and addresses attached to newsgroup
> postings I doubt there would be any abuse.
> What people seem to be objecting to is being caught out when they do
> something they know is illegal.


Total nonsense. I have complete anonymity right now in this post. You
couldn't trace it even if you wanted to, and yet I'm doing absolutely
nothing illegal or wrong. Its simply a preference.

You're providing a typical "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument
that gets used whenever someone wants to take away the right to
anonymity. No, I won't be giving up my anonymity, no matter how many
times you suggest that not doing so means I must be hiding illegal
activity.
 
Back
Top