General Business Forum Brought to you by Total Gas & Power

Google - Privacy and other issues

Discussion in 'General Business Forum' started by bdw, Sep 7, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. OldWelshGuy

    OldWelshGuy UKBF Legend Staff Member

    20,433 7,050
    because in the UK we have always allowed large corporations get away with murder (literally in some cases).
     
    Posted: Jul 28, 2012 By: OldWelshGuy Member since: Jun 12, 2008
  2. 10032012

    10032012 UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,965 324
    not to mention, atmosbob, that both countries have completely different laws and governing structures.
     
    Posted: Jul 28, 2012 By: 10032012 Member since: Mar 10, 2012
  3. 10032012

    10032012 UKBF Newcomer Free Member

    1,965 324
    I couldnt agree more. The problem however with the likes of Google and Apple etc. is they use EBB (early bird bribes) that is they give away their products to these regulators...

    So why would you want to fine Google or Apple when you get given an Android smartphone and a ipad each year?

    I think any Google cookie concerns are rather minor... this is my understanding of this saga:
    * Google wanted to map the streets of the UK
    * Google thought this would be a brilliant chance to undertake drive-by hacking - so someone was tasked to code software to do this (there wasn't a sole google streetview car so its unlikely a rogue employee could have such an impact, and not just in the UK)
    * I assume Google was stealing this data for "market research" - I am not sure what the data contains but I suspect they wanted to create a map for commercial exploitation such as details of type of routers, IPs, ISPs, and nature of devices. Not to mention harvest this data for use in its local service.
    * Google was caught and said it didn't have the data - made an apology
    * Google was found out that it was deliberate (cmon even the guy in the car must be aware of the antenna and device not part of the recording equipment - to get such data at even the slowish speeds the car travels at - no covert style device with a small or internal antenna is going to be able to manage this... scanning for wifi signals can take a while also)
    * Google was found out that despite making assurances the data is gone, it still has it.
    * Google has implemented the raw data in the core of its global internet technology - even if the raw obtained data is analysed and then destroyed... its been illegally used for services on the web

    The main problem is its merely seen as "privacy" concern.

    It was actually an illegal activity (aka crime) that took place on a widespread scale on every road in the country - so say about 98%) - it is espionage.
    I remember someone getting jailed (several months I think, maybe reduced by half on appeal) for wifi-surfing outside someones house in his car (on public highway not the persons property) - although the wifi signal was not protected (open network). I think this comes under the same EU law also.

    And its anti-competitive... EU should close Google for this (i.e. ban them operating in the EU). Take Microsoft (Bing)... they didn't undertake such widespread crime for commercial sensitive research to help their service... so Google has not only committed a crime but has gained an unfair advantage by doing so - furthermore, Google is the market leader with a massive market share so are abusing their position over the competition. We are not only talking about Search or their mapping/streetview service either... but for handheld devices etc also.

    And the service you use today is influenced by such data...


    Of course, Google will say sorry, delete the data stolen (but not reverse the changes in its web technology using that data in non-raw form) and pay a fine of 1/20th of last years profit... bargain... to get such data from traditional means even if solely for the UK would cost them double their profit they have made undertaking this.
     
    Posted: Jul 28, 2012 By: 10032012 Member since: Mar 10, 2012
  4. bdw

    bdw Banned

    6,568 1,269
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/08/google_must_destroy_data/
     
    Posted: Aug 8, 2012 By: bdw Member since: Aug 13, 2008
  5. atmosbob

    atmosbob UKBF Ace Free Member

    3,892 876
    Posted: Aug 9, 2012 By: atmosbob Member since: Oct 26, 2009
  6. OldWelshGuy

    OldWelshGuy UKBF Legend Staff Member

    20,433 7,050
    That has set the bar now the EU should go for the maximum fine.
     
    Posted: Aug 9, 2012 By: OldWelshGuy Member since: Jun 12, 2008
  7. bdw

    bdw Banned

    6,568 1,269
    Yes, quite!

    I wonder of all of those people who thought this was scaremongering when this thread was started now see any sort of pattern developing?

    .
     
    Posted: Aug 10, 2012 By: bdw Member since: Aug 13, 2008
  8. OldWelshGuy

    OldWelshGuy UKBF Legend Staff Member

    20,433 7,050
    Google are not admitting wrongdoing as they know that would open the floodgates for the millions of individuals affected to sue for compensation with an automatic win.
     
    Posted: Aug 10, 2012 By: OldWelshGuy Member since: Jun 12, 2008
  9. bdw

    bdw Banned

    6,568 1,269
    Google has now virtually admitted that it paid "commentors" to write articles in an attempt to alter opinion on the lawsuit they were defending against Oracle. :eek:

    http://news.techworld.com/applicati...se-all-paid-commenters-by-oracle-case-judge/?


    http://www.zdnet.com/judge-google-d...-disclosure-order-in-oracle-trial-7000002885/
     
    Posted: Aug 22, 2012 By: bdw Member since: Aug 13, 2008
  10. OldWelshGuy

    OldWelshGuy UKBF Legend Staff Member

    20,433 7,050
    Yep, I read that yesterday . ANOTHER instance of them pretty much flaunting the law, by not complying with court orders.
     
    Posted: Aug 22, 2012 By: OldWelshGuy Member since: Jun 12, 2008
  11. bdw

    bdw Banned

    6,568 1,269
    It's not so much that as trying to influence court judgements. :(

    .
     
    Posted: Aug 22, 2012 By: bdw Member since: Aug 13, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.