[sandstrom]

I guess it depends on what you read into it.

But when I read this it seems like they are unhappy with Google no longer enforcing their view of fingerprinting:

    We think this change is irresponsible. [...] We are continuing to 
    engage with Google on this U-turn in its position and the departure it
    represents from our expectation of a privacy-friendly internet.

[IanCal]

Yes, they call it out as a bad change and are making a statement that it will be hard for companies who use this to justify it.

[swores]

They (ICO) are saying two things, they're saying that regardless of Google's policy they will go after companies they find to be using fingerprinting to bypass a user's right to privacy (this is the part you've focussed on), and they're also saying that Google should cancel this change and return to having it banned as their policy, with the implication that Google actively policies their own policy and would therefore prevent people from doing fingerprinting without ICO having to get involved (which is what the person you originally replied to was focussing on).

Their comment that you said you didn't understand made complete sense in the context of that aspect of the ICO's post, but you seemed to not see a link between the ICO wanting Google to reinstate the ban and seeing that as Google policing that subject on their network.

[IanCal]

> and would therefore prevent people from doing fingerprinting without ICO having to get involved (which is what the person you originally replied to was focussing on).

But that simply isn't true in the broad sense. It would stop some or even a large number of people from doing it in one area, but it doesn't stop it happening.

> but you seemed to not see a link between the ICO wanting Google to reinstate the ban and seeing that as Google policing that subject on their network.

I obviously see the link there.

The comment said several things, which really doesn't line up with the post. It accused the ICO of going after google rather than businesses and said that stopped businesses being able to test it in the courts.

However businesses can implement fingerprinting, the ICO can act and this can be tested.

The comment likened this to bullying companies into enforcing policies, and said it left them with no legal recourse. But there are no threats, no action from the ICO against google (except "will engage with google"), businesses can still implement these things and it can go to court.

Let's go through it and why I don't understand their point.

> One thing that strikes me reading this, is that the only thing that's changed is that Google won't disallow it.

Yep, this is right, google are changing a policy which will give a lot of businesses the ability to do something that the ICO thinks is extremely unlikely to be lawful.

> But I think it would make more sense if the ICO actually just went after the companies doing fingerprinting directly,

This is what they're saying they'll do

> instead of being angry at Google for not enforcing things for them.

Angry seems like an odd statement here. They call it irresponsible, and I think justify that. I think they could go further since this will likely result in google profiting

> There is a subtle but important difference here.

> If governments enforce policy by bullying HSBC/Google/E.ON to enforce policies for them, there is no legal opportunity for companies and individuals to argue for their sake. You'll just be shut out of your bank/advertising/electricity for doing something "wrong".

> If instead UK ICO would bring a legal case against an individual or company applying fingerprinting (and I'm no advocate of fingerprinting, but that's besides the point) then they can defend themselves in court.

And as I say there's nothing stopping this getting tested in court.

This is a pretty bland post. It's the ICO saying there's a change coming and a warning to businesses that this doesn't mean it's actually allowed, just that google will stop banning it on their network. They're saying they'll come after businesses breaking the rules.

What should they have done? Posted nothing? Not mentioned google?