Privacy laws

Private data, public rules

The world’s biggest internet markets are planning laws to protect personal data. But their approaches differ wildly

See article

Readers' comments



Yes it will be hard. But global problems need global solutions. As we do it with UN, WIPO, WTO, conventions of Genova, etc. National approaches wil fail. Again and again.

Two details: when I broadcast electromagnetical waves into the public space, then I shall have the permission to pollute my environmet but nobody should be allowed to look frome where this pollution comes? Sounds Crazy.

Right to be forgotten? When I publish my opionion into whole world using my right of free speech then I shall have the additional right that everybody in the world has to forget what I sad. This seems smart for politicans (and I guess they think so :-) but this crazy idea we never had in the oral and written word but it should be feasable in the electronical world where I can without any costs withdraw my publications? Sounds crazy, too. We should differ between privacy and publication and not intermingle it in such kafakesk suggestions of the third kind. :-)


Nice article but one point to clear up: Google was deliberately scanning for Wi-Fi information during the StreetView data gathering exercise. Even someone with only the most basic understanding of technology will grasp the absurdity of Google "accidentally" gathering data from Wi-Fi networks during their trip. "Accidentally" connecting to Wi-Fi and storing the data is about as likely as "accidentally" having sex with a passing commuter.


I am a professional software developer for a retail/e-commerce firm. I write SQL (the most-common database query language) daily. I do not understand The Economist's concerns about deleting data being "too hard"; this to me sounds at once indicative of ignorance, on their part, and a preference for laziness, among their corporate constituency's.

Customer records -- the sort these laws address -- are by their very nature associated with specific customers. They therefore must be identifiable; else, we can't make determinations about them. Therefore, the data these laws address are knowable, because there exists some means of identification, and therefore, commands to UPDATE or DELETE those data, in accordance with the law, may be issued. The burden is largely to determine in which databases and on which machines that data exists. But all that must be determinable, as well.


Ms Reding is famous for her empty threats, but also for her top-down approach. The commission member, never elected as such, enjoys putting her ideology on europe, counseled only by brussel-based lobbyists. I'd never trust in her ability to provide actual protection for personal data, and I'd never want her to tell companies in my country what to do and what not.

In short, I'd rather accept Mark Zuckerberg as new member of the EU commission, but what I'd really love is a peace of democracy for Europe, away with undemocratic proto-governments.

Connect The Dots

How different would the Internet be if EVERYONE had to use their own name and identity on every web interaction from comment postings to product review to emailing to commerce.

No phishing, junk mail, scams, viruses or ads.

Before you think this is too strange to contemplate consider there is a subgroup of users where this is the modus operandi: Facebook. And it is probably the single largest group of users and a top destination on the web.

People want to be anonymous. But they also want to be social and known. And they want friends, but to keep out the riff-raff and not get to close. And they want information but not too much information. And about all the perverts...

People want to be anonymous on a city street. But they want to be recognized by their friends, coworkers, pets and barristas.

ID Name tags on your lapel are a great idea but also a lousy idea.
Life can't be a Cold War Game of Espionage. Nor should it be a 24/7 nude beach.

Perhaps we should have a general purpose anonymous internet.
And an interior smaller verified subnet.

People are catty.
Privacy and Anonymity are a Complex Problem.
It is as simple as human psychology.


Microsoft Office is copyrighted as Bill Gate intented this software to be for profit. The pubilc code version which is popular in China is Open Office. OK, here's my plan. I write a version of "Intuit QuickBooks" that has an erasor and keeps track of you time value of money tax avoidance LIFO inventory COGS tax; copyright it; publish it on an online bookpublisher; and if you wany it, I got money for ciggarettes.


At the moment I still do not understand all the fuzz about social networking and the amazing prospects for market data that they could generate. Example: I have more than 300 contacts in my Facebook account (intentionally outdated), all people I know relatively well and they are from many different countries, behavior is always very similar and I suspect it goes like this for most of the people: party photos, baby/family photos, holiday photos or no photos at all, the likes or dislikes are only about comments or images where 99% of the content has absolutely no commercial value. Facebooks in China and India I guess are mostly about matchmaking (very profitable busness for most of the world cooporations). How reliable is the market data coming out this, I leave it for you to judge.
Social networks are still very much about potential (and bubbles too). What will bring value to companies like Facebook is still yet to come, but this is a different story. People do not seem yet to be changing their social networking behaviour to generate more reliable and useful data.
My fear is that one day other networking companies like LinkedIns, XINGs, etc will merge with the likes of Facebooks and Google+s, and then a really large sum of personal data can be gathered in a Orwellian way. I think that if Facebook, Google (and all its services), LinkedIn and Tweeter one day would merge their data, then a new era in personal privacy (or lack of it) would start.


"The Right To Be Forgotten" is a nice start, but it's only a partial solution. Hopefully it will continue, the more individuals can control their digital profiles the better.

People need to understand that their personal information has great value and needs to be protected. Ultimately individual people should have total control of what and how their names and any information comes up in search engine queries.

This badly needs to start gaining attention in the U.S. too.


"Users can not only request that a company show what data it holds on them; they can also demand that it deletes all copies."

Who is going to enforce that, and how? Presumably, some kind of government watchdog; a bold new bureaucracy, funded by taxpayers (and to some limited extent by fines levied on offenders)? More big government.

What happened to 'caveat emptor'? If you don't want someone to have your data, don't put it out there. Yes, an 'emptor' is a buyer, so if you're not paying for Facebook et al with your money, you're paying for it with your privacy (or parts thereof). And you do so voluntarily.

Understand that, and either live with it, or don't go there.

The other day, I completed an anonymous form to provide feedback on my experiences at my local 'Starbucks'; the last six questions asked me for my age, race, income, and a few other things, each with a 'prefer not to answer' option, which I checked. I encourage others to do likewise. The answers to these questions have nothing to do with how I feel about Starbucks, and are therefore irrelevant. Let's start spreading that message.

ConcernedReader in reply to Hamakko

@Hamakko I agree with you, mostly, about not accepting a service that requires your privacy if you don't want your data in the open. But there are several current problems that need to be resolved and these laws are likely to help:
1. There is no way of enforcing your orginal transaction of a little bit of privacy waived for a certain service rendered. Companies often change the terms of the deal long after you've gone to mean that they can transfer your data more widely.
2. There is absolutely no way to change a deal that you are unhappy with. Once your data is loose in the wilderness you may as well assume that everyone has it.
3. There is no way to know you are even entering a transaction where your privacy is being taken away. The business plans of Google, Facebook, and Airmiles or so-called points reward companies at their most basic is really to take your data and sell it. Modern technology now means that they can do so more easily without your knowledge and you have no idea where the data is going to end up.

In general I think society is going to have to think long and hard about what they are giving up not only to business but government as well. I for one am becoming a little freaked out about being fingerprinted or bodyscanned everytime I come into or leave the UK or US, being under constant CCTV surveillance, and having all of my telephone and computer use logged by telephone and IP providers. Look up Telecommunications data retention on Wikipedia for more details.

Hamakko in reply to ConcernedReader

Concerned Reader - Thanks; I do agree with your basic points. For all the noble intent of the proposed laws, I guess I am just sceptical that government can effectively enforce the kind of risks you (and the article) mention; so I prefer to acknowledge the risks and minimize them with personal actions. That way, I also minimize disappointment.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

