Feeds

EU data bosses order Google to sort out privacy

Gmail, YouTube, Google+, search - they all know you

Security for virtualized datacentres

EU data regulators have told Google that it has to make changes to its new privacy policy due to "incomplete information and uncontrolled combination of data across services".

The regulators, led by France's Commission Nationale de l'Informatique (CNIL), have spent several months investigating the policy, which basically allows Google to mash up all its previous 60 policies into one document and grab data on folks from across their services.

The data authorities said today in a CNIL announcement that Google needed to make the new terms of their over-arching policy clearer for users and give those users an opt-out option for each product so they can stop information being taken from one to the other.

A letter has been sent to the search giant outlining the changes that are wanted, signed by 27 out of the 29 countries' regulators involved. But although the EU is asking for alterations to the policy, it has not yet fined or threatened to fine the firm or accused it of breaking the law.

Google's Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel, said that it was reviewing the findings.

"Our new privacy policy demonstrates our long-standing commitment to protecting our users’ information and creating great products," he said. "We are confident that our privacy notices respect European law."

CNIL, which has been an avid critic of the new policy, headed up the probe for Europe's G29 countries and questioned Mountain View twice about the changes, but said the firm did not give "satisfactory answers" to its concerns.

Nevertheless, by analysing all the documents and mechanisms of the new policy, the data protection authorities decided that the web giant did not do enough to protect people's privacy.

"It is not possible to ascertain from the analysis that Google respects the key data protection principles of purpose limitation, data quality, data minimisation, proportionality and right to object." they said. "Indeed, the privacy policy suggests the absence of any limit concerning the scope of the collection and the potential uses of the personal data."

Google users can't figure out what categories of their personal information are being snaffled by the firm and what purpose that data is used for under the current policy, the regulators said, claiming that the policy made no distinction between the results of a search query and a credit card number.

The authorities also said that users had no control over the combination of their data across Google products like Gmail and YouTube, whether it would be used for product development or advertising or research. Google refused to give specific retention periods to CNIL, but the investigation found that the scope of data gathering was pretty broad and the information was kept for quite a while.

"The mere consultation of a website including a ‘+1' button is recorded and kept during at least 18 months and can be associated with the uses of Google's services," they said. "Data collected with the DoubleClick cookie are associated to a identifying number valid during two years and renewable."

Several of the recommendations are also backed by members of the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities and Canada's federal privacy commissioner has similar concerns about Google, they added.

The web behemoth seems incapable of turning around these days without running into another regulatory probe. Google has just finished with a Federal Trade Commission case over ignoring do-no-track in Safari browsers, the EU is in the middle of an antitrust case that's analysing whether the firm uses its search advertising to favour its own services over competitors and that whole Street View data slurp stuff just goes on and on.

The UK ICO for its part had this to say in a statement supplied to the Reg:

We await Google's response which will be considered by the Commission Nationale de l'information et des liberties (CNIL), on behalf of the ICO and the other European data protection regulators. A decision will then be made on whether further action is required.

®

Intelligent flash storage arrays

More from The Register

next story
Scrapping the Human Rights Act: What about privacy and freedom of expression?
Justice minister's attack to destroy ability to challenge state
WHY did Sunday Mirror stoop to slurping selfies for smut sting?
Tabloid splashes, MP resigns - but there's a BIG copyright issue here
Google hits back at 'Dear Rupert' over search dominance claims
Choc Factory sniffs: 'We're not pirate-lovers - also, you publish The Sun'
EU to accuse Ireland of giving Apple an overly peachy tax deal – report
Probe expected to say single-digit rate was unlawful
Inequality increasing? BOLLOCKS! You heard me: 'Screw the 1%'
There's morality and then there's economics ...
Hey Brit taxpayers. You just spent £4m on Central London ‘innovation playground’
Catapult me a Mojito, I feel an Digital Innovation coming on
While you queued for an iPhone 6, Apple's Cook sold shares worth $35m
Right before the stock took a 3.8% dive amid bent and broken mobe drama
EU probes Google’s Android omerta again: Talk now, or else
Spill those Android secrets, or we’ll fine you
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.