French Privacy Agency DDoS's Itself In Ordering Google To Link To It From Google France Home Page
from the what-you-get-when-you're-technologically-clueless dept
Last month, Google got hit with a €150,000 fine for its new privacy policy, which French regulators claimed violated the law. Google has been disputing this and has appealed, but as part of the ruling by the French National commission for Computing and Civil Liberties (CNIL), Google was ordered to post a statement to the home page of Google.fr about the fine, along with a link back to CNIL’s website which had the full ruling. Google had asked to suspend the order to post the message until after the appeals process was complete, but that was denied. In response, Google posted the message, and promptly caused CNIL’s website to go offline, as apparently the technologically clueless folks over there never realized that having a link from Google’s home page in that country might lead to a bit of extra traffic.
Filed Under: cnil, ddos, france, google home page, link, privacy
Companies: google
Comments on “French Privacy Agency DDoS's Itself In Ordering Google To Link To It From Google France Home Page”
First time I hear of a Governmental Agency with suicidal tendencies.
Re: Re:
you mean like the NSA?
They were probably more surprised people actually clicked the link.
Both sides.
Re: Re:
I think google intentionally hotlinked to the governmental site, so it’d requested every time someone load google.fr.
Re: Re: Re:
That would be epic in so many levels…
Actually, this will make Google look bad. Because whenever a user clicks a link on a site, and that link doesn’t work, random users will blame the original site.
Re: Re:
And in this case, “random users” is likely to be CNIL itself.
I admit I’m a bit disappointed it loaded for me.
I have only one thing to say to the French Government:
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
France: Clueless?
Re: Re:
Even their websites surrender.
Re: Re:
“France: Clueless?”
As we all know, a country’s politicians do not necessary represent its constituents – in any way at all.
That being said, Hahahahahahhaa. What idiots!
Re: Re: Re:
Ted Cruz (We were all thinking it)
So their name is CNiL and I guess they’re composed of a bunch of senile old fools with no understanding of Google’s usage.
I wonder how much of that self-imposed DDoS is from search agent bots.
Ok, you can stop the circle jerk, the CNIL aren’t the most tech-savvy French agency, but they are far from ?technologically clueless?.
Obviously, they didn’t expect so much traffic, but that doesn’t make them tech idiots, they released a GPL-licensed cookie visualisation tool last month for instance: http://www.cnil.fr/vos-droits/vos-traces/les-cookies/telechargez-cookieviz/
(it’s hosted on Sourceforge, yeah, that’s not very future-oriented?)
Re: Re:
Why is it that people feel they need to insult people before “correcting” them?
Anyway, whoever represented the agency in this case isn’t exactly clued up on technology, or at least didn’t think far enough ahead to realise the results of their demands. That they happen to have some FOSS coders on their payroll doesn’t change this.
If it makes you feel better, read the comment as referring to the people responsible for actions on behalf of the agency rather than their entire staff. That doesn’t change the actual criticism.
Re: Re: Re:
Lawyers are like small children. You tell them they cant have something and they want it even more.
Re: Re:
Looks a lot like “Lightbeam for Firefox”
by Mozilla
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/lightbeam/?src=search
Merde!
‘That’s what we asked for, not what we wanted, curse you Google for doing what we told you to!’
Re: Re:
Ah the joys of malicious obedience.
This whole article belongs in the next “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week” article
Dumb asses, 1. For not thinking this over, again!
and 2. Trying to influence public opinion on a mass scale during a “legal” battle,
For number two they are considerably a worser thing, then a “dumb ass”
Re: Re:
Yeah, the first part brings about a delightful sense of schadenfreude, while the second is just completely screwed up, forcing a company to tell people that they lost a case, before the appeal is allowed to happen, so even if they do win the appeal, people will still believe them guilty.
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly, they hold no value on the true meaning of right, only on the value of an illusion, that can be gotten away with
i.e. their right, even if the verdict is overturned, so any mention of this should the subject come up, they won, and the “law” backs them up, hoping that the person they say this too hasnt kept up, and knows of the overturn and realises the lie to such a statement, when their only concern is to “win”sic the current argument and hope everyone leaves before the truth of it comes out sic
Plus, the undisguised FORCED influence they are attempting, knowing that there is NOTHING right about what they say, but an artificial one………they insult the people by not acknowledging their own damn individual opinions, or perhaps they know that what they do IS’NT right……..they feel they need to brainwash……sorry……educate the people……..for the n’th time, for the n’th generation
Unless Google DDoS’d them.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it…
You want the traffic, you can’t handle the traffic.
Usually I post this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnHmskwqCCQ
But this seems more French:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebvp45ZMQFE&t=5s
And Google can't do anything about it
without another court order.
If I were Google, I would show some sympathy, and go to the privacy advocates, with the intention of solving their problem. I would tell them, that we would happily host their website, if they put an ad for Google on their homepage.
Strange concept
Making Google obey the law? What a weirdly foreign idea – it would never happen in the USA
Re: Strange concept
Laws are like the bible. every one says to follow them but no one has read them all the way through. and they really only want you to follow the ones that they think applies to there argument.
Reap what you sow
It looks like the Google France homepage has removed the notice and link. Wonder if CNIL begged them to do so.
Re: Reap what you sow
Darn!
I was hoping that Google would hold them to the court order and say that they could not remove the link without the court’s permission.
And yes, I am passive-aggressive. 🙂
And now the appeal will be lost.
A government will never admit their own fault, so this will be shown as Google being evil and crashing them because they were unhappy with the courts ruling.
The appeal will be decided on that factor rather than the law because Google needs to be taught a lesson.
This works perfectly
Re: Re:
Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me if the prosecution tried to use the fact that Google ‘admitted’ their guilt(well, was forced to admit to losing in court, but why let facts get in the way?) against Google in the appeals.
oui, oui
funny how that applies pronouced french, american or even australian
Somewhere, out_of_the_lube is stamping his feet and cringing his fists, throwing a little tantrum.