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

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.