No appeal from Google on YouTube data ruling

by Davey Winder

Saturday, 05 July 2008

Page 2 of 3 Meanwhile, in an ironic twist, the New York Times reports that Google has added the word 'privacy' to it's home page. This follows an appeal to Google CEO Eric Schmidt in the form of a letter signed by the likes of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, World Privacy Forum, Consumer Action, Electronic Frontier Foundation, ACLU of Northern California and Consumer Federation of California. "We are writing to you on behalf of California consumers and Internet users around the world to urge Google to include a direct link to its privacy policy on its homepage" the letter said, concluding "Google's reluctance to post a link to its privacy policy on its homepage is alarming. We urge you to comply with the California Online Privacy Protection Act and the widespread practice for commercial web sites as soon as possible." The Google response was, before the Viacom ruling, that it does not need to make the privacy link any easier to find than clicking the 'About' link and then following the 'Privacy Policy' one. Indeed, a Google spokeswoman said just that and insisted there were no plans to change the privacy link positioning. A Google spokesman told the New York Times that the change had been made because "Some users, bloggers, and regulatory bodies have asked us why we didn’t have a link." Maybe, in light of the Viacom ruling, it could have just said "you have no privacy, get over it." What it does say, when you click through to the policy pages, amongst other things is that "Google's servers automatically record information when you visit our website or use some of our products, including the URL, IP address, browser type and language, and the date and time of your request" and "We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services." Which is much the same thing... Is Google painting itself into a corner, and what does Privacy International have to say about it all? Find out on the final page... CONTINUED << First page <   1 2 3 Next page > Last page - Post your comment >>

 

< Next story in category		Previous story in the category >

Visitors last 30 days Suscribers

904,266 13,751