Don't get me wrong: I'm all for serious privacy ethics, for privacy sensitivity, for privacy by design. But I'm not a fan of privacy-bureaucracy-drag. Europe, as one would expect, developed the world's most extreme form of bureaucracy-drag, when it invented the notion of bureaucratic "prior approval" for new technologies. That means that a new technology is dependent on a bureaucracy's prior approval before being launched.
Researchers from the EDRi group were unable to retrieve such requirements within the proposals, but campaigners and lobbyists are curious about hidden knowledge at Google.
Our decision of 2009 provided the right solution to the competition concerns identified at the time. However, it goes without saying that this type of settled outcome of an antitrust investigation can only work if the commitments are then scrupulously complied with. Our decision of today reflects this requirement to comply with the commitments agreed with the Commission in art. 9 Decisions. The lack of compliance is, as a matter of principle, a serious breach of EU law itself. If companies agree to offer commitments which then become legally binding, they must do what they have committed to do or face the consequences – namely, the imposition of sanctions. I hope this decision will make companies think twice before they even think of intentionally breaching their obligations or even of neglecting their duty to ensure strict compliance.
Parltrack stopped ACTA, now it needs your support to stop the growing threats on our freedom. Parltrack is a heavily used dashboard by major European activists. It is currently in the last hours of a crowdfunding campaign. With your help we can restore some of the balance we lost against corrupt industry interests.
The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts working the moment you get up in the morning, and does not stop until you get to work.
