![]() Vigilante policemen exposing malevolent companies one by one. Ultimately though we cannot base civic cybersecurityįor the entire population on groups like NOYB or any number of At least I can delete the data when it’s just the one data custodian, and one which properly implements and tests data deletion process more than many companies. But I would object to any anti-monopoly measures that effectively destroy the privacy of the profile Google has built on me, such as mandatory FRAND licensing of that data. If authorities like those in Europe or the US decide that antitrust violations by Google warrant those remedies, I have no personal objection. > There's no way around taking Chrome development and monopoly influence on web standardization away from Google as one outcome of ongoing antitrust lawsuits. Yes, that’s far worse than what Google currently does. Not only would that likely violate privacy law in Europe and elsewhere in the world, it would reduce my data’s privacy protections to what results from the worst privacy practices among anyone who buys the data from Google. But I don’t want the fix to any Google advertising monopoly to be forcing them to share user data on FRAND terms. I don’t like monopoly power in the advertising industry any more than you do, and Google is not an exception to that. I’m comparing practices from the perspective of privacy, not antitrust, since that is the frame in which we were discussing, and with which the original submitted NOYB article was concerned. Your distancing yourself from your former employer's practices is appreciated but Google monopolizing click and all other web usage data isn't any better than keeping those for themselves from an antitrust PoV (as opposed to selling the data under FRAND terms).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |