Here’s how he puts it in his post on Google+:

I must confess, I am dreading today’s elections.
Not because of who might win or lose.
Not because as a Californian, my vote for President will count 1/3 as much as an Alaskan (actually it won’t matter at all — I’m not in a swing state).
Not because my vote for Senate will count 1/50 as much as an Alaskan.
But because no matter what the outcome, our government will still be a giant bonfire of partisanship.  It is ironic since whenever I have met with our elected officials they are invariably thoughtful, well-meaning people.  And yet collectively 90% of their effort seems to be focused on how to stick it to the other party.
So my plea to the victors — whoever they might be: please withdraw from your respective parties and govern as independents in name and in spirit.  It is probably the biggest contribution you can make to the country.
[If you agree, pass it on to your newly elected officials.]

Come on Sergey, get real. Partisanship has existed since the founding of our republic.  Different people have different ideas about how things should be done and groups coalesce around views and work to get things done.  Nothing wrong with that.

There is something terribly wrong with our political system though and it’s something you can help fix. It’s the way money has completely corrupted the process.

You guys at Google are spending money like drunken sailors in your efforts to buy what polices you want in Washington, DC. To refresh your memory, lobbying disclosures filed in October with the House of Representatives showed Google spent $4.18 million, in the third quarter, a 76 percent increase from $ 2.38 million in the comparable 2011 period. For the first nine months Google’s total lobbying spending hit a record $13.1 million. Google spent $9.68 million in all of 2011.

So, it’s simple.  If you want good government, stop trying to buy our representatives.

Bloomberg’s Sara Forden reported that a majority of the agency’s commissioners are inclined to sue.  Earlier it was reported that the FTC is considering suing Google for favoring its own services in search results.

Chairman Jon Leibowitz has said the Commission will decide by the end of the year and some have speculated a decision could come shortly after the election.

Two years ago Consumer Watchdog called for a broad antitrust action against Google seeking remedial action that could include breaking the Internet giant into separate companies.

“Such action could include breaking Google Inc. into multiple separate companies or regulating it as a public utility,” I wrote at the time. “Google exerts monopoly power over Internet searches, controlling 70 percent of the U.S. market.  For most Americans – indeed, for most people in the world – Google is the gateway to the Internet. How it tweaks its proprietary search algorithms can ensure a business’s success or doom it to failure.”

Earlier in the week the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) wrote Joaguin Almunia, vice president of the European Commission, who has been leading an antitrust probe of Google’s behavior.  He has said that he would prefer to settle the Commission’s concerns without filing a formal case.  One possible settlement that has been reported to be on the table is to require Google to label its own services as getting favorable treatment in search results.

BEUC said that would not be adequate. “Simply requiring Google to label its own vertical search services would not prevent the company from manipulating the search results and discriminating against competing services,” wrote Mononique Goyens, BEUC’s executive director.

A 2010 Consumer Watchdog study, Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing out Competitors and Muscling Into New Markets, demonstrated how with the launch of Universal Search Google favored its own properties and services in search results to the detriment of its competitors. One stark example was the dramatic drop-off in traffic that occurred on Mapquest’s site after Google placed its Google Maps at the top of Universal Search.

Goyens letter continued:”

“We expect the European Commission to take a strong stance and protect consumers by exercising its powers under the treaties to sanction dominate companies who abuse the dominance to the detriment of consumer welfare. Net and search neutrality are the guiding principles that must be preserved in order to protect the open Internet.“

I couldn’t agree more and there are increasing signs that the FTC on this side of the Atlantic is coming to that point of view as well.

The tentative deal does not “prevent Google from continuing to profit from the misconduct that it previously engaged in,” Consumer Watchdog says. “Indeed, it permits Google to continue to profit from its wrongdoing indefinitely,” the group argues. The organization says the settlement should be rejected because it’s not in the public interest.

If approved by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco, the deal would resolve charges against Google stemming from allegations that the company developed a workaround to Safari’s no-tracking settings. Google — which also faces a potential class-action lawsuit over the alleged hack — did not admit wrongdoing in the case.

Google allegedly bypassed Safari’s settings to enable Safari users to like ads with the +1 button. But once the workaround was in place, Google’s DoubleClick was able to track people in order to target ads to them. Google promised that it will allow all tracking cookies that it set on Safari users expire by next year as part of the settlement.

But Consumer Watchdog says Google should do more than let the cookies expire. The group wants Google to delete all data — including IP addresses — collected from Safari users.

Consumer Watchdog also says that Google shouldn’t be able to draw on aggregated data gathered from Safari users for analytics. The group argues that the information collected from those people “can still be used to target others (sometimes called ‘lookalikes’) who exhibit similar behaviors.”

“The proposed order could prevent this result simply by requiring Google to expunge the wrongfully collected data from its database,” the group argues.

Earlier, Consumer Watchdog filed papers opposing the settlement for three reasons. First, the group said the “miniscule” $22.5 million penalty was too low. Second, Consumer Watchdog argued that the settlement should include an injunction prohibiting Google from deceiving users about privacy. And third, the group said Google should be required to admit liability in the case.

The government said in its response, filed last month, that a fine of $22.5 million was appropriate based on its estimate that Google’s profits from the Safari hack amounted to just $4 million. “Assuming … that Google is a profit-maximizing company, it makes no sense for it to engage in a behavior that costs more than the revenue it would earn,” the FTC argued in its court papers.

Consumer Watchdog challenges that $4 million figure. “The government has not given this court any insight into how it made its calculations,” the organization argues, adding that it needs more evidence from Google in order to determine the extent of profits from the workaround.

But current and former representatives for Romney told BNA that he understands that consumer information should be protected and would likely be open to reviewing the White House plan.

Romney’s mostly job-focused campaign team has not yet indicated whether the nominee, if elected, would pursue the existing White House plan or change course, despite a growing debate over the adequacy of federal privacy protections for consumers’ personal data. In the meantime, his overall platform and priorities as a candidate provide some important clues, according to observers.

“I think Romney would let the effort die,” said John Simpson, privacy project director for Consumer Watchdog, a Washington-based public interest group. “He’s an advocate of less regulation on business, so I don’t see much hope that he would be would be concerned about privacy.”

Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University and a former chief privacy counselor for the Clinton administration, went further, characterizing Romney as an out-of-touch candidate who does not appear to grasp the importance of protecting consumers from privacy intrusions in the age of smartphones and social networking websites.

“He lacks a vision for technology policy generally–broadband, spectrum, what it will take to have the best possible infrastructure for the information economy,” he told BNA.

A Romney campaign spokeswoman, asked about consumer privacy initiatives the Republican candidate might pursue as president and whether he supports the White House plan, said: “Modern commerce requires trust between consumers and businesses. Mitt Romney knows that this trust depends on clear rules of the road for how consumers’ information must be protected and can be used. As president, he will review the regulatory regime to ensure that strong and transparent protections are in place.”

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney proposed related state legislation aimed at curbing identity theft by requiring businesses to notify consumers affected by a data security breach. President Obama’s privacy bill of rights proposal would establish much broader protections at the federal level (11 PVLR 355, 2/27/12).

Under the White House plan, the Federal Trade Commission would for the first time be given authority to enforce general privacy standards governing consumer data-handling practices across the business community, both online and offline.

“I think Governor Romney would certainly be open to reviewing something like that,” Beth Lindstrom, a former Massachusetts consumer affairs director under Romney, told BNA. “Ultimately, I think he would try to strike the right balance between consumer rights and regulatory concerns.”

Patchwork of Laws in Place.

Currently, the United States has narrow federal privacy standards that include rules governing medical records under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and financial data under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. In addition, the FTC has claimed broad authority to address consumer privacy concerns under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits “unfair and deceptive” practices. Companies that fail to honor their online privacy policies, for example, may be charged with committing “deception” under the act.

By contrast, the European Union has had a comprehensive data protection regime in place since the 1990s. EU policymakers are now in the process of drafting updated rules. A proposal announced in January includes a “right to be forgotten” principle that would permit individuals to demand the removal of their personal information from the internet (11 PVLR 178, 1/30/12).

Privacy advocates have long been pushing for adoption of a broad, EU-like framework in the United States. But leading U.S. industry groups maintain that a shift toward the European model could create unnecessary regulatory burdens and harm the economy.

Driving the debate is the growing use of the internet and wireless devices and an explosion of consumer data collection.

During the 2008 presidential race, Obama released a general technology policy document in which he promised to, among other objectives, “strengthen privacy protections for the digital age” and hold government and businesses accountable for violations of personal privacy (7 PVLR 1538, 10/27/08).

White House Seeks New Framework.

A report unveiled by the White House earlier this year urged Congress to pass a “privacy bill of rights” that would apply in the private sector. Businesses would be required to respect general privacy principles, such as transparency, as they collect, use, or share consumer data.

The administration has offered to work with lawmakers to enact such legislation. However, key Republicans have said there are a number of issues that must be carefully examined first, including the potential impact on businesses.

Meanwhile, with no immediate hopes for legislative action, the administration is moving forward with facilitating the development of voluntary privacy codes of conduct based on its proposed bill of rights (11 PVLR 1409, 9/17/12). The process is being handled by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, a component of the Department of Commerce.

Under the plan, a company’s failure to implement a privacy code after committing to doing so could be treated by the FTC as having violated Section 5 of the FTC Act.

NTIA is currently working with a variety of stakeholders, including consumer advocates and business representatives, to come up with a code for mobile application developers.

“By contrast, the Romney campaign website has no mention of privacy, identity theft, or even technology policy that I could find,” Swire said.

Christopher Wolf, partner and director of Privacy and Information Management Practice at Hogan Lovells LLP, in Washington, noted that the 2012 Democratic Party platform endorsed the administration’s privacy bill of rights, while Republicans were silent on the issue (11 PVLR 1378, 9/10/12).

“Given Governor Romney’s aversion to regulation of business generally, one can expect that the current executive branch initiatives to improve consumer privacy will not continue in a Romney administration,” said Wolf, who also serves as a founder and co-chair of the Future of Privacy Forum, a Washington-based think tank. “In addition, one can expect any Romney appointments to the FTC to be conservative and averse to aggressive enforcement under Section 5 [of the FTC Act].”

Active Enforcement Under Obama.

Under Obama, the federal agencies responsible for consumer privacy protection have been more active than at any other time in U.S. history, according to Lisa Sotto, head of the Privacy and Information Management Practice at Hunton & Williams LLP. She noted, for example, that David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, has “unquestionably” kept a promise that he made early in his tenure to broaden the agency’s privacy enforcement agenda.

“Under a Romney administration, I suspect we would see much greater reticence to act in such an undaunted manner,” Sotto told BNA. “There would likely be a more forgiving attitude toward privacy incursions that do not result in physical harm or financial loss. The idea that ‘harm to human dignity’ could be actionable under Section 5 of the FTC Act likely would garner less sympathy under a Romney administration.”

Mark Schreiber, a partner in the Boston office of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, told BNA that Romney’s approach to protecting consumer privacy would probably be “considerably different” in tone and direction from that of the Obama administration.

“The Republicans assert that Obama’s policies are too focused on regulation, so something like a consumer privacy bill of rights has little or no chance of being pursued in a Romney administration,” Schreiber said.

Ryan Radia, an associate director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Washington-based think tank that advocates limited government, offered similar observations, noting that Romney has emphasized regulatory restraint and pledged to cut federal red tape.

However, he predicted that consumer privacy will be a priority for the next president no matter who wins the election, given the growing importance of the issue.

“A Romney administration might be more skeptical of prescriptive privacy regulation than the current administration, instead preferring to address privacy challenges through voluntary market solutions induced by competitive discipline,” Radia told BNA.

By Alexei Alexis

The White House report on consumer privacy is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/email-files/privacy_white_paper.pdf.

The settlement, the largest ever secured by the FTC for violating one of its orders, was announced in August but quickly drew criticism from privacy advocates. They complained the terms are too soft on Google and that the fine—a fraction of the $38 billion Google recorded in 2011 revenue—amounts to a slap on the wrist.

While the FTC and Google came up with the settlement, it needs to be approved by a judge, which is what next month’s hearing is about. Consumer Watchdog, an advocacy group that has been critical of Google’s privacy measures, will argue that the court should not sign off on the deal.

Among the group’s complaints: that the deal allows Google to deny any wrongdoing, that it won’t prevent it from doing the same thing again, and that it requires Google to destroy only the cookies and not the information gained from the tracking, said John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director.

The group will be represented by Silicon Valley antitrust lawyer Gary Reback, whose work influenced the U.S. Department of Justice when it decided to sue Microsoft in the late 1990s in a landmark antitrust case.

The hearing will take place November 16 at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

Martyn Williams covers mobile telecoms, Silicon Valley and general technology breaking news for The IDG News Service. Follow Martyn on Twitter at @martyn_williams. Martyn’s e-mail address is martyn_williams@idg.com

“Google and Facebook would have you believe that they are different from other corporations,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “They are not. They are following the corrupt corporate tradition in Washington: buying what you want.”

Lobby disclosures filed this week with the House of Representatives showed Google spent $4.18 million, in the third quarter, a 76 percent increase from $ 2.38 million in the comparable 2011 period. For the first nine months Google’s total lobbying spending hit a record $13.1 million. Google spent $9.68 million in all of 2011.

Facebook spent nearly a million dollars, $980,000, topping the $960,000 spent the previous quarter and 172 percent above the $360,000 spent in the third quarter of 2011. For the first three quarters of the year, Facebook has spent almost $2.6 million, compared to $910,000 during the comparable 2011 period.

Go to the House of Representatives Lobbying Disclosure Database here: http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/ldsearch.aspx

Other tech company lobbying in the third quarter included:

– Apple spent $460,000, the same amount as the previous year.

– Amazon spent $550,000 compared to $450,000 in the third quarter of 2011

– Microsoft spent $1.86 million, down slightly from $1.88 million in 2011

- 30 -

Visit our website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

Almost no one noticed, however, even though Microsoft’s policy changes are much the same as those that Google made to its privacy rules this year.

Google’s expanded powers drew scathing criticism from privacy advocates, probing inquiries from regulators and broadside attacks from rivals. Those included Microsoft, which bought full-page newspaper ads telling Google users that Google did not care about their privacy, an accusation it quickly denied.

The difference in the two events illustrates the confusion surrounding Internet consumer privacy. No single authority oversees the collection of personal information from Web users by Internet companies. Though most companies have written privacy policies, they are often stated in such broad, ambiguous language that they seem to allow virtually any use of customers’ personal information.

Web companies like Microsoft and Google have been moving aggressively to expand their abilities to gather and sort information about individuals’ habits and interests — even as Congress, federal regulators and the Obama administration have been seeking ways to protect Internet users against unwanted privacy incursions.

Microsoft’s policy, which it calls its Services Agreement, allows it to analyze customer content from one its free products and use it to improve another service — for example, taking information from messages a consumer sends on Windows Live Messenger and using it to improve messaging services on Xbox.
Previously, that kind of sharing of information between products would not have been allowed under Microsoft policies, which limited the use of data collected under one of its products to that product alone.

Microsoft has promised, however, that it will not use the personal information and content it collects to sell targeted advertising. It will not, for example, scan a consumer’s e-mails to generate ads that might interest the user. Google does that, and expanding its ability to draw on that content was part of the reason Google changed its privacy policy this year.

But the new Microsoft policy does allow for such targeted advertising. Microsoft promised not to do so in blog posts and e-mails informing its customers about the change, but not in the formal policy. That has some privacy advocates nervous.

”What Microsoft is doing is no different from what Google did,” said John M. Simpson, who monitors privacy policy for Consumer Watchdog, a California nonprofit group. ”It allows the combination of data across services in ways a user wouldn’t reasonably expect. Microsoft wants to be able to compile massive digital dossiers about users of its services and monetize them.”

Jack Evans, a Microsoft spokesman, says the company’s plans are benign. He differentiates between the Services Agreement, also known as the terms of use, that was changed on Friday and the company’s Privacy Policy, which was last updated in April.

”Over the years, we have consistently informed users that we may use their content to improve the services they receive,” Mr. Evans said in a written statement. ”For instance, we analyze content to improve our spam and malware filters in order to keep customers safe. We also do it to develop new product features such as e-mail categorization to organize similar items like shipping receipts in a common folder, or to automatically add calendar invitations.

”However,” he added, ”one thing we don’t do is use the content of our customers’ private communications and documents to create targeted advertising. If that ever changes, we’ll be the first to let our customers know.”

Microsoft’s new services agreement affects only its free, Web-based products, not the software programs that individuals and companies buy off the shelf for home or business use. It covers Hotmail, and its related e-mail service, Outlook.com, but not the Outlook e-mail and calendar program that is individually loaded onto computer hard drives and widely used by corporations. Bing, its search engine, is covered, but Internet Explorer, its browser, is not.

Microsoft’s pledge not to use the data from its Web services to target advertising has some credibility, given the company’s broader privacy initiatives. The company has said it will include a ”do not track” feature in
its new Internet Explorer 10 Web browser that prevents online advertising companies from monitoring the browsing habits of users so they can target promotions. Microsoft has made ”do not track” the default setting on the new version of Explorer, a move that has caused a firestorm among online advertising companies.

Microsoft’s push to provide better privacy protections for consumers comes at a time when its efforts in Internet advertising have sputtered. Online advertising remains a small fraction of Microsoft’s overall business, accounting for $2.6 billion, or about 3.5 percent, of the company’s revenue during its last fiscal
year, which ended June 30, according to Microsoft’s filings with securities regulators.

But it is easy to see how Microsoft customers might be confused, because the different divisions of Microsoft that draft and oversee its user agreements and privacy policies did not anticipate that the changes in the services agreement would raise privacy questions.

The drafters of the service agreement, a more technical bunch, thought the changes were so small that they were mentioned in August in a specialty ”Volume Licensing” blog dedicated to commercial customers, but seemingly nowhere else on Microsoft’s vast array of corporate Web sites.

Microsoft also sent an e-mail about the change in late August to all of its 325 million Hotmail users. But those notices became the subject of nervous online chatter when some users learned that a similar message, using the same template, was being used by hackers to distribute harmful malware. Online message boards warned against even opening the messages.

Inside Microsoft, officials were focused not on whether the policy changes affected privacy but rather on a different change, one that limits the ability of Microsoft customers to sue the company, including in a class action, over its products. The new agreement requires the use of binding arbitration.

Mr. Evans said the change put in place on Friday in the Services Agreement ”did not alter our existing privacy policies.” Those policies include a 4,000-word main policy and at least 16 related product-specific privacy policies.

That itself is an example of how users cannot possibly know what Internet companies are doing with their personal information, said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a consumer protection group based in Washington.

”No one understands how all this data is being put together and being used,” he said. ”All of these companies are in a digital arms race to tie together all the information they have about individuals. For companies like Google and Microsoft, the real goal is to expand market share.”

Google’s disappointing third quarter results were posted by a contractor to the Securities and Exchange Commission before Google intended.  The stock plunged nearly 10 percent and Google asked for trading to be suspended.

“Now CEO Larry Page really knows what it’s like to have your private data made public before you wanted it out there,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “He ought to think long and hard about that, because his company violates the privacy of millions of its users daily.”

Google’s entire business model is based on amassing digital dossiers about its users and selling ads against them. You are Google’s product, not its customer, Consumer Watchdog noted.

“Google users don’t have the right to say no to disclosure of their information. They cannot stop the trading of such information, the way Google asked to suspend trading its stock,” said Simpson.

Google says its mission is to organize the world’s information and make it accessible, Consumer Watchdog said.

“The oracle of transparency should take heed of what it means to be bitten by information you don’t yet want public,” Simpson said. “Google’s founders should now know what it feels like to have private information become public and give all users the right to suspend public trading of the their data through a meaningful Do Not Track Option.”

- 30 -

Visit our Website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

Google on Wednesday threw open the doors of its Lenoir, N.C. data center to the public, posting a virtual tour of the facility on Street View.

Meanwhile, a detailed story about the facility by author Stephen Levy, who toured the data center by invitation, is running in Wired.

Add to that a new section on the Google website that contains photos from Google’s various data centers, and you’ve got a regular media campaign.

“This is clearly about getting … publicity that isn’t negative,” Randy Abrams, a research director at NSS Labs, told TechNewsWorld. “Google can’t possibly find enough avenues to attempt to show they’re not evil.”

Recently, Google has had to fend off regulatory heat from the European Commission and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over the consolidation of its privacy policies.

Or perhaps Google “is trying to get people to open up the insides of their buildings for view and are using this as a way to drive that behavior,” Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, speculated. The White House is among the buildings with their insides detailed in Google Maps Street View.

The Lenoir Data Center’s Innards

The Lenoir data center photos put up by Google could be that of any data center’s insides except perhaps for the scale.

You kick off with shots of the front door and the parking lot.

Once inside, apart from close-ups of cabinets and a step ladder, you might as well be walking through a new box store that’s just been set up and is waiting to be stocked. One shot has ceiling-to-floor blue curtains and a cage.

What About Security?

Google has always been highly aware, almost paranoid, about security. Back in March, Google reportedly built servers in the dark at a colocation host.

What has changed?

Some say Google’s trying to keep pace with Facebook and other companies, which have released information about their data centers to the public.

Or perhaps Google’s not really giving away any critical information.

“There are very few people who would even try to exploit the knowledge of where the data centers are, and those who would can probably obtain the information by other means,” NSS Labs’ Abrams pointed out.

“Google doesn’t have to change any practices, change any code, or demonstrate greater respect for their users by showing pictures of their data centers,” Abrams continued. “It’s all sizzle and no steak.”

The people at Google “have no problem with people seeing what’s inside some of these areas,” Enderle told TechNewsWorld. “Security is about physical access.” Further, Google “can make the inside look like anything they want, they don’t have to show what’s actually there.”

The Privacy Problem

The virtual tour “would help create the image that Google is just as open as they want us to be, regardless of the fact that they really aren’t,” Enderle stated. “One of their historic problems is that they are very private but don’t appear to believe that others need to be.”

That image of openness may well be needed — Google’s consolidation of its more than 70 privacy policies across all its products in March sparked outrage among privacy advocates, and led some users to state they’d cancel their Google accounts.

The EU now is reportedly demanding the company revise its privacy policy consolidation. The French data privacy regulator CNIL, which led the EU’s inquiry into this move, has given Google three or four months to change it or face litigation from multiple EU members.

Google responded that its privacy notices respect European law, a statement that John Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s privacy project director, dismissed as Orwellian.

“Putting a data center on Street View is a gimmick,” Simpson told TechNewsWorld. “It doesn’t reveal anything meaningful about how Google does business. Google says it wants to organize the world’s information and make it more accessible but, when it comes to its own information and procedures, the company remains a black box.”

Consumer Watchdog, which opposes Google’s privacy policy consolidation, praised the EU’s move and called on the FTC to take action against Google.

A European Union group on Tuesday sought changes to Google’s recently updated privacy policy, including urging the company to release more information about its use of the personal data it collects on users.

On Tuesday, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, which identifies itself as an advisory group made up of government privacy watchdogs throughout Europe, sent a letter to Google detailing concerns about the Mountain View, Calif.-based company’s new, simplified privacy policy.

Put in effect March 1, that policy replaced some 60 individual policies across Google products, including YouTube and Search. The company billed the changes as a streamlining of its privacy policy, creating a single overarching policy that customers could agree to and be covered for most or all Google services they were using.

But the European group, along with EU Data Protection Authorities, says the changes have made it easier for Google to “combine almost any data from any services for any purposes.” In short, the EU board is arguing that sharing data across different services gives Google too much leeway to possibly use collected data in ways that users hadn’t intended them to be used.

“Combination of data, like any other processing of personal data, requires an appropriate legal ground,” Tuesday’s letter reads, “and should not be incompatible with the purpose for which these data were collected.”

Peter Fleischer, Google’s global privacy counsel, told IBD via an emailed statement that he’s now reviewing the report.

“Our new privacy policy demonstrates our long-standing commitment to protecting our users’ information and creating great products,” Fleischer said. “We are confident that our privacy notices respect European law.”

The regulators make the case that Google, as “a leader in the online world,” should be proactive in engaging with governments.

“Indeed, the Privacy Policy suggests the absence of any limit concerning the scope of the collection and the potential uses of the personal data,” write the members of the working party.

The letter says there are three main “legal issues” with the new policy. Google provides “insufficient information to users,” the “investigation confirmed our concerns about the combination of data across services” and Google “failed to provide retention periods for the personal data is processes.”

John Simpson, of Consumer Watchdog, a group critical of Google, says in a statement that Google acted with “complete disregard” for users’ privacy.

“I am glad the European Union is calling out their abuses, but am disappointed that American consumers must look across the Atlantic to see privacy rights defended,” Simpson said.

Google shares were up a fraction in afternoon trading Tuesday.

SANTA MONICA, CA – Consumer Watchdog today praised the European data commissioners for rebuking Google’s unilateral merging of privacy policies and data across its various product lines and called on the Federal Trade Commission to act to protect U.S. consumers.

“Google acted in complete disregard for legitimate privacy concerns,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project director. “I am glad that the European Union is calling out their abuses, but am disappointed that American consumers must look across the Atlantic to see privacy rights defended.  The FTC should move on this as well.”

Last January Google announced it would, effective last March 1, combine data gathered through different services that it had previously kept separate, without letting consumers agree to the new data uses. At the time Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, an association of the data commissioners from the European Union, wrote Google CEO Larry Page seeking to postpone the changes, while they studied their impact.  Google refused and implemented the changes March 1.

The French data protection authority, the CNIL, was charged by the Working Party with determining if the law was broken. Meanwhile, in the United States 36 states attorneys general also expressed concerns about the changes.

Today European data protection authorities told Google to clarify the new privacy policy and make it easier for users to opt out of it because of concerns that the Internet giant is collecting too much data and holding it for too long.

CNIL said Google would have three or four months to comply with the data authorities’ recommendations.  The company would likely face fines if they do not.

Google’s initial reaction was to stiff the regulators:

“Our new privacy policy demonstrates our long-standing commitment to protecting our users’ information and creating great products. We are confident that our privacy notices respect European law,” Peter Fleischer, global privacy counsel at Google, said in a statement.

“Google’s Orwellian response demonstrates the Internet giant’s arrogance.  Google executives believe they always know what’s best for everybody and see no need to listen to regulators,” said Simpson.  “This approach will come back to haunt them.”

CNIL outlined three main concerns about the new privacy policy:

– It’s not clear enough in explaining to users what data is collected and how it will be used.

– It’s too difficult for users to opt out of data collection and combination.

– Google doesn’t make clear how long it will retain data.

-30-

Visit Consumer Watchdog’s website at www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

Hours after Gov. Jerry Brown signs a bill authorizing state regulations for autonomous vehicles by 2015, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, whose members account for 77% of all car and light-truck sales in the U.S., warns of the need to go slow.

“If the state’s intention is to promote autonomous vehicles, all the concerns – like liability – need to be properly addressed in advance or we can expect a bumpy road ahead,” the group says in a statement.

The new law marks the culmination of what at least some observers describe as a fast-tracked deliberation process fueled by a turbocharged lobbying effort by Google, which is testing a fleet of a dozen or so computer-controlled vehicles. The Internet data company says its self-driven fleet has logged more than 300,000 miles (483,000 km) without an accident.

Even though the manufacturing alliance says it “strongly” endorses advanced technology, including autonomous technology, “policy issues must be resolved before autonomous vehicles may legally operate in California.”

The new legislation offers no protection to the maker of a vehicle that has been converted to an autonomous unit without the consent or even knowledge of the manufacturer, the trade organization argues.

Vehicles currently are designed to be operated by people who are expected to maintain control and operate them safely, but SB 1298, the newly signed bill, “envisions autonomous vehicles where responsibility for safe operation rests on the autonomous system,” the group says.

The alliance’s concerns are shared by interests throughout the automotive and high-tech fields.

A year ago, computer-security company McAfee released a report, “Caution: Malware Ahead,” outlining emerging risks in automotive-system security. The analysis examined vehicle electrical systems and embedded devices such as airbags, radios, power seats, antilock brakes, electronic stability controls, autonomous cruise controls and communication technology.

“Each interface serves as a motivator and means for an attacker to access the vehicle,” says one of the McAfee reports researchers, Stefan Goss, a professor of automotive technology at Germany’s Ostfalia University of Applied Sciences. “We can expect new challenges to protecting the changing interface of embedded systems in cars.

“I expect a new chapter of car security in the next two car generations.”

Stuart McClure, senior vice president and general manager at McAfee says, “It’s one thing to have your email or laptop compromised, but having your car hacked could translate to dire risks to your personal safety.”

The McAfee report and similar recent studies expand on the foundational research done by the since-disbanded Center for Automotive Embedded Systems Security, a collaborative project between the University of California-San Diego and University of Washington, which determined onboard vehicle computer systems will be increasingly vulnerable to malicious attacks as user-connective technology expands.

In their 2011 study, “Comprehensive Experimental Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces,” project researchers conclude remote exploitation of a vehicle “is feasible via a broad range of attack vectors (including mechanics’ tools, CD players, Bluetooth and cellular radio) and, further, that wireless communications channels allow long-distance vehicle control, location tracking, in-cabin audio exfiltration and theft.”

Consumer privacy also is at risk through the new legislation, says John Simpson, privacy project supervisor for the nonprofit advocacy group Consumer Watchdog.

California’s new driverless-auto law “gives the user no control over what data will be gathered and how the information will be used,” Simpson tells WardsAuto. “That’s where we have a problem.”

Several recent consumer surveys, including the “2012 Online and Mobile Privacy Perceptions Report” issued by San Francisco-based TRUSTe privacy management solutions company, suggest consumer concerns over privacy issues are rising across all age ranges.

After interviewing 1,033 U.S. adults and 554 U.S. smartphone users at least 18 years old, TRUSTe discovered 94% of consumers consider privacy an important issue, with 58% expressly indicating they “do not like” online behavioral advertising.

The report found 42% of smartphone users identify privacy and security as top concerns, with an overwhelming majority, 85%, saying they won’t download mobile apps they don’t trust.

The TRUSTe research suggests 60% of those adults surveyed are more concerned about their online privacy today than a year ago, while 49% now check for independent privacy certification or seals, up from 41% in 2011.

All those numbers indicate “a clear sign that consumers are becoming more aware and diligent in looking after their privacy online,” the report says.

Perhaps equally significant, the TRUSTe report and other studies show decidedly more privacy-conscious attitudes among members of the so-called Y- or Millennial-Generation consumers, those generally born from the late 1970s to early 2000s, a group the auto industry is targeting with many of its latest innovations.

Further data collected by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers finds seven out of every 10 car buyers are interested in driver-assisting technologies such as adaptive cruise control, blindspot monitoring, lane-departure warning, drowsy-driver alerts and 360-degree cameras.

However, a similar majority favors “technologies that provide alerts over the autonomous car,” because there’s still great distrust of “totally self-driving” vehicles in the general marketplace, the association says.

Citing Google’s widely criticized track record of protecting user privacy, Simpson contends “consumers must have the right to give opt-in consent before any data gathered through driverless car technology is used for any purpose other than driving the vehicle.”

But, he laments, the new driverless law demonstrates safeguarding personal privacy is not “high on people’s priorities right now.”

If the collection of personal data in autonomous vehicles remains unchecked, “then a car trip will no longer just be about going from Point A to Point B. Now it’ll be all about how you go and where you stop along the way,” Simpson says.

“I’m not a Luddite. I see this technology coming, and I see it playing a very useful role,” Simpson says. “All I’m saying is we should be setting these privacy issues from the get-go. Ensure privacy by design.”