Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Feb 2012 14:53 UTC, submitted by bowkota
Google "A group of European regulators has written to Google calling on it to halt the introduction of its new privacy policy, saying it needs to investigate whether the proposals sufficiently protect users' personal data." I'd rather regulators are on top of this now than when it's too late and we're all plugged into the Google Hivemind Overlord.
Thread beginning with comment 505916
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Why?
by cfgr on Sat 4th Feb 2012 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Why?"
cfgr
Member since:
2009-07-18

Since when is it a bad thing that a government protects the interests of its citizens? Isn't that the very core purpose of a government: to represent us? For the people, by the people. It may not always be perfect, but it's definitely a whole lot better than the "for the corps, by the corps" attitude we see elsewhere.

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[3]: Why?
by Brendan on Sun 5th Feb 2012 04:39 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
RE[4]: Why?
by cfgr on Sun 5th Feb 2012 06:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

Consider "innocent until proven guilty" vs. "guilty until proven innocent" - which is more ethical?

Now consider "not flawed until proven flawed" vs. "flawed until proven not flawed" - which is more ethical?


Think of it as this: a government is a company where the shareholders are its citizens and the product is the market. If you want a part of the market, you make a contract with the government: you follow the rules. Just like Google reserves the right to stop doing business with you at any time, so does the government reserve this right to stop doing business with Google.

Innocent until proven guilty is not applicable here. Google is not a person, and definitely not a citizen. In fact, I'd consider it unethical and most unprofessional to risk your shareholders profit/privacy by blindly accepting a deal simply because you consider it ethical to give the other company the benefit of the doubt. I think your shareholders would disagree with that definition of "ethical".

The government must always give priority to the interests of its citizens. It has no obligation towards Google and any other company whatsoever. If that interferes with Google's planning, then Google should have planned better. If Google doesn't like the rules, then Google can go take its business elsewhere and a more ethical company will take over the market share. Capitalism at work.

On the other hand, if the rules are unfair and harm the citizens' interests (or are thought of as such), then management will be replaced after the next election. Democracy at work.

Edited 2012-02-05 06:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6