Google faces EU crackdown over privacy violations

January 2012's privacy policy comes under fire.

The EU is considering a "co-ordinated crackdown" on Google after it ignored requests from regulators to delay the imposition of its new privacy policy until they had cleared it for compliance with data protection law.

The policy was announced last January (though it only came into effect in March), and allowed Google to mix personal data from all its subsidiaries, particularly Youtube, which had hitherto been cordoned off. The new internal user profiles this enabled the company to create are of great value to advertisers, but the company also trumpeted the improved experience it could offer users, saying at the time:

Our privacy policies have always allowed us to combine information from different products with your account — effectively using your data to provide you with a better service. However, we’ve been restricted in our ability to combine your YouTube and search histories with other information in your account. Our new privacy policy gets rid of those inconsistencies so we can make more of your information available to you when using Google.

The EU didn't agree, and asked the company to hold off implementation until it had held an investigation on whether it complied with EU data protection law. The probe, which began in mid-March, finally reported back in October, and found that the new policy did indeed breach EU law. The French data protection commission, the CNIL, which led the investigation, had recommended a number of changes, such as easier opt-outs for advertising. But the company insists its policy already complies with EU law.

As a result, the CNIL is organising a co-ordinated response to Google, since, as the head of the commission told the Wall Street Journal on Monday, "we're better armed when we speak with one voice than when each country takes its own steps".

The EU hasn't played the situation brilliantly. The fact that its investigation only reported back in October, over six months after it began, is proof of severe regulatory overreach; and it would have been an unnecessary and unsupportable restraint on Google to have asked it to hold off on what was a major business decision for that entire period.

Nonetheless, Google appears to be continuing a trend amongst Silicon Valley — exemplified by Facebook in its squabble with the Irish data protection commission over facial recognition data — of assuming that the regulations of the countries it operates in don't apply to it. The EU has considerably stricter data protection laws than the US, and while some of them, such as the ill-fated cookie directive, are worthy of being ignored, others provide genuine protection for the consumer.

Google maintains that "we have engaged fully with the CNIL throughout this process and will continue to do so," but the EU's privacy group will vote on whether to take action against the company at the end of February.

Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.