01 Mar 12 | Uncategorized
Today, Google changed their privacy policy. These are documents we are never likely to read, and are even less likely to make headline news. But they shape how huge corporations build knowledge about us; how they lock us into commercial relationships we may not like; and even pose political and legal threats to us once governments and courts get interested in the data these policies govern.
Google, which may not be an inherently bad company, nevertheless wields enormous power. Much of this power is not about “search” or even “services” like Gmail, but about data. That data is farmed from many users, who contribute to Google’s hunger for information in return for access to the free and useful services they provide. Google’s primary customers are people needing that data, especially advertisers. Many people would say that we, the users, are in fact the product that Google is selling.
Thus their privacy policy is the bargain by which we hand over our data in return for free stuff. It should matter. Just as importantly, the power we have over that bargain, what we can negotiate, is vital to us, because as we know, privacy policies can change.
This is where Google have come unstuck. Making their policy simpler to understand is completely reasonable, and even sharing data across their services is a potentially useful idea. But European regulators, starting with the pan-EU data protection grouping called the Article 29 Working Party, don’t like the idea that users are being forced to share data across Google’s services without any ability to stop it.
They are also concerned that the new ways data may be used are not being described upfront. So, if your location data from your Android phone starts helping Google search understand the places you might want to visit, you may not expect this, and be upset or worse if it happens.
The French regulator CNIL has launched an investigation in order to establish if Google have broken EU Data Protection law, and EU Commissioner Viviane Reding has already weighed in to say she believes they have.
This isn’t a good fight for Google. They are already in a battle over the future rights we have over our data with exactly these people. Reding is proposing new protections, like fining companies up to 2 per cent of their income for data breaches, giving us the right to escape from companies like Facebook by getting our data back, and the right to delete our personal data from such companies. All these ideas may become law in the new data protection regulation that Reding is pushing.
One of the most controversial concepts for Google is the “privacy by default” principle. Such a principle could make it very hard for Google to force everyone to share data in new and unexpected ways. The expectation would be that new data sharing, as envisaged by Google’s new privacy policy, would require our active consent, and without it users could expect their privacy to be untouched.
Google, Yahoo and many other companies will be arguing against this idea, saying it may damage innovation. They argue that “privacy by default” isn’t needed, that notifying users is enough.
Facebook too, have recently introduced Netflix and Spotify services that failed to ask users if they want to share their listening habits with everyone on Facebook. This might not be the worst privacy violation in the world — but it’s certainly pretty annoying to an awful lot of people.
All of these companies are trying to do legitimate business and need the trust of their users. They also need the trust of governments. Right now, they seem to be actively proving that we really need the protections they claim should be dropped. We should listen to their actions, not their words.
Jim Killock is Executive Director of the Open Rights Group
@jimkillock
www.openrightsgroup.org
21 Feb 12 | Index Index, minipost, United Kingdom
Manchester United’s Ryan Giggs has been named in court for the first time as the Premier League footballer with a high-profile privacy injunction against the Sun. At a hearing at the high court today, Giggs agreed to lift the anonymity part of the injunction that he brought in April 2011 to prevent the tabloid from publishing claims he had an extra-marital affair with model Imogen Thomas. Yet the footballer was widely identified on Twitter and was named in the Commons by Lib Dem MP John Hemming last May. The footballer is trying to claim damages for distress from the Sun — alleging the paper breached his right to privacy — as well as for subsequent re-publication of information in other newspapers and online.
07 Feb 12 | Uncategorized
While the Leveson Inquiry rumbled on today, rulings with huge consequences for the British press were handed down by the European Court of Human Rights.
Axel Springer v Germany and Hannover v Germany were both cases which tested the tension between the right to free speech and the right to privacy.
Von Hannover (in fact, this was Von Hannover v Germany no 2) was very important. The judgment concerned the definitions of public sphere, private life and public figure.
Since the 1990s, Caroline Von Hannover (daughter of the late King Ranier of Monaco and Grace Kelly) had sought to control publication of photographs of her in the German celebrity press.
To cut a long story very short, a 2004 judgment in Caroline Von Hannover v Germany 1 by the European Court found that photographs of the princess had indeed breached her article 8 right to privacy.
The judgment today concerned photographs of Caroline and her husband on a skiing holiday in Moritz, accompanied by an article on Prince Rainier’s health. Importantly, the court ruled that both that the prince’s health was an “event of contemporary society” and that Caroline and her husband were beyond doubt public figures.
The importance of the earlier Von Hannover rulings cannot be understated. In an interview with Index on Censorship last year, Mr Justice Eady, who deals with a large amount of privacy cases in the High Court, explained:
“As a rule courts must apply the test in the Princess Caroline case, von Hannover v Germany, decided by the human rights court in 2004: the decisive factor is whether the publication contributes to ‘a debate of general interest to society’.”
Mr Justice Eady and his colleagues will now have a different ruling to look to; one which places free expression ahead of privacy.
18 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Celebrity magazine editors today welcomed the idea of a register under the Press Complaints Commission of privacy-conscious celebrities suggested by Lord Justice Leveson at his inquiry into the UK press.
“It would be a very useful tool for us if they used a body like the PCC to update them on their circumstances”, Lucie Cave , the editor of Heat magazine said.
However, OK! editor Lisa Byrne warned: “Every celebrity might say, ‘No, I don’t want any pictures of my family ever again.’ Then it could cause a problem.”
Cave told the Leveson Inquiry there may be public interest in exposing the hypocritical behaviour of celebrities who are “role models”.
Giving an example of a celebrity who portrayed themselves as a “real family person” and went on to have an affair, Lucie Cave explained: “I think there obviously can sometimes be a public interest argument if a celebrity who is a role model for our readers does something that contradicts how they portray themselves.”
Cave conceded there was a “great difference between public interest and things that are interesting to the public.”
Cave, Byrne and Hello! magazine editor Rosie Nixon were largely in agreement that once a celebrity had sold an aspect of their private life to the press, it did not mean they were now “open season”.
“I don’t think it’s fair,” Cave said, “it doesn’t mean everyone has a right to invade their private life.”
When asked about photos in this week’s issue of Simon Cowell on a yacht, Cave admitted the magazine did not seek his permission before publishing. “We know from Simon Cowell, he kind of enjoys the lifestyle that goes with his celebrity and he’s clearly playing up to the paparazzi,” she said.
Cave told the Inquiry that Heat magazine has received eight PCC complaints in 14 years, and rarely gets complaints from readers.
She also said her magazine’s picture desk would question an agency supplying photographs if it seemed they were taken in questionable circumstances. “Normally it’s glaringly obvious if there’s been an infringement of that celebrity’s privacy and we wouldn’t go anywhere near it.”
Nixon also defended her magazine, saying it “works directly with the stars every step of the way”. She added, “It’s a really honest, trusting, sort of relationship — we ultimately wouldn’t do anything to upset anyone.”
“We’re not in the business of printing salacious gossip,” Nixon said.
Byrne also said that a “a huge percentage” of OK! magazine’s stories came from “working directly with the celebrities”.
The Inquiry continues next week.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
