back to article Google forced to – wah! – OBEY the LAW with privacy policy tweaks

Google has agreed to change its privacy policy to comply with the Data Protection Act following an investigation by Blighty's watchdog into the company's harvesting of personal information. The giant ad broker was slapped by the Information Commissioner's Office back in July 2013 for being "too vague" when describing how it …

  1. Busby

    Presumably now there will be an obscure link buried in the T&C's which takes you to a page where Google says they collect your data to stuff and things with it. Maybe the wording will be slightly different but I doubt they outline exactly what they do with it otherwise people could be horrified.

    Possibly I'm too cynical but that's what I expect after reading that article, sounds like a good result for Google.

    1. LucreLout

      Maybe the wording will be slightly different but I doubt they outline exactly what they do with it otherwise people could be horrified.

      I don't disagree, but I think some people, who like myself, have a casual interest in Big Data (tm), would be absolutely amazed and fascinated by what they do with it. I might even be willing to give out more data than I do now depending on how intrusive I found their processing.

      Privacy is good. So is convenience. If I knew that Goog would do nothing with my location data other than things I approved of, and a little adveritise as that is their raison d'etre, then I might give them access to it and let them make my life more convenient.

      At the moment, Goog (and others) behave as if they have something to hide because they are ashamed of what they do with our data. Sort of makes them hard to trust with still more of it.

  2. Lionel Baden
    Flame

    FFS the images on your site are getting ridiculous !!

    You have now increased the Size of the images to the Fact there is a massive finger being displayed on my screen in the office.

    I know march forwards and progress with the times, but then at least give us the option to turn off, or display much smaller images as with this and other images that suggest sexual nature this site is getting to the point I would classify it as NSFW.

    Sorry for hijacking your article comments section.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: FFS the images on your site are getting ridiculous !!

      Be thankful they haven't followed the Grauniad's style for its current offerings. They have so much real estate covered in pictures with very brief text that I have given up trying to read it.

      1. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: FFS the images on your site are getting ridiculous !!

        The Telegraph has become very bad, too.

        Why have all the media come

        To think that we are all so dumb?

        Answer: look at some of the comments on the mass media sites. Makes El Reg look loke a philosopher's drawing room.

        1. Syntax Error

          Re: FFS the images on your site are getting ridiculous !!

          I agree with you. They have changed the design of their sites with more graphics to make their sites easier to use with tablet or phone or finger.

  3. alain williams Silver badge

    Subject access request

    So does this mean that I can now give Google a subject access request and have it, within 40 days, give me a copy of all the data that it has one me ?

    1. ratfox
      Angel

      Re: Subject access request

      Within 40 days? If you have a high speed connection, sure…

  4. NotWorkAdmin

    I still think...

    ...it was a good idea to have a short single page of terms people might actually read, rather than a 200 page legal document that no-one will read.

    1. ratfox

      Re: I still think...

      Well, the thing is, going into the details of every way Google might use your information is probably a very long list, and getting longer every few days…

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I still think...

      I agree. People who think Google is an evil data-slurping devil won't change their minds just because they know in more detail what Google are doing with their data. And people who couldn't be arsed to read all those disparate privacy policies in the past (and let's face it, how many of us do?) might, just might, have been inclined to read a single summarised version.

      However in all probability those who like Google's services will continue to just click right through the "I agree" page without reading it, however much the ICO might think it's been improved. As has been repeatedly demonstrated in the past, real people don't read this stuff

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I still think...

        People who think Google is an evil data-slurping devil

        People who know Google is an evil data-slurping devil

        fify :)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I still think...

      I still think it was a good idea to have a short single page of terms people might actually read, rather than a 200 page legal document that no-one will read.

      If Google's aim was that it sticks to what you agree to it NEEDS that length to bury the dodgy stuff. I hope you don't really think Google pays charging-by-the-word lawyers to write these War and Peace lengths for your benefit.

      There are some fantastic clauses in the Terms that we use when I teach business owners - we first show them anonymised, and when all have agreed they would never, ever go into business with an outfit on such terms we show where its from and watch people swallow*.

      We are well past the stage where someone might think Google's approach to ownership of personal data and IP is questionable. If you're not you have not been paying attention.

      * The African variety

    4. David 164

      Re: I still think...

      or the 200 pages times 70 like the old regime, which the EU 29 article working group wanted Google to return to.

  5. dominio público

    Privacy Policies are getting harder to read.

    Privacy policies are just more confusing and more annoying now. This isn't helping. If people don't like a company's privacy policy then don't use that company's services. It's simple business economics. If people cared about privacy policies then people would be flocking away from Google for other services with "better privacy", but that isn't happening.

    Not to mention, I am supposed to be reading 6-7 of these privacy policies a week as I need to agree to them every time anything about the policy changes. Isn't me using the website consent enough?

    A better solution would be to educate users about technology much the same way drugs and smoking are handled. Nobody quit smoking because the government forced cigarette companies to place a warning on the package; they quit because they were educated about what happens when you use it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Privacy Policies are getting harder to read.

      "A better solution would be to educate users about technology much the same way drugs and smoking are handled. Nobody quit smoking because the government forced cigarette companies to place a warning on the package; they quit because they were educated about what happens when you use it."

      This runs into the "outvoted by the stupid" problem. Too many people don't WANT to learn and catch you in their wake. What then?

    2. Robert Helpmann??
      Childcatcher

      Re: Privacy Policies are getting harder to read.

      If people cared about privacy policies then people would be flocking away from Google for other services with "better privacy", but that isn't happening.

      So, if it a choice between A) a steaming pile of semi-functional code that allows for perfectly secure searches that do not return anything of value and B) Google which returns an arguably great set of results but which also plays fast and loose with personal privacy, people will always choose A?

      Additional incentives might be needed such as cranking up the per instance tax on searches to mirror the ever-increasing tobacco tax. While I agree that education is a critical part of security, I don't believe that cigarette usage makes for a good comparison.

  6. David 164

    Don't like to boast but I did predict google would pick off the data protection commissioners one by one in the EU and that the UK was likely to be the first to agree a deal. This deal goes nowhere near as far as EU Article 29 working group initial demands, which was to completely reverse the merger of all of Google privacy policies into a single policy. Google has basically gotten what they wanted and all they had to do is add a few words to their policy and make a few promises.

    1 commissioner down and 27 more to go, I predict the rest will cave pretty easily they won't want to absorb the cost of fighting Google in the courts.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Chocolate teapot ICO - as always

      Why do people continue to expect the government to protect them from their own actions/stupidity? It's almost as if they want a nanny state.

      No one forces you to use Google - if you don't like it's privacy policies, or lack of transparency on privacy, then don't use Google!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Chocolate teapot ICO - as always

        "[,,,] if you don't like it's privacy policies, or lack of transparency on privacy, then don't use Google!"

        Or use something like DuckDuckGo or StartingPage to obscure your origins. All Google sees is each individual search from a large proxy. Not sure what it can correlate out of that intermingled traffic.

      2. David 164

        Re: Chocolate teapot ICO - as always

        I don't. Which is why I expected Google to win the first place. The ICO generally urge on the side of not taking people to court.

      3. Roj Blake Silver badge

        Re: Chocolate teapot ICO - as always

        Except that when somebody else sends you a mail from their GMail account, Google still gets a load of information about you whether you've agreed to it or not.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Never forget

    You always have a choice...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Never forget

      Yeah, and one has a choice of swimming the Channel to France if one doesn't have another way. There's a difference between having a choice and having a practical choice. In this case, being data-mined (if not by Google, then by everyone else) is pretty much the price of admission. The only way to not be data-mined is to not use the Internet, and even then that may not be practical as the IoT emerges and begins data-mining every passing person whether you like it or not.

  8. gurugeorge

    Yeah DVLA

    And the DVLA continue to sell my personal data to any who the fuck wants to buy including illegal parking companies, bailiffs, etc. We have the largest percentage of population in any country on the DNA database continue to walk through life without eyes closed. Nothing short of revolution will make me happy.

  9. Medixstiff

    "I agree" on policies and EULA's needs to be changed to "I have no choice" because basically, you don't have a choice. You can try fool yourself into pretending you do.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like