Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google May Face Fine Under EU Privacy Laws

samzenpus posted 1 year,21 days | from the pay-up dept.

EU 88

angry tapir writes "Google faces financial sanctions in France after failing to comply with an order to alter how it stores and shares user data to conform to the nation's privacy laws. The enforcement follows an analysis led by European data protection authorities of a new privacy policy that Google enacted in 2012. France's privacy watchdog, the Commission Nationale de L'Informatique et des Libertes, in June ordered Google to comply with French data protection laws within three months. But Google had not changed its policies to comply with French laws by a deadline last week."

cancel ×

88 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Now they're in trouble (2)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991403)

Google is about to get rapporteured. C'est la vie.

Re:Now they're in trouble (3, Funny)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991675)

EU: We're going to fine you
Google: Just a sec...
Google: Hello NSA? uh, anything you can do here?
NSA: We knew you'd be calling...

Re:Now they're in trouble (0)

oo_00 (2595337) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992053)

By "them" you mean France? If Google instead decides to abandon France, it will automatically become a third world state with no access to essential Internet services. Congratulations, France.

Re:Now they're in trouble (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44992745)

I don't think the definition of Third World is "Doesn't have access to Google".

For a start, there is DuckDuckGo if an internet doesn't work without a search engine, but that itself (the necessity of a search engine) is an unproven assertion.

Re:Now they're in trouble (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992759)

And Google's bottom line would not suffer.
I suspect Google could deal head and link that lead to an ip in France and France would pass a law demanding it be undone.

When you look at what France was demanding it was idiotic. They essentially wanted the scatter shot approach to privacy where the user has no control and less of a clue about which data is used for what.

Re:Now they're in trouble (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,21 days | (#44993017)

Google do not offer a single essential service that cannot be replaced by another provider.

Re:Now they're in trouble (2)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996019)

every fucking time some company is fined somewhere some fucking jackass comes up with this "well don't do business there".

well fuck, they want to do business there. that's why they translated their services. if they don't do business there then someone else does. altavista, yahoo or whoever.

more importantly they want specifically to have local presence inside france. ..and are you suggesting they leave eu alltogether? stupid much? eu can live without google but google can't be global leader without eu. sure, they could limit themselves to just USA.. and end up on government subsidies.

Re:Now they're in trouble (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,20 days | (#44998019)

they could limit themselves to just USA.. and end up on government subsidies.

They won't be getting government subsidies in the US.

What's to stop Europeans from continuing to use Google even if they don't have a local presence in the EU?

LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991409)

In b4 the Google fanbois posit conspiracy theories that this is Microsoft's doing or some such nonsense. Gotta love how the EU is applauded here for privacy protections until they go after Google.

Re:LOL (1)

Vernes (720223) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991461)

So you're replying to comments not yet made? GOD I hope there won't be any fanboy replies.

Re:LOL (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991591)

So you're replying to comments not yet made? GOD I hope there won't be any fanboy replies.

I'm a fanboi of the French you insensitive clod

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44992885)

you insensitive Claude

FTFY

Data Retention Directive (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991411)

And would this be the same EU that has the data retention directive? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive

As bad as Google can get, it's a paragon of privacy compared to our Glorious Leaders.

Tony Blair did that one (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991725)

He pushed it through when UK had the EU Presidency.

It established the principle that you are innocent now, but maybe in future you're not, ergo we require companies to track you. Move forward nearly a decade and that data is handed to a foreign spy agency who data mines it, and trades it with other countries in exchange for more data.

Where's Tony Blair now? Well New York mostly, with his 30 pieces of silver.

Re:Data Retention Directive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991781)

Wonder if the whole thing is merely to get access to the data? Or do they already have that?

Re:Data Retention Directive (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993781)

Yes, please remember eurocrats brought us both "the right to be forgotten," an onerous law rooted in the deep narcissism of letting people silence critics and rewrite history about themselves, and "mandatory data retention," a face-slapping contradiction of the former and the epitome of Schneier's warnings of surveillance co-opting businesses by threatening lavabit's founder personally for shutting down his business.

I think there are big problems with privacy but don't trust these guys to write rules by a longshot, and don't think data will be safer hoarded within their borders.

Go, France! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991413)

As this should be. No company should be allowed to store data on any person -- anywhere in the world -- without that persons' consent or knowledge. Time to take the big companies down a few notches.

Re:Go, France! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991499)

As this should be. No company should be allowed to store data on any person -- anywhere in the world -- without that persons' consent or knowledge. Time to take the big companies down a few notches.

No, that's not how it should be at all. No country has any authority to pass laws about a company which doesn't operate there. When a user in country A goes to a server in country B, the laws of country B are what matter. Just like when you travel to a country on vacation, it's THAT countries laws which apply, not the laws of the country you're coming from.

Re:Go, France! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991541)

No country has any authority to pass laws about a company which doesn't operate there. When a user in country A goes to a server in country B, the laws of country B are what matter. Just like when you travel to a country on vacation, it's THAT countries laws which apply, not the laws of the country you're coming from.

So, what about google.fr [google.fr] ?

Re: Go, France! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993775)

Lol, google FATCA for an example how the US is not dictating business practices to foreign banks.

Re:Go, France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991559)

Except when a user in country A buy a product in country A, and by using it in country A, does, without any choice, acces a server in country B.

Re:Go, France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991645)

Or if the country A is the USA...

Re:Go, France! (5, Insightful)

AGMW (594303) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991677)

When a user in country A goes to a server in country B, the laws of country B are what matter. Just like when you travel to a country on vacation, it's THAT countries laws which apply, not the laws of the country you're coming from.

America can't have it both ways. They made online gambling illegal and then go after the companies offering online gambling from elsewhere. Dudes, it's not the online gambling that's the problem, it's your citizens being bad by ignoring your retarded online gambling laws!

... and now the French are giving you some of your own medicine. Reap what you have sown!

Re:Go, France! (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992911)

The US is not a party to this issue.
Its between France and Google.

Maybe you'd like to dictate US Foreign Policy simply because the US exports more wine than France while you're at it?

Re:Go, France! (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,21 days | (#44993105)

America can't have it both ways.

Our military budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined, so we can pretty much have it any way we please. But don't worry, we've spent ourselves into bankruptcy, so that won't last another decade. I do expect a bit of payback from the EU as our leverage wanes - petty, but who could blame them?

Re:Go, France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44994835)

Aha ha ha aha , you wouldnt have much of that vaunted Military left if you went up against Europes , Fair enough You would win and neither would we but ours are a lot more professional than the people you normally fight.

Either way it would be a pyrrhic victory.

Re:Go, France! (2)

loufoque (1400831) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996439)

You seem to live under the assumption that it is easy for a powerful armed force to coerce any country.
Need I remind you that the US lost several wars in the past half century, Vietnam being the one most well known? And that was despite fighting uneducated people armed with sticks in the jungle or caves and using banned weapons or torture techniques.

Now imagine attacking France, which has its own elite forces, fighter jets, submarines, intercontinental missiles and nuclear weapons. And that's just one country. There would be a lot to lose and very little to gain from warring with any European country.

Re:Go, France! (1)

rioki (1328185) | 1 year,20 days | (#45000349)

Did you mean French defeats? -- sorry I just had to say it.

But yes, not only would it be terribly difficult to put up with one (probably more than one because of EU defensive pacts) relativly well militarized nation. This would add to the fact that it would also be economic suicide.

Re: Go, France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44996741)

I like having the US as some mighty retarded attack dog, that goes chasing after bullies and burglars all over the world while the rest of Europe says "good boy fido". Here's your bone (budget).

Re:Go, France! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991755)

No country has any authority to pass laws about a company which doesn't operate there

Google Paris
8 Rue de Londres
75009 Paris
France

Re:Go, France! (2)

Pope (17780) | 1 year,21 days | (#44993159)

No country has any authority to pass laws about a company which doesn't operate there

Google Paris
8 Rue de Londres
75009 Paris
France

Ah, I see the problem. Google thought they were in England!

Re:Go, France! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993951)

Just like when you travel to a country on vacation, it's THAT countries laws which apply, not the laws of the country you're coming from.

Not true. If I was to travel to a part of the world where abusing children was legal, it would still be illegal for me to do so as an American citizen - even if I only did it while there.

Re:Go, France! (1)

mythosaz (572040) | 1 year,20 days | (#44995821)

Yes and no.

As I understand it, if you travel to a country /to/ skirt US laws, and the US knows, they'll try to nab you.
If, while in another country, you just /happen/ to do something against US law, you're generally in the clear.

Re:Go, France! (1)

loufoque (1400831) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996337)

When a company in country A sells a product or service to a person in country B, it has to comply by country B's rules.
That's how international sales work.

Re:Go, France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991651)

Seeing as we're talking about a potential 150k fine, we're more likely talking about a few micro notches.

Re:Go, France! (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992855)

As this should be. No company should be allowed to store data on any person -- anywhere in the world -- without that persons' consent or knowledge. Time to take the big companies down a few notches.

What about the fact that everyone using Google Already Consented?

Or what about the fact that the whole issue is not at all about what you say it is.

Go do your homework.

Re:Go, France! (2)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,21 days | (#44993199)

What about the fact that everyone using Google Already Consented?

As in consented to a legalese riddled EULA that only a small minority understand and an even smaller group ever read, wherein Google reserve the right to change the conditions at any time, right? That people have consented in the legal meaning of the word doesn't mean that they ultimately know or understand how much of their privacy they have given away for the dubious benefit of becoming Google's product.

Re:Go, France! (0)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993625)

Ok, so French citizens can't read the EULA. Isn't that an indication that the French education system needs reform more than Google's very clear EULA? [google.com] I'm sure if your comment warranted it I could dig up the french version

I mean, google's policy is written for the much lamented 8th grade education in US Public Schools. If the French can't read that then they probably don't use google's services anyway.

Re:Go, France! (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,20 days | (#44995737)

I give you that as far as Terms of Service and Privacy Policy go Google have done an unusually good job on keeping it understandable, I haven't read the thing for about 8 years so it is possible that I remembered it wrong or that it since then have been simplified. However, that being said that does not alter the fact that many if not most people are unable to understand the legal implications nor the technical aspects in regards to privacy and how Google effectively track and store pretty much everything you do while logged in to their services and how limited your control over what is done with this data really are.
As far as the ability of the French to read and comprehend the ToS go, I doubt that they have greater difficulty to than the average US citizen but as I'm not French I am not able to comment on this and while I am fluent in 4 languages French is not one of them so that version would have done me little good had you taken the effort to dig it up.

Re:Go, France! (1)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,20 days | (#44995831)

This is a nice little gem from the International version of their ToS that clearly exemplifies my point about understanding the legal aspects. ( http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ [google.com] )

The laws of California, U.S.A., excluding California’s conflict of laws rules, will apply to any disputes arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services. All claims arising out of or relating to these terms or the Services will be litigated exclusively in the federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California, USA, and you and Google consent to personal jurisdiction in those courts.

So even if I am very well versed in the laws of my country that is of of no use for me to determine if it would even be worth the effort to start a litigation, as even if I would have good grounds in my home country that might not be the case in California.

Re:Go, France! (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996121)

How is this unusual?
Don't French websites have the same provisions? How about France24 [france24.com] a popular news site:

These Conditions of Use will be subject to and interpreted in accordance with French law. Any dispute which cannot be resolved by agreement will be referred to the courts of Nanterre. In the event that any of the provisions of the Conditions of Use is held to be null or void, the remaining provisions will automatically be deemed to apply.

How about Russian web sites? Yandex for instance: [yandex.com]

10.2. This Agreement shall be regulated and interpreted according to laws of the Russian Federation. Any issues not regulated hereby shall be settled according to Russian law. Any disputes arising out of relations regulated by this Agreement shall be settled as prescribed by applicable Russian laws according to Russian legal standards. In any part of this Agreement, unless otherwise stated, the term “law” shall mean laws of the Russian Federation as well as laws of the country of the User’s location.

People choose these types of restrictions EVERY TIME they sign up or use any site. Its the same everywhere in the world. You play in their arena, you play by their rules. And its not like neither of those examples or 100 others have foreign offices. They both do.

There is no reason Google should have to do anything other than that. The international standard for governance of web sites is that the Home Country Rules.

You agreed to that.

Re:Go, France! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44996351)

funnily enough I can agree to lots of things but if it's NOT lawful or illegal in my country then our laws still apply.

Otherwise Apple would not be complying with EU regs. on warranties.

Re:Go, France! (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,20 days | (#44997573)

If YOU agreed to the terms, and YOUR country makes that illegal, that's YOUR problem.
Maybe YOU committed a crime by agreeing to follow a foreign company's rules.

Re:Go, France! (1)

ais523 (1172701) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996585)

Not every site does. For instance, I vaguely remembered that Microsoft EULAs have jurisdiction based on the country where you live, with the "you consent to jurisdiction in Washington" bit only applying to Americans. I checked the Terms of Service for Bing [microsoft.com] , and I was right. (For instance, for Europeans, it uses Luxembourg law for breaches of the ToS specifically, and the local jurisdiction for other claims.) Microsoft seems to have local companies set up for the purpose of sorting out contracts with people in countries other than the US. Many other sites don't seem to consider jurisdictional issues in their TOS at all. I suspect that that might lead to complications if they ever have to sue someone, but it's nicer for their users. Incidentally, local jurisdiction clauses in a ToS are actually one reason that causes me to avoid agreeing to them, unless they're set up in such a way that they only apply if I invoke them, they can't be invoked against me. (I end up avoiding a large number of major websites because of this.)

Re:Go, France! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44995201)

... everyone using Google Already Consented ...

Since a EULA cannot be edited, it is really Google telling consumers the law doesn't apply to them. Agreeing that Google is above the law does not put Google above the law.

Re:Go, France! (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996129)

... everyone using Google Already Consented ...

Since a EULA cannot be edited, it is really Google telling consumers the law doesn't apply to them. Agreeing that Google is above the law does not put Google above the law.

You're an idiot.

Can you possibly imagine running a internet service where each user gets to pick their own terms? How would you possibly keep track of that?
Do you even think for one minute before you rush in to post something?

Re:Go, France! (1)

zsau (266209) | 1 year,20 days | (#44996809)

G'day. Many of the webpages I use make requests to Google servers without my knowledge. In fact, unless I was using wget and basically manually downloading everything it's almost impossible to visit any contemporary web site and not let Google, or some other datamining third party, know. Even if you've got an adblocker turned on (because of things like jQuery hosting).

It's extremely difficult to say that I consented. Rather, at most, you can say I failed to opt out; but opting out cuts you out of a huge part of life.

Re:Go, France! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44993031)

You're right, but if a company has a published privacy policy and you send your information to a company, shouldn't they be allowed to keep it?

Really, why are you sending your information to this company if you don't want them to have it?

Merde (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991439)

Google est dans la merde!

A fine??! (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991443)

Oh no!

Re:A fine??! (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991481)

150K Euros is a slap on the wrist to a company Google's size, and almost certainly much less than the cost of coming into compliance.

The question is, after Google ignores the rules and just pays the fine, what's CNIL's next step? How far can the dispute escalate?

Re:A fine??! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991609)

at that point, it's a business case decision. Truly though, 3 months for a massive software project (to the tune of changing the business model) from requirements to going live is just ludicrous. Hell, neither the french govern,etn nor the US government could get an RFP out in three months even if they were given all the money they needed.

Re:A fine??! (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991853)

Truly though, 3 months for a massive software project (to the tune of changing the business model) from requirements to going live is just ludicrous

I know, when I break the law I expect to be given ample time to correct my behavior.

Re:A fine??! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44992357)

When I tell someone to do something, I don't give them enough time to comply. Remember, regulations are not laws; they're completely interpretation based. Not all bad; the regulators generally know a lot more about the subject than the politicians writing and voting on laws.

Re: A fine??! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993827)

Actually privacy is not a regulation in Europe, it's a law, the body issueing the fine (which admittingly is trivial by Google standards) is the oversight body established by law.

And laws are quite often mandatory.

Re: A fine??! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44995229)

Mandatory privacy in a country that bans encryption seems like a stretch.

Re: A fine??! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#45000509)

Mandatory privacy in a country that bans encryption seems like a stretch.

You are referring to the restrictions on encryption in France that was ended some 10 years ago?

Re:A fine??! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991515)

Sacrebleu!

chump change (4, Informative)

schneidafunk (795759) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991465)

FTA: " Google could be fined a maximum of €150,000 (US$202,562), or €300,000 for a second offense"

Re:chump change (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991607)

They are definitely going to drop the hammer on them in the future if they blow off the fine like it's nothing. This is definitely a stupid move on Google's part. They're probably going to end up losing all business in the country due to a country-wide ban if they keep being so stupid.

Re:chump change (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992939)

Yeah? that would hurt France more than Google.

Re:chump change (2)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,21 days | (#44993163)

I disagree - it could be a serious blow to Google. Google has nothing special, nothing competitors don't do well enough. No one has any loyalty to web services, the only way to keep your customers is to keep them from looking around. When the differences between services come down to subjective preferences (UI and whatnot), if your user base looks elsewhere, a significant percentage will discover they like another service better. At the scale of France, that's going to be a heck of a lot of people telling friends elsewhere "hey, try this other thing out, it's better".

Re:chump change (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993545)

Nothing special?

Somehow 70% market share in search engine WITH a viable business plan makes the next closest competitor look sick by comparison.
French companies would still advertise on Google even if google closed up shop in France entirely. They would just do it elsewhere. Its not that hard.

But don't forget, most other search engines simply scrape Google [searchengineland.com] . So if Google makes your country go dark, its pretty much dark.

Re:chump change (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993865)

Do you actually think anyone has any loyalty to a search engine? If they get in the habit of using something else, it's not like they'll notice a difference.

At least with email and web apps there are real differences noticeable to the non-technical user.

Re:chump change (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993887)

I should know better than feed the trolls but still...

Nothing special?

Somehow 70% market share in search engine WITH a viable business plan makes the next closest competitor look sick by comparison.

How's that even relevant to users?

But don't forget, most other search engines simply scrape Google [searchengineland.com] . So if Google makes your country go dark, its pretty much dark.

Bollocks. First, the linked article only compares Google against Bing and none of the other competition. Second, if Google services would be unavailable, how would that hinder the availability of the competition? Do they have some kind of magic remote kill switch?

Re:chump change (1)

HiThere (15173) | 1 year,20 days | (#44994907)

Well, *if* the assertion that "most of the other search engines are just scraping Google" is correct, and Google stopped covering France (unlikely, but if they stopped doing business there the coverage would probably cease growing, and might shrink) then the other search engines wouldn't have the information either. So perhaps "go dark" is a bit excessive, but "go dim" sound correct.

This, of course, hinges on the correctness of the primary assertion. I'm certainly aware that SOME of the other search engines operate by "scraping Google", but I'm not sure this is true of all of them.

Re:chump change (1)

zsau (266209) | 1 year,20 days | (#44998371)

Do most other search engines just scrape Google? After reading the one you linked to and its follow up, I can conclude that Bing doesn't scrape Google (although they do use a combination of a search and a following page visit to raise the relevance of a pageâ"far from simple scraping and not particular to Google). But I have no idea about any other search engine, like Duck Duck Go for instance, because it didn't cover anything else.

What's the point of providing a link if it only says in one case your statement is false and makes no statement about any other case? It was much more trouble than it's worth, unless you're going for FUD.

Re:chump change (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991613)

This seems like a dig for France to extort money more than anything else. They're fully aware of the costs it would take to come to compliance, as they know the current state of Google's data storage as well as the requirements of their regulations.

So instead of threatening to ban them from operating in the French borders, a threat that would have drawn real action and change, as Google wouldn't want to lose a foothold in the country - they opt for a non-actionable fine. So is the government really for the rights of people on this, or for their purses?

Re:chump change (4, Insightful)

TheP4st (1164315) | 1 year,20 days | (#44993351)

This seems like a dig for France to extort money more than anything else.

Are you actually serious and believe the 5th largest economy in the world spend more money in legal costs alone than they ever will recuperate from fines just so they can extort Google out of 150K? I normally refrain from insulting people but will make an exception in your case as you just displayed a level of intelligence that genuinely make me wonder how many chromosomes you are equipped with.

Re:chump change (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991621)

FTA: " Google could be fined a maximum of €150,000 (US$202,562), or €300,000 for a second offense"

TFA isn't clear if there's anything more than that on a 3rd, 4th . . . Nth offense. If the max is 450k, that's just a cost of doing business to them.

Re:chump change (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991627)

That's probably cheaper than even asking Google's legal department for their opinion on this.

Re:chump change (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,19 days | (#45005183)

FTA: " Google could be fined a maximum of €150,000 (US$202,562), or €300,000 for a second offense"

Per breach - some in CNIL argue that means for each and every Google user in France. Even if "just" France, that would hurt.

France have the 3-strikes-you're-out-policy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991579)

1st offense: 150 k€
2nd offense: 300 k€
3rd offense: out of business??

Alright, the 3-strikes policy is only for petty downloaders, not for multi-billion corporations...

Re:France have the 3-strikes-you're-out-policy (2)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992127)

yes, I agree, the French would run out on the 3rd strike.

They'll find some way to weasel out (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991589)

I'm sure some lawyers and engineers are huddled in a back room somewhere
Lawyers: "We need to anonymize via some simple algorithm!"
Engineers: "We'll add a random string of 5 characters to everyones last name, no one will ever know that John SmithAS@D$ is really just John Smith."
Lawyers:"Brilliant!"

It's always France (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44991715)

When will France get with the times and leave Google alone? Get over it. You guys don't control the internet, we do.

Speaking of Google and Privacy (2)

Richy_T (111409) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991883)

Anyone know how to prevent Android Device Manager being able to access my location anytime it feels like it?

https://www.google.com/android/devicemanager [google.com]

I'm on a Droid Razr Maxx.

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (1)

Richy_T (111409) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991903)

To be clear, I don't want to disable location services completely. I just find this to be intrusive.

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44992057)

I understand you can selectively revoke permissions in cyanogenmod - don't think you can in an un-rooted phone however.

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (1)

Richy_T (111409) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992191)

It looks like fine grained permissions control is coming in 4.3 (App ops).

My phone is rooted so there may be other options.

I found a web page that shows a setting in the security->Device administration that looks like it would disable it but not available on my phone.

http://www.stopcellphonetracking.com/google-helps-find-your-stolen-android-device/ [stopcellph...acking.com]

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44992229)

There should be an icon for Google Settings in the AppTray.
Google Settings->Android Device Manager->Remotely Locate Device.

I have to turn it on to play with the webpage the first time.
This is on an S4; I don't have access to another phone to check with.

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (1)

Richy_T (111409) | 1 year,21 days | (#44992557)

Which version are you on? I don't see this on my 4.1 Droid Maxx.

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44995037)

4.2.2 - but I thought it was in the earlier versions as well :(.

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (1)

swillden (191260) | 1 year,21 days | (#44993005)

Anyone know how to prevent Android Device Manager being able to access my location anytime it feels like it?

Find the Google Settings app (note that this is not the same as the "Settings" app -- that's general Android stuff, "Google Settings" is specific to the Google apps), open it, click on "Android Device Manager" and then uncheck "Remotely locate this device".

Note that this means that if you use your device you will not be able to use Device Manager to find its GPS location. I think you'll still be able to use it to remotely ring, lock or erase the device, unless you disable that as well.

Re:Speaking of Google and Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44994323)

Don't be anywhere.

EU May Face Fine Under People's Anger (0)

oo_00 (2595337) | 1 year,21 days | (#44991991)

EU will be better off shutting up, or Europeans would kick their socialist asses one day.

Re:EU May Face Fine Under People's Anger (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44993941)

The EU generally actually makes a lot of sense. It's the government leaders who frack up EU decisions because they're afraid they can't explain a decent decision at home and fear their re-election going down the drain as a result.

Order of Hatred (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,21 days | (#44992281)

Anti-Capitalists' hatred of Google < Apple Fanboys' hatred of Google < Ballmer's hatred of Google < France's hatred of Google

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?