Google is being sued by the Australian Government

[Data_Mining]

The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) is suing Google for breaching Australian privacy laws in regards to data collection and dissemination.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-29/google-faces-accc-federal-court-misleading-use-of-data/11649356

 

[vanished]

Ironic, considering they are constantly trying to get companies to give up the encryption that makes privacy possible.

 

PS, please review the posting guidelines for this subforum and update your post with the missing information

[mr moose]

 

For those who don't know, new laws in Australia mean that google can be fined up to 10% of there turnover for such breeches.

 

If they are found guilty it could actually get expensive for them.  Also I hope this is the start of them making the android system a lot more transparent. 

 

 

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

can be fined up to 10% of there turnover for such breeches.

Calculated from operations within Aus?

[8uhbbhu8]

Hahahahaha!!!! Australia.... Considering some of the stuff they have been up to recently trying to get more access into personal data, this is hilarious. 

[RejZoR]

I find this deeply... ironic... coming from Australia...

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Calculated from operations within Aus?

As far as I know yes, but that is for all turnover for google, not just android.  I know it might not be much compared with turnover from the US or Europe, but it's better than the paltry 10's of millions we hear them paying.    If google had a turnover of $4B then that's $400M.  Plus it means the system has to change if they want to sell it in Australia.

[williamcll]

And they still haven't fixed NBN yet, might as well get them to build google fiber.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, williamcll said:

And they still haven't fixed NBN yet, might as well get them to build google fiber.

You have to understand that the issues with our NBN cannot just be fixed,  it is not an issue that failed because the government ballsed it up, it is a essential infrastructure issue that the consumers can't afford.  google will not roll out fibre here because there is no money in it.  we just don't have the consumer base to give any company an roi.  

 

 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

we just don't have the consumer base to give any company an roi

Aus is the same land area as the US, if the US can't seem to do it Aus ain't got a hope.

 

Spoiler

Honestly I think it's actually possible to do a full FTTH rollout in Aus in major cities just not in a time frame anyone wants and at the sacrifice of others not  in those areas

 

[vanished]

9 hours ago, leadeater said:

Aus is the same land area as the US, if the US can't seem to do it Aus ain't got a hope.

 

  Hide contents

Honestly I think it's actually possible to do a full FTTH rollout in Aus in major cities just not in a time frame anyone wants and at the sacrifice of others not  in those areas

 

Yeah I really don't understand how just targeting cities always seems to get overlooked.  I don't think anyone expects to blanket the entire country with top end fibre.  Particularly somewhere like here where 99% of the land area is unused, that would just be a total waste.  However, if you did it in all major cities, you'd get 90% of the population and surely the density must be high enough for a ROI there!?  If they can't do that then frankly the technology is not ready and they should just close up shop for being useless.

[ouroesa]

4 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah I really don't understand how just targeting cities always seems to get overlooked.  I don't think anyone expects to blanket the entire country with top end fibre.  Particularly somewhere like here where 99% of the land area is unused, that would just be a total waste.  However, if you did it in all major cities, you'd get 90% of the population and surely the density must be high enough for a ROI there!?  If they can't do that then frankly the technology is not ready and they should just close up shop for being useless.

This.

I assume they use all that other nonsense as an excuse and the layman always fall for it. Governments really get under my skin. They have no recourse for anything and is the poster child for inefficiency - it should be run like a company IMHO.

 

I really shouldn't get political on here though.

[justpoet]

It would be fairly easy to follow the US city model and fiber the nodes and then use cable or DSL from the nodes in at really high speeds for smaller sub blocks.  Any place that has cable can easily do this with at worst a bit of fiber put down through existing main spots.

 

As for the topic of the thread.  Yes, it is super hilarious that Aus is the one doing this.  But, it really should be done and has been a long time coming, and more of this needs to happen to every company that harvests and monetizes/sells consumer data.

[mr moose]

14 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah I really don't understand how just targeting cities always seems to get overlooked.  I don't think anyone expects to blanket the entire country with top end fibre.  Particularly somewhere like here where 99% of the land area is unused, that would just be a total waste.  However, if you did it in all major cities, you'd get 90% of the population and surely the density must be high enough for a ROI there!?  If they can't do that then frankly the technology is not ready and they should just close up shop for being useless.

Not really,   As of June last year Australia had 14M internet subscribers of which less than 9M were landline connections (NBN, cable, dsl etc).  That is not enough users to warrant nationwide roll out of anything let alone fiber to the premise.   The sums have been done over and over, they do not look good.  Australia should be grateful that the government that started the ball rolling on the NBN didn't do a feasibility study or cost analysis,. otherwise we wouldn't even have it.

 

It has nothing to do with the technology, the businesses involved or the governments, it's simply the fact we have a small population, ageing telecommunication infrastructure and no one one wants to pay the bill to have something better installed.  NBN Co. (which is government owned and doesn't have to post a profit) have admitted that the NBN will take a bloody long time to pay for itself.  In 2018 the NBN CO. had a net loss after tax of $4.7B,  why would any profit oriented business invest in that?

https://www.nbnco.com.au/content/dam/nbnco2/2018/documents/media-centre/nbn-co-annual-report-2018.pdf

 

 

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-18/high-speed-internet-means-you-have-to-pay-more/8821688

 

Some of this stuff I have been saying since 2013, I even have posts on this forum predicting the exact conditions that the ABC article talks about in 2017.  

[straight_stewie]

On 10/29/2019 at 1:19 AM, Data_Mining said:

The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) is suing Google for breaching Australian privacy laws in regards to data collection and dissemination.

On 10/29/2019 at 1:32 AM, mr moose said:

For those who don't know, new laws in Australia mean that google can be fined up to 10% of there turnover for such breeches.

It seems as if there is a large disparity between what one arm of most governments wants, and what the arm that has to look at the citizens of that government wants. People think that private sector data privacy is important, and it is, but it is by far the least risky, and therefore least important, aspect of data privacy.

I believe that "Bulk Collection", as the United States Intelligence Community has decided to call it, is the largest, most widespread, and most dangerous attack on the three founding principles of the US, and the UNs five principles of human rights. However, suing companies, most of which where originally unwillingly coerced into cooperation, is unlikely to have any significant effect on the capabilities or duration of "Bulk Collection", especially if the case fails to draw a very strong connection between data and property, or privacy and liberty. At least in the US (the only reason that countries where people think they have any control over the government participate in "Bulk Collection"), the precedent of a connection between data and property has already been struck down multiple times. These are important facts because Australian Bulk Collection activities are most largely due to US cooperation and pressure: At least by publicized documents, Australia does not contribute software capabilities or HUMINT services to Bulk Collection agencies, it only operates collection points which forward data to the MARINA, MAINWAY, or TEMPORA databases.

The situation is just as dire in the UK, whose GDPR is almost surely the same situation at best, and a planned diversion at worst.

I believe that a coordinated series of law suits against companies whose sole purpose is to sell user data (such as most public VPNs, or at least the cloud/server providers they use), while simultaneously pressuring the intelligence community is the best bet to changing the way things are without organized mass dissent. Attacking large companies is simply too costly, too difficult, and too ineffective to have any serious impact on the operations of worldwide Intelligence Communities. This is largely because large companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google could serve as single collection points for Bulk Collection, as most users who use the internet regularly use services provided by at least one of those sites and therefore, governments operating "Bulk Collection" programs have a serious motive to support and protect them in such trials.

 

[LogicalDrm]

On 10/29/2019 at 8:19 AM, Data_Mining said:

The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) is suing Google for breaching Australian privacy laws in regards to data collection and dissemination.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-29/google-faces-accc-federal-court-misleading-use-of-data/11649356

 

This thread does not comply with the guidelines for Tech News. It's moved to General Discussion. If you fix post, it can be moved back.

 

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

This is largely because large companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google could serve as single collection points for Bulk Collection, as most users who use the internet regularly use services provided by at least one of those sites and therefore, governments operating "Bulk Collection" programs have a serious motive to support and protect them in such trials.

Episode 1 of the current season of Silicon Valley aligns with this so well lol

[Tristerin]

On 10/29/2019 at 3:25 AM, huilun02 said:

TLDR;

 

> Govt takes money from [insert internet giant]

> Nothing changes for consumers

SERVICES GET MORE EXPENSIVE - changes for consumers

[vanished]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

Snip

Again though it doesn't need to be nationwide, I know that Australia, like Canada, has vast swaths of land with no one or nearly no one living there.  If they just went after a handful of the largest cities then surely that would be profitable?  Yes it may take a long time since it would likely cost billions to install and you be making back maybe 100M per year give or take, but these are long term infrastructure investments like a bridge.  There's payoff that's not "literal" - not direct from people paying bills.  No one directly profits from a bridge unless there's a toll booth, but it enables greater productivity for the whole area that needs to cross it.

 

But, if this really isn't feasible due to cost, then I'd say it is in fact an issue with the technology.   Over time costs come down and if it isn't practical yet then that means it's too early.  Just look at 10 Gbit networking.

[kpluck]

I wish Google would just say, "okay, you don't like how we do business, we will just take our toys and go home." Just pull completely out of Australia, at least while the lawsuit is going on. Let's the politicians take the heat from businesses and consumers that aren't idiots and don't want governments shaking down corporations for as much cash as they can get.

 

-kp

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Again though it doesn't need to be nationwide, I know that Australia, like Canada, has vast swaths of land with no one or nearly no one living there.  If they just went after a handful of the largest cities then surely that would be profitable?  Yes it may take a long time since it would likely cost billions to install and you be making back maybe 100M per year give or take, but these are long term infrastructure investments like a bridge.  There's payoff that's not "literal" - not direct from people paying bills.  No one directly profits from a bridge unless there's a toll booth, but it enables greater productivity for the whole area that needs to cross it.

 

But, if this really isn't feasible due to cost, then I'd say it is in fact an issue with the technology.   Over time costs come down and if it isn't practical yet then that means it's too early.  Just look at 10 Gbit networking.

 

You have missed the point. The technology itself is good, forget about remote and pop density as they just use 4G which was already in place for the most part.   The issue is purely economics.  We do not have enough consumers to support upgrading the system beyond a couple of streets a year.  It's all in the links I provided.

 

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

It seems as if there is a large disparity between what one arm of most governments wants, and what the arm that has to look at the citizens of that government wants. People think that private sector data privacy is important, and it is, but it is by far the least risky, and therefore least important, aspect of data privacy.

I believe that "Bulk Collection", as the United States Intelligence Community has decided to call it, is the largest, most widespread, and most dangerous attack on the three founding principles of the US, and the UNs five principles of human rights. However, suing companies, most of which where originally unwillingly coerced into cooperation, is unlikely to have any significant effect on the capabilities or duration of "Bulk Collection", especially if the case fails to draw a very strong connection between data and property, or privacy and liberty. At least in the US (the only reason that countries where people think they have any control over the government participate in "Bulk Collection"), the precedent of a connection between data and property has already been struck down multiple times. These are important facts because Australian Bulk Collection activities are most largely due to US cooperation and pressure: At least by publicized documents, Australia does not contribute software capabilities or HUMINT services to Bulk Collection agencies, it only operates collection points which forward data to the MARINA, MAINWAY, or TEMPORA databases.

The situation is just as dire in the UK, whose GDPR is almost surely the same situation at best, and a planned diversion at worst.

I believe that a coordinated series of law suits against companies whose sole purpose is to sell user data (such as most public VPNs, or at least the cloud/server providers they use), while simultaneously pressuring the intelligence community is the best bet to changing the way things are without organized mass dissent. Attacking large companies is simply too costly, too difficult, and too ineffective to have any serious impact on the operations of worldwide Intelligence Communities. This is largely because large companies such as Amazon, Facebook, and Google could serve as single collection points for Bulk Collection, as most users who use the internet regularly use services provided by at least one of those sites and therefore, governments operating "Bulk Collection" programs have a serious motive to support and protect them in such trials.

 

The whole point of suing google is not to get a fine or financial punishment, it is to have the practice of confusing/hidden settings on GPS data collection changed so the average user is not being mislead.

 

 

[straight_stewie]

42 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The whole point of suing google is not to get a fine or financial punishment, it is to have the practice of confusing/hidden settings on GPS data collection changed so the average user is not being mislead.

The point of my reply was that that's a terrible strategy, and even if it appears to have worked, it didn't. While Google may stop their own logging activities at users requests (or at the very least pretend to), they cannot and will not do anything that would prevent Intelligence Communities from conducting Bulk Collection operations on their systems.

 

Edward Snowden and bunnie Huang tested a phone to see which, if any, of it's features actually worked. They found that in modern phones, you can't even really turn off location services or WiFi. The report is titled "Against the Law: Countering Lawful Abuses of Digital Surveillance" and is available here: https://www.tjoe.org/pub/direct-radio-introspection

Because of that, A successful law suit may make it appear that Google has stopped collecting any GPS based information, but  that data will still be available to those who operate Bulk Collection systems.

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

The point of my reply was that that's a terrible strategy, and even if it appears to have worked, it didn't. While Google may stop their own logging activities at users requests (or at the very least pretend to), they cannot and will not do anything that would prevent Intelligence Communities from conducting Bulk Collection operations on their systems.

 

Edward Snowden and bunnie Huang tested a phone to see which, if any, of it's features actually worked. They found that in modern phones, you can't even really turn off location services or WiFi. The report is titled "Against the Law: Countering Lawful Abuses of Digital Surveillance" and is available here: https://www.tjoe.org/pub/direct-radio-introspection

Because of that, A successful law suit may make it appear that Google has stopped collecting any GPS based information, but  that data will still be available to those who operate Bulk Collection systems.

So?   We know dick all about the rest of it,  this whole thing is solely about google.  It's not about government spying, or international espionage.  It's purely about Aussie consumers not being tracked when they think they have turned the setting off.

 

One thing people need to remember about organizations in Australia like the accc, the high court, fair work, etc is that they are not controlled by the government, they are completely independent.   There is no concern here for government affairs one way or the other.

 

 

[straight_stewie]

25 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It's not about government spying, or international espionage.  It's purely about Aussie consumers not being tracked when they think they have turned the setting off.

I have to disagree. I find those two statements to contradict one another.