2. 职称英语
  3. Watchdogs are growling at the web giants, and sometimes biting them. Europea

Watchdogs are growling at the web giants, and sometimes biting them. Europea

游客2024-12-16  0
问题     Watchdogs are growling at the web giants, and sometimes biting them. European data-protection agencies wrote to Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! demanding independent proof that they were making promised changes to protect the privacy of users’ search history. They also urged Google to store sensitive search data for only six months instead of nine.
    Ten privacy and data-protection commissioners from countries including Canada, Germany and Britain wrote a public letter to Eric Schmidt,Google’s boss,demanding changes in Google Buzz,the firm’s social-networking service, which had been criticised for dipping into users’ Gmail accounts to find "followers" for them without clearly explaining what it was doing. Google promptly complied.
    Such run-ins with regulators are likely to multiply and limit the freedom of global Internet firms. It is not just that online privacy has become a controversial issue. More importantly,privacy rules are national, but data flows lightly and instantly across borders,often thanks to companies like Google and F’acebook, which manage vast databases.
    A recent scandal dubbed "Wi-Figate" exemplifies the problem. Google(accidentally, it insists)gathered data from unsecured Wi-Fi networks in people’s homes as part of a project to capture images of streets around the world. A number of regulators launched investigations. Yet their reaction varied widely, even within the European Union, where member states have supposedly aligned their stance on online privacy. Some European regulators ordered Google to preserve the data it had collected in their bailiwicks; others demanded that information related to their countries be destroyed.
    Despite such differences within Europe,the gap is much greater between Europe and America,home to many of the world’s largest online social networks and search engines. European regulations are inspired by the conviction that data privacy is a fundamental human right and that individuals should be in control of how their data are used. America,on the other hand, takes a more relaxed view, allowing people to use consumer-protection laws to seek redress if they feel their privacy has been violated. Companies that handle users’ data are largely expected to police themselves.
    Some experts say this dichotomy explains why Silicon Valley firms that strike out abroad have sometimes been the targets of European Union data watchdogs. Jules Polonetsky of the Future of Privacy Forum,a think tank, says that many American firms have yet to learn that showing up in Europe and extolling the virtues of self-regulation is likely to be as ineffective as rightwing politicians denouncing antidiscrimination laws back home.
    Transatlantic friction between companies and regulators has grown as Europe’s data guardians have become more assertive. Francesca Bignami,a professor at George Washington University’s law school,says that the explosion of digital technologies has made it impossible for watchdogs to keep a close eye on every web company operating in their backyard. So instead they are relying more on scapegoating prominent wrongdoers in the hope that this will deter others.
    But regulators such as Peter Schaar?who heads Germany’s federal data-protection agency, say the gulf is exaggerated. Some European countries, he points out, now have rules that make companies who suffer big losses of customer data to report these to the authorities. The inspiration for these measures comes from America.
    Yet even Mr. Schaar admits that the Internet’s global scale means that there will need to be changes on both sides of the Atlantic. He hints that Europe might adopt a more flexible regulatory stance if America were to create what amounts to an independent data-protection body along European lines. In Europe, where the flagship Data Protection Directive came into effect in 1995,before firms such as Google and Facebook were even founded, the European Commission is conducting a review of its privacy policies. In America,Congress has begun debating a new privacy bill and the Federal Trade Commission is considering an overhaul of its rules. David Vladeck,the head of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, has acknowledged that "existing privacy frameworks have limitations".
    Even if America and Europe do narrow their differences, Internet firms will still have to grapple with other data watchdogs. In Asia, countries that belong to APEC are trying to develop a set of regional guidelines for privacy rules under an initiative known as the Data Privacy Pathfinder. Some countries such as Australia and New Zealand have longstanding privacy laws,but many emerging nations have yet to roll out fully fledged versions of their own. Mr. Polonetsky sees Asia as "a new privacy battleground", with America and Europe both keen to tempt countries towards their own regulatory model. Shoehorning such firms into antiquated privacy frameworks will not benefit either them or their users. [br] The best title for the passage is
选项 A、European and American Watchdogs.
B、The Clash of Data Civilisations.
C、Regulators and Internet Companies.
D、Legal Confusion on Privacy.
答案 B
解析 主旨题。全文主旨在于提及不同地区监管机构对于互联网数据的不同态度。[B]意为“数据文明的冲突”，clash体现出不同态度，而data civilisations又将互联网公司和监管机构法规两层含义表达出来，故为答案。[A]项没有具体指明监管机构的内容，此外文章最后还提到了亚洲的监管机构，本项无法概括全文主旨，排除；[C]项范围过大，过于笼统，不够明确具体，排除；[D]项干扰性较强，legal confusion表达出监管和监管方法不同这两层含义，但privacy范围过大，文章提到的是Internet privacy，不是泛泛的隐私权，排除本项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/3877175.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)