backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 11 comment(s) - last by Oregonian2.. on Sep 17 at 2:38 PM
The world's largest Internet search company wants to create new ways to help keep Internet users safe

Google today proposed that governments and technology companies need to work together to create an international method that details how the personal information of users should be handled on the Internet.  Google's Peter Fleischer, chief privacy officer, challenged members of the United Nations to help make sure user privacy remains safe.

"People look to us to show some leadership and be constructive," Fleischer said before speaking before the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization.  "By supporting global privacy standards, there will be a debate and part of that debate will be what our motives are."

A large problem is that privacy standards can vary greatly among countries, something that can cause issues for companies that operate in many countries.  Along with not having a federal privacy law to protect consumers, laws in the United States often vary state-by-state: another roadblock that will likely need to be fixed.

Another problem facing companies such as Google is that many of the laws are extremely out of date when compared to how the Internet has progressed.  An Internet law created by lawmakers just 10 years ago cannot fairly be used today. 

“Privacy laws have not kept up with the reality of the internet and technology, where we have vast amounts of information and every time a credit card is used online, the data on it can move across six or seven countries in a matter of minutes,” Fleischer said.

Assuming that data is passed through a small handful of information in a short amount of time, companies need to create a safeguard to make sure the data remains safe -- especially since a lot of nations have minimal data protection laws, Fleischer added.

The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) recently created a privacy framework that organizers hope will help nations modify existing laws that deal with user privacy and protection.  However, much work must be done due to legal gray areas and loose translation of the privacy framework - for example, general principles are highlighted, but nations are responsible for their own enforcement.

Google already has spoken with Yahoo! and Microsoft over privacy standards, and now plans to speak with regulators from a number of different nations.

At a time when Google is worried about government regulation and laws over privacy, critics of the search engine company claim its recent acquisition of DoubleClick Inc are concerned Google now has the ability to store too much user data.  Due to rising pressure from European officials, Google agreed to hold cookies up to two years only -  the company originally scheduled cookies to be deleted in 2038.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Streamlining
By clovell on 9/14/2007 3:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
This seems to me like it will be good for global businesses as a universal standard will allow a more streamlined approach to how to handle individual data.

I have to stifle a knee-jerk, though, when I see that the UN is involved. Sure, it's not inherently bad, but the UN has pushed enough laws to make me cringe.

Another thing I'd be concerned about is how such a law or standard (the words seemed to be used interchangeably) could affect security - particularly in an age where terrorism is a valid concern.

One last minor thing - I noticed the time posted was 4:25 AM, but I just saw this article a few minutes ago - is that a time zone thing or a mistake?




RE: Streamlining
By Murst on 9/14/2007 4:05:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sure, it's not inherently bad, but the UN has pushed enough laws to make me cringe.


What laws are you talking about? I was not aware the UN had the power to create laws.

quote:
Another thing I'd be concerned about is how such a law or standard


Don't worry, it will never happen. If Google wants to have a "standard" policy, they should create one and hand it out to other companies. There's no way in hell they'd be able to enforce anything on a global scale, and even if they could, would you really be comfortable with a privacy policy that Turkmenistan or China deem acceptable?


RE: Streamlining
By clovell on 9/14/2007 4:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What laws are you talking about? I was not aware the UN had the power to create laws.

It has been pushing member nations to create them via Resolutions. For example, there are recent attempts by the UN to regulate what it calls 'Small Arms' and 'Light Weapons' on an international scale. Another example is its views on child discipline and 'encouraging' its members to pass laws adhering to those views.

quote:
Don't worry, it will never happen.

Probably true, but there's not much I'd put past politicians these days.


RE: Streamlining
By Murst on 9/14/2007 5:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
I can only wish that resolutions were laws. Unfortunately, they're just an excuse to start a war. The entire security council is a joke.


Trust Google? No Thanks.
By helpmespock on 9/14/2007 4:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Trust Google to draft up Privacy guildlines? I don't think so.

This is the same Google that's in hot water with the Canadian government for breaching our privacy laws.

Check out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM...

No wonder they want to help draft privacy standards. They want to make sure they get the loopholes they want.

--helpmepsock




RE: Trust Google? No Thanks.
By Gul Westfale on 9/14/2007 11:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, google and privacy in the same sentence... something is not quite right there...


RE: Trust Google? No Thanks.
By Oregonian2 on 9/17/2007 2:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Trust Google to draft up Privacy guildlines? I don't think so.


Yeah! We should have politicians do it instead, the same ones that legislated "pi" to be equal to an even three. That's the ticket!

P.S. - They appear to specifically NOT tried to push their standard, but only to start discussion and the mechanisms at hand to push for an international standard. I think this is a splendid idea. As to the China comments, those are silly and absurd. It's not like any standard for anything by anybody is unanimously voted favorably upon by everyone participating. They don't like the standard they can ignore it (as can any other country that wants to go it alone). Same as anything else -- it's only adopted by a country when it's government either directly or indirectly accepts it.


Y 2038
By bhieb on 9/14/2007 4:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Odd date for Google to purge the cookies. I wonder if it has anything to do with Y2038.

First article I could find.
http://vlbjcas.com/Articles/5/Y-2038-Problem.htm




RE: Y 2038
By PrinceGaz on 9/16/2007 10:26:35 AM , Rating: 2
That is indeed the reason. Using dates which exceed the 32-bit signed integer limit can cause problems with some software, so they set an expiry date about a day before the limit is reached (therefore allowing for time-zone differences etc). To all intents and purposes, the year 2038 is equivalent to "does not expire" - unless you expect to be still using the same computer and browser in thirty-years time, without ever re-installing or even clearing the browser cache and cookies.


Simple correction
By ZeroGuardian on 9/14/2007 6:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there will be a debate and part of that debate will be what are motives our.


Shouldn't that be "what our motives are"?




Corporate Welfare
By rsmech on 9/15/2007 12:06:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
laws in the United States often vary state-by-state: another roadblock that will likely need to be fixed.


The laws are to protect my individual rights not to make business easier for some company. This is just a noce way for Google to act like they are trying to help me but just want regulation out of the way so they can streamline their business for profits. Nothing wrong with the idea as long as I don't lose any rights over it. Right now I should have the benefit of the doubt when it comes to privacy, this will just list my rights thereby limiting them, no thanks. I don't want my rights limited just to find regulations that would be acceptable to China.




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki