The reason? To provide time for the EU’s Article 29 Working Party, which regulates data protection issues, to investigate possible user privacy and data protection concerns.

A Google spokesperson told WebProNews:

We briefed most of the members of the working party in the weeks leading up to our announcement. None of them expressed substantial concerns at the time, but of course we’re happy to speak with any DPA that has questions. As part of announcing our new privacy policy, we’ve made the largest communication to users in our history. Delaying the new policy would cause significant confusion.

Google has sent a letter back to CNIL, indicating that it has no intentions of pausing its rollout. The letter, for the most part, reads almost exactly like the company’s recent letter to congress. At the end, Google says:

Your letter has requested a pause while the Article 29 Working Party checks the possible consequences of the changes for our users. You letter states that this in in the interests of ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding about Google’s commitment to information rights of their users and EU citizens.

As you will know, we had extensively pre-briefed data protection authorities across the EU prior to the launch of our notification to users on 24 January 2012. At no stage did any EU regulator suggest that any sort of pause would be appropriate. Since we finished these extensive briefings, We have notified over 350 million Google account holders, as well as providing highly visible notices to all our non-authenticated users. In addition, the policy does not come into effect until 1 March 2012, as we wanted to leave more than adequate time for our users to be able to read and understand the policy before it’s fully implemented.

Google’s changes are scheduled to take effect on March 1.

She goes on to say,“If an individual no longer wants his personal data to be processed or stored by a data controller, and if there is no legitimate reason for keeping it, the data should be removed from their system.”

These seem like pretty intelligent statements and I think few would argue with them. People do need to realize that taking care of their online identity (or available personal information) is a responsibility that should be undertaken.

Regardless, the new privacy protection laws revealed by the EU earlier this week have many business ‘s concerned about their financial wellbeing. The initial draft of the updated laws would allow a very narrow window of opportunity for disclosure of a security leak before huge fines could be imposed.

Furthermore, the privacy protection laws could make corporations vulnerable to endless law suits. These laws wouldn’t be able to take effect anytime soon and they could undergo numerous changes before they are passed but, many questions have been raised.

One big question is, how will the EU’s privacy protection laws affect the U.S. and business in the U.S.?

The short answer is that we live under a global economy now, so even if these laws don’t effect the U.S. now, they will shortly and they probably should.

Facebook’s chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg offered some keen advice on the subject:

“The Internet and social media, it’s not just posts and pictures and fun things with your friend. But this is really serious stuff. This is about growth. This is about jobs.”

She’s right on! More and more employers are seeking out information about potential employees on social networking sites. They’re using it the same way they would check on your profession credentials. People should realize that as more information becomes available, organizations and corporations will use it to screen people, and many times, it will not be to our benefit.

I don’t think that the EU’s tentative privacy protection laws are adequit in their current form but I agree that the global leaders needs to do something about protecting our information on the web. Corporations are not moral entities, they are competitors who exploit information to gain competitive advantage.

Our economy is an online economy so if Europe is doing something to regulate how information is handled it will most certainly spill over into the United States.

In addition, companies could be subject to fines under the new code, a penalty tax as high as $1.3 million or 2% of a company’s total sales.

“The protection of personal data is a fundamental right for all Europeans ….my proposals will help build trust in online services because people will be better informed about their rights and in more control of their information”, asserts Viviane Reding the EU Justice Commissioner.

On the Business end however; their are concerns these new policies, if put into place under their current structure, could put many companies in jeopardy. For one thing, the draft proposes a 24 hour window in which organizations must report a privacy breach to consumers. This is a really narrow timeline, especially if your business isn’t stringently tied to customer communication. In other words, it may take several days for one arm of the business to communicate to the other, let alone the customer.

From a legal standpoint, there is also trouble on the horizon. As they stand currently, the privacy law drafts are too open ended about what is, and what isn’t considered personal data. Lawyers would have a heyday with corporate lawsuits especially considering the hefty fines which could be involved!

In any event, these changes to the privacy laws could take more than two years to come into effect and they are bound to be scrutinized, amended, and transformed during that period. First the European Union States would have to approve them, then they would have to be ratified by the European Parliament. Progress will be slow on this one, I am sure. We’ll have to wait and see what they make out of these drafts, if anything at all.

The BBC is reporting that a new law is going to be proposed to the EU on Wednesday. It would include the provision for a “right to be forgotten” that would require all data on a person retained by social networks, etc to be deleted unless there are “legitimate” grounds to retain it.

This new “right to be forgotten” proposal is part of an overhaul to the 1995 Data Protection Directive.

Details of the revised law were revealed by the Justice Commissioner, Viviane Reding, at the Digital Life Design conference in Munich.

A spokesman for the commissioner clarified to the BBC that the revision was mostly for teenagers and young adults.

“These rules are particularly aimed at young people as they are not always as aware as they could be about the consequence of putting photos and other information on social network websites, or about the various privacy settings available,” said the spokesman.

He said that currently teenagers and young adults have no way of deleting embarrassing information when they apply for jobs. This new bill, however, would not allow people to erase their police or medical records.

Other measures in the bill include a requirement for all firms to notify users and the authorities of any possible data loss within 24 hours.

It would also force firms to explicitly seek permission to use a person’s personal data. Internet users must also be notified when their data is being collected, what it’s being collected for and how long it’s going to be stored.

People, under the bill, must be able to easily access their personal data and move it to another firm, or delete it, if they so wish

There are some circumstances which this new right would not apply though. Commissioner Reding told DLD delegates that “the right to be forgotten cannot amount to a right of the total erasure of history.”

If passed, the law would create a new set of data privacy rules in the EU for the first time. The rules would also apply to overseas companies active in the EU, even if their servers were based in other parts of the world.

The commissioner suggested that it would simplify regulations and save firms around $3 billion a year.

Microsoft and Facebook both voiced concerns over the scope of the bill and how much data users would be allowed to control. Facebook, however, said in a statement that they agree regulation such as this should “encourage job creation and economic growth” and that they look forward to seeing how the EU Data Protection Directive develops.

Firms that fail to abide by the proposed rules could be fined as much as one percent of their global revenues.

The new rules need to be approved by the EU’s member states and ratified by the European parliament though, so any changes won’t be happening for at least a few years.

“Glad tide is turning on SOPA: don’t need bad legislation when should be safeguarding benefits of open net,”

She lends her support to those opposing the bill and gets down to brass tacks by further proclaiming:

“Speeding is illegal too: but you don’t put speed bumps on the motorway”.

Criticism is not Something we usually see from the European Union in The United States, as we rely on each other for a great deal of trade and political backing but the issue of regulating the internet seems to have brought forth some pretty heated debate and passionate stances. The E.U.’s spokesmen, Ryan Heath defended Kroes’s comments and added this:

“It shows that people do have very serious concerns about their access to the Internet and it shows that in addition to enforcement, which is very important, we need to be increasing the number of legal content offers that are available online”

The specific focus of the investigation will be the agreements between the publishing groups and Apple, and on the companies’ business practices, both of which the Commission suspects of being designed to smother competition. To that end, the Commission initiated investigative proceedings in March by conducting unannounced inspections of several of the companies named. The British Office of Fair Trade had been conducting its own inquiry in parallel with that of the EC, but has since concluded that investigation in order to collaborate with the Commission’s probe.

The Commission’s press release is silent on one important point: it does not say how, specifically, the companies are suspected of violating antitrust laws. The Commission gives no hint as yet to which practices or agreements cause concern. The Commission was also careful to point out that the opening of this investigation does not constitute a judgment of guilt on any of the involved companies, only that the Commission is now making this investigation a priority.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal has published brief statements from the Pearson Group (owners of Penguin), HarperCollins, and Verlagsgruppe Georg von Holtzbrinch, all denying any wrongdoing and pledging to cooperate fully with the investigation.

Now, the publication is reporting that regulators are keeping an eye on it:

A spokeswoman for the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, said Thursday that the commission was aware of the new subscription service and was "carefully monitoring the situation."

The Justice Department and the FTC are both interested in examining whether Apple is running afoul of U.S. antitrust laws by funneling media companies’ customers into the payment system for its iTunes store—and taking a 30% cut, the people familiar with the situation said. The agencies both enforce federal antitrust laws and would have to decide which one of them would take the lead in the matter.

WebProNews spoke with Pam Horan, President of the Online Publishers Association, which represents a slew of major content providers (including the Wall Street Journal Digital Network).  

"Right now, one the most audible reactions I’m hearing from publishers is: what does this mean for the consumer? The concern is that Apple’s latest subscription policy limits one of the major needs that all publishers look to address – seamlessly offering their content on whatever platform the consumer wants to access it on," she told us. 

"Based on Apple’s policy, specifically, publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a web site, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app," she added. "Limiting the publisher to include links with offers or offering direct bundles through their own website, makes authenticating the consumer impossible. Apple’s one click access is great, but consumers have to realize that they are sacrificing portability." 

"The second issue is that Apple’s doesn’t allow publishers access to any consumer information – from who is purchasing to what articles and tools that [they] are finding valuable based on their use," she said. "Consumer insights are paramount for publishers to be able to offer consumers the products they want. We would hope that Apple would take these issues into consideration to ensure that we are all serving their consumers’ best interest." 

The Federal Trade Commission, the Justice Department, and Apple have all yet to comment on the matter. 

Apple CEO Steve Jobs said upon announcement of the service, "Our philosophy is simple — when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing," said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app."

Under Apple’s plan, publishers set the price and length of the subscription, users choose the length of the subscription and are charged based on how long they subscribe.

Update 2: Google has posted a response on its Public Policy Blog.

Update: FairSearch, the organization that was formed in opposition to Google’s proposed acquisition of ITA, sent us the following statement from Tom Barnett, counsel to Expedia (part of the FairSearch organization) and former Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the US Justice Department:

"The European Commission’s announcement of a formal antitrust probe, looking into allegations that Google abuses its dominance in search to favor its own services and lower competitors’ search result rankings, underscores why the FairSearch.org coalition is urging the Justice Department to challenge Google’s proposed acquisition of ITA Software to protect consumers and competition in the online travel market."

Original Article: News is out this morning that Google is being investigated by European Union antitrust regulators. They are looking into the possibility that Google is discriminating against competitors in it search results and ads.  

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports: "The European Commission will check whether Google ‘imposes exclusivity obligations on advertising partners, preventing them from placing certain types of competing ads on their websites, as well as on computer and software vendors, with the aim of shutting out competing search tools,’ it said in an e-mailed statement today."

The Commission also reportedly said it will investigate Quality Score manipulation allegations. 

Google is quoted as saying that it’s strived to "do the right thing" by users and the industry, "But there’s always going to be room for improvement, and so we’ll be working with the commission to address any concerns."

Regulators could potentially fine the company up to 10 percent of revenue for monopoly abuses, according to reports. However, according to the New York Times, the European Commission said it does not have "proof of infringements." 

Meanwhile, China is prepared to prosecute Google over maps. The Chinese government has indicated that it intends to take legal action against the company if it doesn’t seek and obtain a mapping license. 

China wants to make sure all maps match its own official maps. Google has reportedly not applied for a license. 

Google is also rumored to be trying to acquire Groupon, with the latest reported offer at $5.3 billion, which if accepted, would be Google’s largest acquisition to date.

Google currently keeps all images on Street View for a year, but the EU’s Article 29 Data Protection Working Party wants that time cut in half to no longer than six months.

"The Working Party believes that a maximum retention of six months for the unblurred copies of the images would strike the right balance between the protection of privacy and the ability to eliminate false positives," the group said in a letter to Google’s global counsel, Peter, Fleishcer.

Google has also been told it needs to provide more information to residents when its Street View cars will be taking pictures in their areas. Google already posts updates online when it will be taking pictures in local areas. The EU says there should be announcement in local and national newspapers about the whereabouts of the Street View cameras.

"In Europe, we have high standards for data protection. I expect that all companies play according to the rules of the game," said EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding.
 

The Commission said 50 percent of European teenagers give out personal information on the web, which can remain online forever and be seen by anybody.

At last year’s Safer Internet Day, 20 companies signed the Safer Social Networking Principles, including YouTube and Facebook, but a report from the Commission says more measures need to be put in place to protect children’s privacy online.

"If we want children to think before they post, social networking companies should post the right information using the right language. Last year the European Commission urged companies to act, and I am glad that many have heeded this call," said EU Commissioner for Information Society and Media, Viviane Reding.

"However I expect all companies to do more. Minors’ profiles need to be set to private by default and questions or abuse reports have to receive quick and appropriate responses. The internet is now vital to our children, and it is the responsibility of all to make it safe."

Highlights from the report include:

• Only a third of social networking sites responded to user reports asking for help
• 40% of social networking sites assessed make minors’ personal information visible only by their friends by default
• Only 11 out of 22 make it impossible for the private profiles of minors to be found through search engines

Related Articles:

>EU Launches Online Consumer Rights Guide

> EU Probes UK Over Internet Privacy

> EU Commissoner Pushers For Independent ICANN