« Data protection and privacy campaigners face a hard time | Main | Bill defines “personal information” to avoid strengthening DPA penalties »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Some time ago I wrote several notes on Google and privacy. The most telling is http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2009/12/only-miscreants-worry-about-net-privacy.html but there are more, loads more!

http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2009/12/all-your-data-is-belong-to-us-google.html is, I think, interesting, too, as, I hope, is http://timtrent.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-pointless-privacy-gesture-from.html

They don't care about me, of course, nor about you. They all feel too big to be touched by regulators. After all, the fine is less than the office donut bill!

Surely it's Microhoogle! SR

I think I'd go for Googoosoft, myself... WG

Regarding your comments relating to there being a loophole, I'm struggling to see how this can be the case. As I'm sure you know, the definition of personal data states that information is personal data if it can be put together with any other data the DC possesses or is likely to come into the possession of that enables the DC to identify the individual.

Given the access to the massive of data that 'Microogloo!' has, surely it's fairly simple to argue that a photo of a property along with it's location plus some other piece of info that Yahooglesoft! has access too will enable that identification?

This feels like a non-issue to me, maybe I'm missing something crucial, I'm sure all the lawyers involved would think so.

The comments to this entry are closed.

All materials on this website are the copyright of Amberhawk Training Limited, except where otherwise stated. If you want to use the information on the blog, all we ask is that you do so in an attributable manner.