• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The French fine against Google is the start of a war

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,534
Reaction score
13,981
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The Economist

The French fine against Google is the start of a war

THE PRIVACY wars have begun in earnest. On January 21st France’s data-protection regulator, which is known by its French acronym, CNIL, announced that it had found Google’s data-collection practices to be in breach of the European Union’s new privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). CNIL hit Google with a €50m ($57m) fine, the biggest yet levied under GDPR.

Google’s fault, said the regulator, had been its failure to be clear and transparent when gathering data from users. Signing up for a Google account on an Android phone means navigating a sea of documents eight-clicks-deep to understand what data about you Google is collecting.

So far, so technical, but the bigger picture is what matters. The fine represents the first volley fired by European regulators at the heart of the business model on which Google and many other online services are based, one which revolves around the frictionless collection of personal data about customers to create personalised advertising. It is the first time that the data practices behind Google’s advertising business, and thus those of a whole industry, have been deemed illegal.

COMMENT:-

Can anyone tell me exactly why I should have to provide information to "Company A" that "Company A" will sell to "Company B" (and "Company C" [and "Company D" {and "Company E" <and "Company ...>}]) so that "Company B" (and ...) can then use the information that I wouldn't give it (them) directly in order to attempt to convince me to buy products from "Company B" (and ...) for free and get a "free" service?

Shouldn't I have the option of paying "Company A" (its real cost plus a reasonable profit) for the services it provides to me directly rather than having "Company A" selling my personal information to "Company B" (and ...)?
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
19,364
Reaction score
9,346
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
From The Economist

The French fine against Google is the start of a war

THE PRIVACY wars have begun in earnest. On January 21st France’s data-protection regulator, which is known by its French acronym, CNIL, announced that it had found Google’s data-collection practices to be in breach of the European Union’s new privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). CNIL hit Google with a €50m ($57m) fine, the biggest yet levied under GDPR.

Google’s fault, said the regulator, had been its failure to be clear and transparent when gathering data from users. Signing up for a Google account on an Android phone means navigating a sea of documents eight-clicks-deep to understand what data about you Google is collecting.

So far, so technical, but the bigger picture is what matters. The fine represents the first volley fired by European regulators at the heart of the business model on which Google and many other online services are based, one which revolves around the frictionless collection of personal data about customers to create personalised advertising. It is the first time that the data practices behind Google’s advertising business, and thus those of a whole industry, have been deemed illegal.

COMMENT:-

Can anyone tell me exactly why I should have to provide information to "Company A" that "Company A" will sell to "Company B" (and "Company C" [and "Company D" {and "Company E" <and "Company ...>}]) so that "Company B" (and ...) can then use the information that I wouldn't give it (them) directly in order to attempt to convince me to buy products from "Company B" (and ...) for free and get a "free" service?

Shouldn't I have the option of paying "Company A" (its real cost plus a reasonable profit) for the services it provides to me directly rather than having "Company A" selling my personal information to "Company B" (and ...)?

Good question. I would like that option so long as my data is NEVER used or saved. Knowing the Ivy League morons without ethics that run those either directly or through investment that idea would last less than a second. They would keep and sell you data anyhow and keep doing till they were caught multiple times and sued enough that it hurt their business in a meaningful way.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,329
Reaction score
25,300
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Good question. I would like that option so long as my data is NEVER used or saved. Knowing the Ivy League morons without ethics that run those either directly or through investment that idea would last less than a second. They would keep and sell you data anyhow and keep doing till they were caught multiple times and sued enough that it hurt their business in a meaningful way.

If these companies offered you that option, I'm thinking the vast majority of people familiar with the internet would opt out and they know this.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,534
Reaction score
13,981
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
If these companies offered you that option, I'm thinking the vast majority of people familiar with the internet would opt out and they know this.

That, of course, would still leave the companies with a really substantial data store - wouldn't it?
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
From The Economist

The French fine against Google is the start of a war

THE PRIVACY wars have begun in earnest. On January 21st France’s data-protection regulator, which is known by its French acronym, CNIL, announced that it had found Google’s data-collection practices to be in breach of the European Union’s new privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). CNIL hit Google with a €50m ($57m) fine, the biggest yet levied under GDPR.

Google’s fault, said the regulator, had been its failure to be clear and transparent when gathering data from users. Signing up for a Google account on an Android phone means navigating a sea of documents eight-clicks-deep to understand what data about you Google is collecting.

So far, so technical, but the bigger picture is what matters. The fine represents the first volley fired by European regulators at the heart of the business model on which Google and many other online services are based, one which revolves around the frictionless collection of personal data about customers to create personalised advertising. It is the first time that the data practices behind Google’s advertising business, and thus those of a whole industry, have been deemed illegal.

COMMENT:-

Can anyone tell me exactly why I should have to provide information to "Company A" that "Company A" will sell to "Company B" (and "Company C" [and "Company D" {and "Company E" <and "Company ...>}]) so that "Company B" (and ...) can then use the information that I wouldn't give it (them) directly in order to attempt to convince me to buy products from "Company B" (and ...) for free and get a "free" service?

Shouldn't I have the option of paying "Company A" (its real cost plus a reasonable profit) for the services it provides to me directly rather than having "Company A" selling my personal information to "Company B" (and ...)?

I like the idea of having a paid option and unpaid option. I don’t begrudge a company from making a profit. Google and Facebook aren’t charities. But if I had the option to pay a modest monthly subscription fee in exchange for zero data collection, I would take it. People who don’t care about the data collection would still be free to use the services for free. I think that is the best possible compromise.
 

Fearandloathing

How long is now?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,810
Reaction score
23,659
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I like the idea of having a paid option and unpaid option. I don’t begrudge a company from making a profit. Google and Facebook aren’t charities. But if I had the option to pay a modest monthly subscription fee in exchange for zero data collection, I would take it. People who don’t care about the data collection would still be free to use the services for free. I think that is the best possible compromise.



How will anyone know for sure that their data is NOT being farmed out to anyone with $?

I see no reason to continue to assist multinational corporations making zillions to make more through secret revenue services and good for France taking them down
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
How will anyone know for sure that their data is NOT being farmed out to anyone with $?

I see no reason to continue to assist multinational corporations making zillions to make more through secret revenue services and good for France taking them down

So what are you proposing? That the government outlaw all social media platforms and search engines since we can’t trust them? I don’t think that is what you are suggesting.
 

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From The Economist

The French fine against Google is the start of a war

THE PRIVACY wars have begun in earnest. On January 21st France’s data-protection regulator, which is known by its French acronym, CNIL, announced that it had found Google’s data-collection practices to be in breach of the European Union’s new privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). CNIL hit Google with a €50m ($57m) fine, the biggest yet levied under GDPR.

Google’s fault, said the regulator, had been its failure to be clear and transparent when gathering data from users. Signing up for a Google account on an Android phone means navigating a sea of documents eight-clicks-deep to understand what data about you Google is collecting.

So far, so technical, but the bigger picture is what matters. The fine represents the first volley fired by European regulators at the heart of the business model on which Google and many other online services are based, one which revolves around the frictionless collection of personal data about customers to create personalised advertising. It is the first time that the data practices behind Google’s advertising business, and thus those of a whole industry, have been deemed illegal.

COMMENT:-

Can anyone tell me exactly why I should have to provide information to "Company A" that "Company A" will sell to "Company B" (and "Company C" [and "Company D" {and "Company E" <and "Company ...>}]) so that "Company B" (and ...) can then use the information that I wouldn't give it (them) directly in order to attempt to convince me to buy products from "Company B" (and ...) for free and get a "free" service?

Shouldn't I have the option of paying "Company A" (its real cost plus a reasonable profit) for the services it provides to me directly rather than having "Company A" selling my personal information to "Company B" (and ...)?

Because you gave (un) informed consent at some time or another “by clicking on this box, you...”
 

Evilroddy

Pragmatic, pugilistic, prancing, porcine politico.
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2017
Messages
10,126
Reaction score
7,673
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From The Economist

The French fine against Google is the start of a war

THE PRIVACY wars have begun in earnest. On January 21st France’s data-protection regulator, which is known by its French acronym, CNIL, announced that it had found Google’s data-collection practices to be in breach of the European Union’s new privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). CNIL hit Google with a €50m ($57m) fine, the biggest yet levied under GDPR.

Google’s fault, said the regulator, had been its failure to be clear and transparent when gathering data from users. Signing up for a Google account on an Android phone means navigating a sea of documents eight-clicks-deep to understand what data about you Google is collecting.

So far, so technical, but the bigger picture is what matters. The fine represents the first volley fired by European regulators at the heart of the business model on which Google and many other online services are based, one which revolves around the frictionless collection of personal data about customers to create personalised advertising. It is the first time that the data practices behind Google’s advertising business, and thus those of a whole industry, have been deemed illegal.

COMMENT:-

Can anyone tell me exactly why I should have to provide information to "Company A" that "Company A" will sell to "Company B" (and "Company C" [and "Company D" {and "Company E" <and "Company ...>}]) so that "Company B" (and ...) can then use the information that I wouldn't give it (them) directly in order to attempt to convince me to buy products from "Company B" (and ...) for free and get a "free" service?

Shouldn't I have the option of paying "Company A" (its real cost plus a reasonable profit) for the services it provides to me directly rather than having "Company A" selling my personal information to "Company B" (and ...)?

TUC:

Do sheep have the option of withholding their fleece from the shearer? No. Likewise digital sheep cannot withhold their digital fleece from data miners set on shearing like Google, Facebook or Amazon unless the docile sheep become assertive rams who are ready to fight with tooth and horn.

Cheers.
Evilroddy,
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
59,290
Reaction score
49,669
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I like the idea of having a paid option and unpaid option. I don’t begrudge a company from making a profit. Google and Facebook aren’t charities. But if I had the option to pay a modest monthly subscription fee in exchange for zero data collection, I would take it. People who don’t care about the data collection would still be free to use the services for free. I think that is the best possible compromise.

How will anyone know for sure that their data is NOT being farmed out to anyone with $?

I see no reason to continue to assist multinational corporations making zillions to make more through secret revenue services and good for France taking them down

So what are you proposing? That the government outlaw all social media platforms and search engines since we can’t trust them? I don’t think that is what you are suggesting.

Hold on...

The point is sound, but the answer is: if

The trouble is the "if", given the money largely controlling government. Sure, you really do get a surprise candidate now and then without the backing who accomplishes something, but usually these days the big donors control most policy. So... how does one trust that if, say, congress regulates what data may and may not be collected by entities that gather data through provision of service, there won't be loopholes big enough to absorb a supernova?

The evidence available indicates that those who gather data (Facebook, Myspace, etc) are not so scrupulous until an article runs, and those who gather it (NSA; Bush + Obama. Trump?) are not so worried about propriety either. So how does one trust an entities promises about privacy when its financial interest councils a balancing of the probabilities of various financial fallouts if it's discovered and profit beforehand.



Unless I'm misreading posts again. I've done it once today...
 

Fearandloathing

How long is now?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
26,810
Reaction score
23,659
Location
Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hold on...

The point is sound, but the answer is: if

The trouble is the "if", given the money largely controlling government. Sure, you really do get a surprise candidate now and then without the backing who accomplishes something, but usually these days the big donors control most policy. So... how does one trust that if, say, congress regulates what data may and may not be collected by entities that gather data through provision of service, there won't be loopholes big enough to absorb a supernova?

The evidence available indicates that those who gather data (Facebook, Myspace, etc) are not so scrupulous until an article runs, and those who gather it (NSA; Bush + Obama. Trump?) are not so worried about propriety either. So how does one trust an entities promises about privacy when its financial interest councils a balancing of the probabilities of various financial fallouts if it's discovered and profit beforehand.



Unless I'm misreading posts again. I've done it once today...





Such laws are in effect and working, albeit not in social media. But if you want to find out what prescriptions are selling most they won't get it without detectable hacking.

What social media needs to do is create an option allowing those who care to opt out of sharing their data. The marketing companies will still have data, which has been voluntarily given.

But government laws are often inadequate or too red tape bound, so the real choice is with the consumer. Facebook can learn nothing from me as I haven't accessed my account in ten years and have had no reason to do so. If you don't want pictures of yourself drunk and stoned on the internet, don't get drunk and stoned near a camera
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,534
Reaction score
13,981
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
What social media needs to do is create an option allowing those who care to opt out of sharing their data. The marketing companies will still have data, which has been voluntarily given.

I, for one, would actually pay real money if I had the option open to me.

What I wouldn't be prepared to do is to have the social media and/or internet service companies (like Google, Microsoft, or other browser providers) simply set some arbitrary price for opting out. I wouldn't mind paying a BIT of a premium to be able to opt out, but if the service provider can realistically expect to make (MADE UP NUMBER WARNING) $10.00 (grand total over lifetime) from selling my data, I wouldn't agree that a "fair price" to opt out would be $10.00 a month
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,698
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
France would have more solid ground if they didn't utilize all the exemptions of GDPR that apply to the French government.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,534
Reaction score
13,981
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
France would have more solid ground if they didn't utilize all the exemptions of GDPR that apply to the French government.

RULES FOR SUCCESS

  1. Play the game.
  2. Play the game by the rules.
  3. Know what the rules are.
  4. Know what ALL the rules are.
  5. Know what the rules mean.
  6. Know which rules contradict other rules.
  7. Don't bother to tell anyone anything about Points 3 through 7 if you don't have to.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,698
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RULES FOR SUCCESS

  1. Play the game.
  2. Play the game by the rules.
  3. Know what the rules are.
  4. Know what ALL the rules are.
  5. Know what the rules mean.
  6. Know which rules contradict other rules.
  7. Don't bother to tell anyone anything about Points 3 through 7 if you don't have to.

8. If you have a point, make it, it makes it so much more interesting for everyone else.
 

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2018
Messages
51,534
Reaction score
13,981
Location
Lower Mainland of BC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
8. If you have a point, make it, it makes it so much more interesting for everyone else.

Don't complain if someone wins because they are actually playing by the rules of the game that you wrote and have forgotten.
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
11,698
Reaction score
4,014
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't complain if someone wins because they are actually playing by the rules of the game that you wrote and have forgotten.

I'm very confident that you believe you made your point more clearly. Unfortunately you really didn't.
 
Top Bottom