EU Politicians Tricked Into Supporting Data Retention On Search Terms… 'For The Children'
from the privacy-vs.-data-retention dept
Slashdot points us to a story about how many EU Parliament Members signed on to a declaration supporting the creation of an “early warning system to combat sexual child abuse.” Sounds good, right? But the devil is very much in the details. Christian Engstrom notes that many of the MEPs who signed on didn’t realize that part of the declaration was to extend already controversial data retention laws to search engines, meaning that Google would need to store your search results far beyond what they currently do, just in case law enforcement wants to go trolling through your search history.
Of course, this seems doubly ironic since so many European countries are up in arms over Google collecting data via open WiFi networks. So, which is it, Europe? Do you want Google not to collect data, or do you want Google to save data for years in case police want to snoop through it? No, the two situations are not identical, but there is a clear conflict between EU privacy rules and EU data retention rules. On the one hand, they give Europeans the ability to supposedly take control over their private info, including requiring companies to delete it. On the other hand, they demand that companies store data in case the police would like to look through it.
Filed Under: data retention, eu, privacy, search
Comments on “EU Politicians Tricked Into Supporting Data Retention On Search Terms… 'For The Children'”
TRICKED? Are they less aware than you and me?
That attitude toward politicians simply ensures continuance of trends. They’re *all* vicious corrupt criminals having the goal of (further) implementing a police state.
Re: TRICKED? Are they less aware than you and me?
Here is a quote from Napoleon Bonaparte that describes it best. “Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.”
Re: Re: TRICKED? Are they less aware than you and me?
“Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence.”
THAT’S MY POINT! After so long and uniform a history, it can’t be simply stupidity.
Re: Re: Re: TRICKED? Are they less aware than you and me?
… never ascribe to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by ignorance.
Re: Re: Re: TRICKED? Are they less aware than you and me?
“THAT’S MY POINT! After so long and uniform a history, it can’t be simply stupidity.”
Actually if you think about it this way it makes sense. You have 100 politicians, each trying to get his or her own agenda pushed forward. He or she only cares about the agenda they put forward. They make deals to get their agenda implemented without realizing what the others are actually up to. The winning in politics is like gambling, its an endorphine rush and very addictive.
Re: TRICKED? Are they less aware than you and me?
Here are some more Quotes by Napoleon Bonaparte
Here is one that make me smile …
A revolution can be neither made nor stopped. The only thing that can be done is for one of several of its children to give it a direction by dint of victories.
definition : dint – Force or effort; power: succeeded by dint of hard work.
Just the other day they were complaining that search engines were retaining data for too long, now they are voting to increase retention time. Politicians shouldn’t do politics.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too!
Re: Re:
Oh yes I can.
Look, I have cake.
Now I’ll eat it.
Ta-daa!
Re: Re: Re:
‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too’ would be expressed in modern, normal english, if it weren’t a ‘saying’, as: “you can’t eat your cake and still keep it” (that still doesn’t sound right). basically, think of a really awesome looking cake. the sort people say ‘that looks so good it’d be a shame to eat it’. well, they can either observe it’s awesomeness, or eat it, but doing one precludes the other happening at the same time, and eating it prevents you from then viewing it as an awesome cake. (we’ll leave it’s other states and later events aside for now.)
Re: Re: Is it delicious caek?
Is it?
If we only had an evil search engine. A product that existed solely to alert you to the dangers of its existence.
Seriously, if google came out and said they were going to start recording your data and publishing it to anyone who wanted to look at it. Oh and its free for law enforcement, you’d see ever civil liberty group up in arms.
I don’t mind Google collecting data but I do mind the government collecting data 🙂
Down down we go
and the Euro keeps falllllllling!!!
This is obviously an attempt to get Google to commit suicide!
And I thought it was only in the US that elected officials voted for stacks of paper.
That’s why I use anonymous networks.
re: Vicious Criminals
The only defense against Politicians is to stoop down to their level and become one yourself… Blecchh.
For the children...
… we must suck… and blow!!! It’s the circular breathing of data laws!
Now all we need are digital didgeridoos…
Wasn’t there some sort of declaration or something out of the EU calling for Google to reduce its search data retention time?
so these are the same “smart” politicians who voted against the secrecy for acta agreement negotiations? so are they dumb or smart? which one is it mike?
They don’t want any data collected or stored. Unless some government needs it and then you will have to produce it.
In the event
I have a plan for when I feel my privacy is violated too much and that is to run a job on my computer to randomly browse the web at all hours of the day and night. It will simply plod along and read all kinds of interesting pages from Google and Yahoo. If my data can’t be private, I’ll simply pollute all of it with useless noise. My job will have to make sure it’s not too regular and predictable, after all, there are smart people who could filter my noise based on patterns. So if they are going to be saving my data, I’m going to give them a ton!
I think there is some danger here
I Googled “how to build an atomic bomb using small children” (without the quotes) and got 603K results.
So, someone must be exploiting children.
“didn’t realized”???? proofread please.
Re: Re:
“didn’t realized”???? proofread please.
We do proofread, but sometimes typos get through. If people point them out, we fix them. Thanks for pointing it out.
ATT DS: Yes but...
…but now you DON’T have your cake!
Google is a private company, I don’t see how it has any obligation to collect and/or retain search data AT ALL, let alone at the whim and direction of law enforcement.
If they want Google to essentially do their work for them, then pay them.
Of course, that would essentially mean OUR tax dollars would be going to help pay Google to convict us.
“THAT’S MY POINT! After so long and uniform a history, it can’t be simply stupidity.”
You overestimate the intellectual capability of politicians.