I can't talk for the rest of the EU but in Germany privacy issues tend to get blown out of proportion - the media coverage during the street view controversy was rather ridiculous. Average, non-technical people almost thought Google would drive through their backyards.
It's ok to disagree with Google's and Facebook's behaviour and it's ok to take measures but I wish the media would focus on balanced and objective coverage, educating people rather than calling for drama and hysteria.
"In Germany privacy issues tend to get blown out of proportion."
Gosh, I wonder why? I mean, what is it about German history - in particular - that would trigger such powerful negative reactions to the technical foundations of a surveillance state?
As I assume you're referring to the 3rd Reich, let me add that you don't even have to go back to the 30s for this - the DDR had a surveillance state courtesy of the Stasi until the wall came down.
Also consider that Kaiser Wilhelm basically denounced civil liberties as an excuse for Serbia not reining in the press following Archduke Ferdinand's assassination.
There's no reason to take this as referring specifically to the 3rd Reich. Germany has a relatively recent tradition of civil liberties with a lot of abuses still in living memory, and many more abuses in the recent history books.
I don't think this is necessarily related to the Third Reich, but more about common sense. How much should a private company with the reach of Facebook and Google should collect about their users?
@thedaniel has it exactly right. The really dark shadow looming in German imaginations is the Stasi's.
Keep in mind, if you were 18 when the Wall came down, you're only 41 today, so these aren't vague or abstract fears. You actually grew up with the world's most terrifying police force running microphones into your apartment. To give you some idea of how pervasive they really were, the Stasi had one informer per 6.5 people, which is practically a spy in every family. By comparison, the Gestapo employed one secret policeman per 2,000 people.
As the article above notes, "It was widely regarded as one of the most effective and repressive intelligence and secret police agencies in the world." And no, you don't go from escaping that to ignorant bliss in half a generation.
I am from germany and grew up in the former DDR - however I can clearly see the difference between a government secretly using extensive surveillance to control people and a feature in a service that everyone is free to opt-out of (street view, not facebook photo tags - you should really have to opt-in to the latter). My argument is not about agreeing or disagrreing with street view though. I'm just disappointed with the widespread misinformation that surrounded the whole issue - some people literally assumed that street view would be a live feed into their homes. The media should have done a better job at educating people.
Generally there is a lot of bias against Google over here. This goes as far as publishers and newspapers heavy lobbying for a law that would force Google to pay for indexing content excerpts in Google News. And they almost got away with it. Of course as a publisher you were able to configure how and if Google should index your content (Headline only, headline + excerpt, full content or no indexing at all). However as you can imagine publishers weren't interested in that but preferred Google to pay for referring users to their content. It's insane.
The picture of Google that is painted here doesn't feel fair at all. Of course it's ok to disagree with Google's data collecting behaviour - you're free to use alternative services, there are enough options. But selling targeted ads simply is their business. Think about the alternative: Let's assume Google didn't collect that data - they still need to display ads though. Ads are still ads, but now they are a lot less relevant to you and simply guessing what you might be interested in.
The problem is you can't truly opt out: other people opt you in by using the service. Don't want Google to have your address? Tough, your friend gave it to them in their address book. Want to keep your birthday private? Same problem. Photos? Untag them, but they still know you were tagged. Don't want to untag? Disable it, but they still know it's you.
A friend sharing my information is a totally different scenario. That person would have been entrusted with your information only after your consent. Since there is no legal obligation on his or her part to keep the information private (there is of course some social obligation) the person had every right to share it with others and on Facebook or Google. Unfortunately we are just beginning to realize the issues with such an open system where detailed documentation has just started, how we go from here is totally up to us. But I don't think we can hold Facebook or Google legally responsible for what our friends are doing, at least not yet.
Users might not be even aware of how the data is being shared, or if it's being shared at all.
I signed up to Facebook under a pseudonym recently, but with an old work email address. I only wanted it as a throwaway account. The auto friend suggests were there soon enough and uncanny. It took me a few moments to realise the links had been made through my email address. I had not shared address book data.
It became apparent that the suggestions were a result of other people's address books (not necessarily friends as it was a work address.)
Some suggestions were a bit of an enigma. I'm not sure how Facebook draws up these connections but I guess they'd taken friends of friends of those that had me listed in their address books.
What surprised me was that the address book data shared from the other accounts, was obviously kept with Facebook for later use. For some reason I thought it would be used once then thrown away (how naive of me.) It felt a little inappropriate to say the least. I felt my addressbook had been mysteriously revealed. This could potentially be abused (not sure if the suggestions came up, before I verified the address.)
Soon after, one of those suggested friends tried to friend me. I guess my account came up as a suggestion to them. A little revealing. I should have used a new email address to sign up I guess.
That’s not really what’s happing. Politicians’ campaigns against Facebook and Google are basically FUD. The state (that’s the actor that really matters here) gobbles up data and distracts by pointing at private companies who do comparatively harmless stuff and have next to no power compared to the state.
Privacy should be about the state first and foremost. Not private companies.
While some of it is FUD, I'm pretty sure some governments (at least in Europe) are more concerned about privacy and protection of their citizens than Google and Facebook are. My government's goals are much more aligned with mine than Google's.
I think the street view thing was a deliberate campaign. Many german publishers hate Google with a passion because it eats their advertisement revenue - so much that they are even lobbying for a law passed that would force Google to pay them for indexing their content.
Microsoft started photographing a few months later and no one cared.
The 'Leistungsschutzrecht'? That was really ridiculous. Publishers could simply opt-out from being indexed but of course being paid for providing snippets of content on Google News sounded like a nicer option.
It's ok to disagree with Google's and Facebook's behaviour and it's ok to take measures but I wish the media would focus on balanced and objective coverage, educating people rather than calling for drama and hysteria.