How Google lost the trust of Europe’s data protection authorities

The days of teensy fines may be over for Mountain View


Opinion Over the last two years, various European data protection commissioners have taken action against Google. Hardly a month goes by without something being reported: a €145,000 (£121,000, $189,000) StreetView fine here or a court case about jurisdiction there.

So it is important to understand: “Why is Google on the receiving end all this enforcement action?” Why now, and not five years ago? What has changed?

From Europe’s data protection commissioners' perspective, there is a collective recognition that Google has given them the equivalent of the two fingers. Despite a lack of powers and resources, (and even though, for example, a maximum fine of £500,000 is a pinprick to an organisation whose profits are running at more than £8bn per year), the commissioners have collectively concluded that not to take action is not an option.

From Google’s perspective, I don’t know whether it is “carelessness” or “arrogance” or a combination of the two. “Carelessness” because data protection regulators generally try to reach some kind of compromise; so why can’t Google compromise? “Arrogance” because Google might have taken the view that it is such a rich, powerful and profitable multinational that it can process personal data despite the concerns of national data protection regulators (and if there is a dispute, tie them down in court processes that wipe out their legal budget).

'Faustian pact' and increasing surveillance

Five years ago, there was an acceptance by most internet users that the free access to services offered by Google involved an undeclared "Faustian pact". The user received the services for free and in return Google captured some data that assists something called “behavioural advertising”.

At that time, the user did not care much because - what the heck - the internet experience was really valuable and of course, the internet got better by the day. The pact was sustained in the knowledge that free access to the internet was (and still is) the main delivery vehicle for uncensored information into authoritarian regimes.

Of course, at that time also, there were a collection of “privacy nutters” bleating on the side-lines, identifying a host of hypothetical or far-fetched problems. For instance, the StreetView images of anonymous individuals (but identifiable to those who know that individual) entering a sex shop or, more recently, receiving a hand-job in the back streets of Manchester. I guess that such images caused more general amusement than concerns over individual privacy – after all the user was not looking at himself or herself.

However, over time, there has been dawning realisation that Google’s surveillance does indeed focus on each and every user; Google follows surfers around the net, wherever they go, whether they are logged into a Google service or not.

As Google’s “free” services expanded and the internet developed, this pact resulted in an unrestrained collection of more data about its users. This in turn resulted in a virtuous (or vicious) spiral; a booming business that needs more and more user data to guarantee higher and higher revenues from advertising.

That is why Google’s mission statement is all about data collection: it states that “Google’s mission is to organise the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Want a “scary version” of this statement? Just place the word “personal” before the word “information” and ask “accessible by whom?” or “useful for what?”.

It is no surprise that Google’s vast personal data collections are acting as a magnet for other forms of surveillance activity. That is why Governments want access to how the public uses the Internet so that law enforcement can obtain IP addresses and details of browsing habits. The collection and subsequent retention of such personal data concerns all users irrespective of whether or not there are grounds for suspicion for its retention.

The privacy issue here can be simply expressed: the grounds for suspicion about an individual user do not arise before the time of collection of IP addresses etc. Such grounds are found afterwards when the authorities, in some back office and at some time in the future, try to find a “wrong-un”. If a profiling algorithm is used, then any suspicion is likely to be based on a pre-programmed set of assumptions. In this way, the data that Google (and others) collect turns every user into a potential suspect.


Other stories you might like

  • AI tool finds hundreds of genes related to human motor neuron disease

    Breakthrough could lead to development of drugs to target illness

    A machine-learning algorithm has helped scientists find 690 human genes associated with a higher risk of developing motor neuron disease, according to research published in Cell this week.

    Neuronal cells in the central nervous system and brain break down and die in people with motor neuron disease, like amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease, named after the baseball player who developed it. They lose control over their bodies, and as the disease progresses patients become completely paralyzed. There is currently no verified cure for ALS.

    Motor neuron disease typically affects people in old age and its causes are unknown. Johnathan Cooper-Knock, a clinical lecturer at the University of Sheffield in England and leader of Project MinE, an ambitious effort to perform whole genome sequencing of ALS, believes that understanding how genes affect cellular function could help scientists develop new drugs to treat the disease.

    Continue reading
  • Need to prioritize security bug patches? Don't forget to scan Twitter as well as use CVSS scores

    Exploit, vulnerability discussion online can offer useful signals

    Organizations looking to minimize exposure to exploitable software should scan Twitter for mentions of security bugs as well as use the Common Vulnerability Scoring System or CVSS, Kenna Security argues.

    Better still is prioritizing the repair of vulnerabilities for which exploit code is available, if that information is known.

    CVSS is a framework for rating the severity of software vulnerabilities (identified using CVE, or Common Vulnerability Enumeration, numbers), on a scale from 1 (least severe) to 10 (most severe). It's overseen by First.org, a US-based, non-profit computer security organization.

    Continue reading
  • Sniff those Ukrainian emails a little more carefully, advises Uncle Sam in wake of Belarusian digital vandalism

    NotPetya started over there, don't forget

    US companies should be on the lookout for security nasties from Ukrainian partners following the digital graffiti and malware attack launched against Ukraine by Belarus, the CISA has warned.

    In a statement issued on Tuesday, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency said it "strongly urges leaders and network defenders to be on alert for malicious cyber activity," having issued a checklist [PDF] of recommended actions to take.

    "If working with Ukrainian organizations, take extra care to monitor, inspect, and isolate traffic from those organizations; closely review access controls for that traffic," added CISA, which also advised reviewing backups and disaster recovery drills.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022