Privacy Legislation vs. Google’s Homepage

[Dumpy Dooby]

Google stands accused of violating the California Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003, which requires Web sites and online services to “conspicuously post” their privacy policies.

It’s obvious to some that this requires Google to have a link on its homepage to its privacy policy, but the law says that online service providers can use “any other reasonably accessible means of making the privacy policy available for consumers of the online service.” In the case of Google, one might consider . . . a search?

But I think this little episode has a deeper lesson. It reveals the thoroughgoing incapacity of lawmakers and advocates to be social engineers. Linking to privacy policies on home pages was an experiment that failed long ago. People don’t read them. People who are interested in reading them can find them so long as they’re placed sensibly somewhere on a Web site.

In their voluntary transactions, if people want privacy, they’re gonna seek it (and, though it’s tough, often get it); if they’re indifferent, they’re not. Mandated privacy notices — especially the placement of them — are a sideshow.

Source: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/06/04/privacy-legislation-vs-googles-homepage/ [link]

I think he's right. There is no point to enforcing this law in the manner that they are. Google's privacy policy is easily accessible to those that are interested in reading it. This is just more left wing extremism / progressivism / Orwellian bullshit that's been polluting American politics for just over a century now. Absolutely pathetic.

[7960]

on google.com if you click "about google" then the privacy policy link is right there

that's not conspicuous?



:edit: actually there are only about 9 links on google.com and at least half bring you to a page that has a link to the privacy policy. these "lawmakers" need a lesson in teh intartoobs.

[JaJae]

I think it's kind of absurd the California has this on the books as if they have any control or authority over private domains. I dare them to shut off Google in their state like a bunch of Chinese communists... see how well that works out for them. Google should just ignore this.

[Simius]

It doesn't seem like google is violating the law... so I imagine they'll win the lawsuit easily.

That said, how is requiring websites to post their policies about what information they gather from you Orwellian?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Simius

It doesn't seem like google is violating the law... so I imagine they'll win the lawsuit easily.

That said, how is requiring websites to post their policies about what information they gather from you Orwellian?

Well first of all, this isn't necessarily about the law simply requiring that they post the privacy policy. This is about the law telling them where the privacy policy must be posted (on the Home Page).

But to answer your question: it's because this is more nannystate bullshit. The government is stepping in and imposing restrictive laws on websites for the supposed protection of its citizens. Orwellianism steps in when the government becomes overzealous and moves from being an instrument for ensuring security to being an outright tyrannical oppressor (i.e., Google's Privacy Policy is easily accessible and the law was not intended to target websites like Google that make their privacy policy easily accessible everywhere on the site except on the Home Page).

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. etcetera.

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Well first of all, this isn't necessarily about the law simply requiring that they post the privacy policy. This is about the law telling them where the privacy policy must be posted (on the Home Page).

But to answer your question: it's because this is more nannystate bullshit. The government is stepping in and imposing restrictive laws on websites for the supposed protection of its citizens. Orwellianism steps in when the government becomes overzealous and moves from being an instrument for ensuring security to being an outright tyrannical oppressor (i.e., Google's Privacy Policy is easily accessible and the law was not intended to target websites like Google that make their privacy policy easily accessible everywhere on the site except on the Home Page).

War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. etcetera.

Yeah, but the law doesn't make the government a tyrannical oppressor. It isn't the government actively trying to force google to make their privacy policy even more accessible than it is... It is a few special interest groups that are trying to do so. So far (according to the article I read) the government's involvement stopped well short of mandating that google makes changes to it's website and instead just sent them a recommendation (not to be confused with anything binding).

The law itself isn't bad. I dunno about you but a number of times I've tried to find the fine print about an offer online and had to search for half an hour through a website to get the info I needed... not because I suck at the interwebs but because I swear they purposely tried to hide the info under a bunch of irrelevant links. This law does protect consumers in that at least these privacy policies aren't hidden in such a manner. After having read the law it seems like google is sort of in a gray area as to whether or not it is following the letter of the law (The link is 1 click in from the original page... the only questionable part is if it is the first SIGNIFICANT page after after the front page... but since significant is subjective I'd let it pass, personally)... but it surely is following the spirit of the law. This law does protect consumers. To be Orwellian it would have to claim to protect consumers but in actuality remove protections from consumers. Such as, I dunno, requiring websites to send all privacy data they collect to the government for the government to analyze whether or not they are violating consumer's privacy rights... as a means to protect consumer privacy rights.

All that said, if I were to make any changes to the law I'd say that as long as the link is found under "Site Map" and site map is on the first signifigant page... then that is good enough.

[kombayn]

It sucks, California is such a mess politically, we now starting July 1st have to have a bluetooh headset in our car to talk on our cell-phones and they wonder why we have budget problems. Because people have to go to court for stupid asinine violations of our state laws that waste the courts time and money. But then again we have two of the most Super-Progressive cities in America (San Francisco & Los Angeles), it's bound to come up with these socialist laws.