Unearthed Emails Show Google, Ad Giants Know They Break Privacy Laws (theregister.co.uk) 63
AmiMoJo shares a report from The Register: Privacy warriors have filed fresh evidence in their ongoing battle against real-time web ad exchange systems, which campaigners claim trample over Europe's data protection laws. The new filings -- submitted today to regulators in the UK, Ireland, and Poland -- allege that Google and industry body the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) are well aware that their advertising networks flout the EU's privacy-safeguarding GDPR, and yet are doing nothing about it. The IAB, Google -- which is an IAB member -- and others in the ad-slinging world insist they aren't doing anything wrong. The fresh submissions come soon after the UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) revealed plans to probe programmatic ads. These are adverts that are selected and served on-the-fly as you visit a webpage, using whatever personal information has been scraped together about you to pick an ad most relevant to your interests. [...] The ICO's investigation will focus on how well informed people are about how their personal information is used for this kind of online advertising, which laws ad-technology firms rely on for processing said private data, and whether users' data is secure as it is shared on these platforms.
The "stop" argument (Score:2)
So stop using those creepy "services."
The problem, when non-tech, non-/. people try to stop using creepy services, is that you end up with that :
We here around just have no clue how much "normal" people have been becoming dependent on "those creepy service", and are completely oblivious to even the possibility of not relying on a 3rd party.
(e.g.: The first reflex of my s.o. for extremely s
The key word here is NEW laws (Score:2)
The law come very recently.
I guess if the law is fully implemented, it will kill the "you are the product" free internet services business model.
Not likely (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not likely (Score:4, Insightful)
Google was founded on the principle of "Don't be Evil". So I sincerely doubt they would do this even in exchange for tens of billions of dollars.
I think you forgot the sarcasm tag!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not likely (Score:3, Funny)
I think you forgot the sarcasm tag!
Re: (Score:1)
People ignore the tag.
Re: (Score:2)
I am just glad they did not hire me way back, I may have had to become complicit in "not" doing evil!
Re: (Score:3)
Well, look at it this way, they are not doing for the money but for the power. Every possible politician having done something stupid in their teen years, perfect material for extortion and hell tracking down adult politicians, well Google's lobbyists run around with a data set for the politician they wish to offer the carrot or the stick.
Google 'don't be evil', it's called marketing, as are all those really progressive research projects the often amount to nothing but advertising served.
Reality is you sh
Re: (Score:2)
I can't shake the feeling that they may have dropped a word from that principle.
The only solution is jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Hard time in prison.
We all know it.
And yet they continue to violate the GPDR and the Canadian Constitutional Right of Privacy.
Because you won't jail them.
Fines won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
Hard time in prison.
We all know it.
And yet they continue to violate the GPDR and the Canadian Constitutional Right of Privacy.
Because you won't jail them.
Fines won't work.
The only thing these bozos learn from is what the EU does, fines, lots of fines in amounts so high it makes them squeal like boar on the end of a spear.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. But this needs to be someone high up at Google. Just like it needs to be Zuckerberg for Facebook's many foibles.
The problem is the suits at these companies NEVER see the real consequences of their actions. So they keep going on flouting the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Until someone goes to prison a real "pound me in the ass" prison they will keep doing these things. Because they are out for all the money they can make by however they can steal it.
Re: (Score:1)
Hard time in prison.
I know that's a turn on for some people, but wage/salary garnishment and making them clean up litter in the park is sufficient. Also it would be a justifiable use of asset forfeiture, including copyrights and patents.
Re:The only solution is jail (Score:4, Interesting)
I think in this case it's not the right to privacy, it's lack of consent. When they run that auction they don't appear to have affirmative, opt-in consent from the user to use their data for that purpose.
Re:The only solution is jail (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you won't jail them.
And who, pray tell, is going to do that? The bought and paid for politicians?
People need to let go of the fantasy that governments are their daddy. Defend your own privacy if you actually value it, like an adult.
Re: The only solution is jail (Score:2, Interesting)
If I pay for my protection racket (taxes), the least we can expect is to be actually protected from the other gangsters in town.
Re: (Score:2)
The bought and paid for politicians who introduced the biggest fines for privacy violations ever seen? 4% of global turnover is painful for companies like Google. Around â5.5 billion in Google's case.
No, the reason there isn't jail time is because the politicians are not completely crazy and didn't bring in a very strong privacy law that would take a few years for everyone to comply with that also has an extremely harsh penalty. Rest assured the penalties will ramp up over time as the requirements beco
Re: (Score:2)
That's a dog whistle for anal rape.
Dog whistles are themselves the spittle rain bird of all hat, no cowboy.
Because this kind of lip-licking line-item assuredly never comes to pass IRL.
Re: (Score:2)
When Proctor & Gamble comes to you and says "we'll pay $0.01 for you to play this paper towel roll ad, but ONLY three times to each person per week"... well uh. I just don't know how you would do that under the GDPR.
The correct response to Proctor & Gamble is: "we'll do this in every case where it's lawful to do so."
Note that even with an id in a cookie (that persons name in your system), you cannot rule out family members using the same computer, strangers using the same (library) computer, etc.
Anecdotal evidence (I work for a fairly large webshop in the Netherlands) suggests that people who don't consent are about as many as the number of people who use the same computer: a few percent.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Your premise is flawed. No one consents to advertising online, for the sole reason that advertisers DO NOT ASK FOR CONSENT.
I never said anything about consenting to advertising, for the very simple reason that advertisements can be safe for privacy (even if online they hardly ever are). Hence, consent is never required.
But some advertisers DO ask for consent for personalized advertisements (sites like e.g. slashdot are a good example). This is how you can recognize the good ones. Scumbags like Facebook never asks for consent, but collect personal information anyway.
EU wants more (Score:1)
What is the EU nations need for all the tax extraction for US brands, services and products?
The EU nations populations had the free ability to select products and found what the US private sector offered was great.
Generation of people in the EU had the ability to back early French, German and UK computer products.
People all over the EU went with price, quality and freedom of US products and services.
Now the EU nations gov respond to US innovation with tax and bureaucracy.
Needs a No-Shit-Sherlock flag (Score:2)
Definitely!
Surprising (Score:2)
Not that they are knowingly doing criminal things, that is a given. But that they are so stupid as to put their crimes in writing...