Offener Brief an Google

Aus Freiheit statt Angst!

(Unterschied zwischen Versionen)
Wechseln zu: Navigation, Suche
(Brief)
Aktuelle Version (13:42, 17. Dez. 2008) (bearbeiten) (rückgängig)
K (hat „intern:Offener Brief an Google“ nach „Offener Brief an Google“ verschoben: Ein offener Brief im internen Bereich???)
 
(Der Versionsvergleich bezieht 24 dazwischen liegende Versionen mit ein.)
Zeile 1: Zeile 1:
-
=Info=
+
<!--Berlin, 17 June 2007
-
Entwurf von Jan-Kaspar.
+
-
Bitte lesen, diskutieren, ausführen, verbessern.
+
-
 
+
-
''Anmerkung: Vor dem Absenden muss noch mal ein Muttersprachler drüber sehen. pab''
+
-
 
+
-
=Brief=
+
-
 
+
-
Berlin, 17 June 2007
+
Mr Peter Fleischer
Mr Peter Fleischer
Zeile 19: Zeile 11:
F-75002 Paris
F-75002 Paris
-
Sent via email: pfleischer@google.com
+
Sent via email: pfleischer@google.com -->
-
 
+
Dear Mr Fleischer,
Dear Mr Fleischer,
-
in your June 10 letter [1] to the Chairman of Article 29 Working Party, Mr Peter Schaar, you claim
+
in your letter dated June 10th [1] to the Chairman of Article 29 Working Party, Mr Peter Schaar, you claim
that data protection is one of Google's main interests. We appreciate
that data protection is one of Google's main interests. We appreciate
your willingness to improve protection of your customers privacy. Even so we
your willingness to improve protection of your customers privacy. Even so we
Zeile 31: Zeile 22:
You argue that it would not be possible to preserve your interests in
You argue that it would not be possible to preserve your interests in
security, innovation and fraud-resistance without storing personal data
security, innovation and fraud-resistance without storing personal data
-
like IP addresses, search logs and user behaviour for at least 18
+
such as IP addresses, search logs and user behaviour for a minimum of 18
-
months. However in a democratic society it is up to Parliament to balance the users and the providers needs, rather than to commercial enterprises.
+
months at least. However in a democratic society it is up to Parliament and not commercial enterprises to balance the users' and the providers' needs.
-
For example German law specifically prohibits the retention of personal data that is not needed for billing purposes. Therefore storing
+
For example German law specifically prohibits the retention of personal data unless it is needed for billing purposes. As most services offered by Google are free of charge, storing personal data obtained from these services is therefore illegal. Local laws are applicable to Google, and the
-
personal data is illegal for most services offered by Google as they are
+
-
free of charge. Local laws are applicable to Google, and the
+
level of data protection should follow the laws of the country with the
level of data protection should follow the laws of the country with the
-
strictest privacy protection.
+
strictest protection of privacy.
-
We fully accord with your questioning the EU Data Retention
+
We do fully accord with your questioning of the EU Data Retention
-
Directive. However, the directice is limited to E-Mail and VOIP services on the Internet and does not apply to your search engine, for example. There is no reason why Google should bow to
+
Directive. However, the directive is limited to E-Mail, Message Services and VoIP services on the Internet and does not apply to your search engine, for example. There is no reason why Google should bow to obligations that do not exist.
-
obligations that do not exist. Also Ireland and Slovakia have filed a
+
-
lawsuit in 2006 against the Data Retention Directive with the European Court of
+
-
Justice. Legal experts are confident that in accordance with the Court's jurisprudence on PNR data, the directive on data retention will be anulled for the same reasons.
+
-
You give some concrete examples of why data retention is supposed to be necessary
+
You give examples of why data retention is supposed to be necessary
-
for the operation of Google services. Of course analysing user trends my be necessary for software like Google Spell Checker, but anonymised data would
+
for the operation of Google services. Of course analysing user trends may be necessary for software like Google Spell Checker, but anonymised data would
be absolutely sufficient for this purpose. Additionally, the
be absolutely sufficient for this purpose. Additionally, the
protection of your servers against criminal attacks does not justify a
protection of your servers against criminal attacks does not justify a
-
blanket collection of personal data on all customers. Retaining data on a case by case basis is sufficient as demonstrated by several large sites in Germany that have long operated without logging any personally identifyable data. The retention of data does not, it itself, prevent or stop attacks, anyway. Moreover, dealing with fraud is the business
+
blanket collection of personal data of all customers. Retaining data on a case by case basis is sufficient as demonstrated by several large websites in Germany that have long operated without logging any personally identifiable data. In any case, the retention of data does not, by itself, prevent or stop attacks. Moreover, dealing with fraud is the business
-
of public prosecutors, not of private companies. Prosecutors may order the collection and preservation of data where needed.
+
of public prosecutors, not of private companies. Prosecutors may order the collection and preservation of data when needed.
-
At last we would like to remind you of how dangerous extensive data collection
+
Finally, we would like to remind you of how dangerous extensive data collection
-
can potentially be. As a company operating world-wide Google should know
+
can potentially be. As a world-wide operating company, Google should be well aware that not all countries in the world are democracies. Data
-
that not all countries are democracies. Data
+
collected by private companies can be and is being abused by
-
collected by private companies can be and is abused by
+
totalitarian regimes. We wonder how it is possible to pervasively filter
totalitarian regimes. We wonder how it is possible to pervasively filter
Google search results for Chinese users while anonymising search strings
Google search results for Chinese users while anonymising search strings
-
is supposed to compromise the operation of Google services. Furthermore we know that even intelligence agencies in democratic societies use (in our eyes abuse) the data you collect in order to spy on human rights or environmental NGOs, on legitimate protest groups and local activists. The only way to prevent abuse is not to collect personally identifyable data in the first place.
+
is supposed to compromise the operation of Google services. Furthermore we know that intelligence agencies - even in democratic societies - use (or more accurately abuse) the data you collect in order to spy on human rights or environmental NGOs, on legitimate protest groups and local activists. The only way to prevent abuse is to refrain from collecting personally identifiable data in the first place.
-
For the time being, please consider at least optionally offering anonymous gateways to your services such as the Google search engine. We are confident that a test phase of offering services without retaining identifyable data will convince you that the security of your services will not be compromised. It may even generate business from users who currently refuse using Google services because of your blanket retention practises. [2]
+
For the time being, you should at least consider opening anonymous gateways to your services such as the Google search engine. We are confident that offering services without retaining identifiable data during a test phase will convince you that the security of your services will not be compromised. It may even generate business from users who currently refuse using your services because of your blanket retention practices. [2]
-
Following your own motto, we appeal to you: "Don't be evil! Do not even make it eventually possible to violate human rights using data stored by Google. Simply, do not store individual user data!" Not storing any data is the only effective way to prevent abuse and, in consequence, human rights violations.
+
Concluding, we demand you stay loyal to your company motto: Don't be evil. Prevent human rights violations by not storing personally identifiable data of your users!
-
Sincererly,<br>
+
Sincerely,<br>
-
xyz
+
Working Group on Data Retention
[1] http://64.233.179.110/blog_resources/Google_response_Working_Party_06_2007.pdf<br>
[1] http://64.233.179.110/blog_resources/Google_response_Working_Party_06_2007.pdf<br>
[2] http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf
[2] http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf
 +
 +
==Pressemitteilung==
 +
''Siehe:'' [[Internetnutzer kritisieren Googles Datenhunger und fordern anonyme Nutzungsmöglichkeit]]
 +
 +
 +
[[Kategorie:English]]
 +
[[Kategorie:Google]]
 +
[[Kategorie:Offene Briefe]]

Aktuelle Version


Dear Mr Fleischer,

in your letter dated June 10th [1] to the Chairman of Article 29 Working Party, Mr Peter Schaar, you claim that data protection is one of Google's main interests. We appreciate your willingness to improve protection of your customers privacy. Even so we are strongly concerned about Google's ongoing violation of European law.

You argue that it would not be possible to preserve your interests in security, innovation and fraud-resistance without storing personal data such as IP addresses, search logs and user behaviour for a minimum of 18 months at least. However in a democratic society it is up to Parliament and not commercial enterprises to balance the users' and the providers' needs.

For example German law specifically prohibits the retention of personal data unless it is needed for billing purposes. As most services offered by Google are free of charge, storing personal data obtained from these services is therefore illegal. Local laws are applicable to Google, and the level of data protection should follow the laws of the country with the strictest protection of privacy.

We do fully accord with your questioning of the EU Data Retention Directive. However, the directive is limited to E-Mail, Message Services and VoIP services on the Internet and does not apply to your search engine, for example. There is no reason why Google should bow to obligations that do not exist.

You give examples of why data retention is supposed to be necessary for the operation of Google services. Of course analysing user trends may be necessary for software like Google Spell Checker, but anonymised data would be absolutely sufficient for this purpose. Additionally, the protection of your servers against criminal attacks does not justify a blanket collection of personal data of all customers. Retaining data on a case by case basis is sufficient as demonstrated by several large websites in Germany that have long operated without logging any personally identifiable data. In any case, the retention of data does not, by itself, prevent or stop attacks. Moreover, dealing with fraud is the business of public prosecutors, not of private companies. Prosecutors may order the collection and preservation of data when needed.

Finally, we would like to remind you of how dangerous extensive data collection can potentially be. As a world-wide operating company, Google should be well aware that not all countries in the world are democracies. Data collected by private companies can be and is being abused by totalitarian regimes. We wonder how it is possible to pervasively filter Google search results for Chinese users while anonymising search strings is supposed to compromise the operation of Google services. Furthermore we know that intelligence agencies - even in democratic societies - use (or more accurately abuse) the data you collect in order to spy on human rights or environmental NGOs, on legitimate protest groups and local activists. The only way to prevent abuse is to refrain from collecting personally identifiable data in the first place.

For the time being, you should at least consider opening anonymous gateways to your services such as the Google search engine. We are confident that offering services without retaining identifiable data during a test phase will convince you that the security of your services will not be compromised. It may even generate business from users who currently refuse using your services because of your blanket retention practices. [2]

Concluding, we demand you stay loyal to your company motto: Don't be evil. Prevent human rights violations by not storing personally identifiable data of your users!

Sincerely,
Working Group on Data Retention

[1] http://64.233.179.110/blog_resources/Google_response_Working_Party_06_2007.pdf
[2] http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/internet/interimrankings.pdf

Pressemitteilung

Siehe: Internetnutzer kritisieren Googles Datenhunger und fordern anonyme Nutzungsmöglichkeit

Persönliche Werkzeuge
Werkzeuge