That also tells us they didn't actually check for every place on their list whether Bard was compliant with local law – they're simply assuming that some small island country's regulators have no power over them.
Åland is squarely part of the European Union. (It’s also never really claimed to be a country, more a cultural exception within a de-colonization effort and a tax loophole.)
The relevant regulator if Google infringes the privacy of someone there would be the central EU authorities.
Indeed, and even the most cursory legal review should have immediately caught that, so probably there was none, and not for the rest of the list either.
For anyone wondering how Google could make that mistake:
- Talk to your data engineers more often: they knew that would happen and they need your shoulder to cry on. Don’t mention “disputed territories” and time zones unless they feel in a safe place.
- Several places are not fully independent countries but are somewhat sovereign. They tend to be listed in lists of ‘countries,’ which is really a list of *‘polities’*. “Polities” include distinctions like the Åland Islands being distinct from mainland Finland. Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily are often not on those lists, despite all having a solid national identity, so those are not always great lists of polities either. And those lists often include military and scientific bases afar, like Antarctic bases and the International Space Station, so… There’s no clear name for it. Essentially, it’s a list of what comes out of a GeoIP lookup.
Like Åland, French Polynesia, French Guyana, Reunion Island, both Saint-Martins (French and Dutch), Azores, and Greenland are all polities with very interesting statuses around the EU. Staying “near” the EU, some scientific bases and areas with hardly any population on that list of polities, too: Kerguelen, French Austral Territory, Tristan de Cunha, etc. Those are more curiosities to give content fodder for Wendover Production and administrative exams than actual legal risks for Google, but I thought I’d pile up, to help you develop empathy for Data engineers building privacy filters.
The point is: there is no “mainland Finland” in the list of polities: just “Finland — FI” one of 27 members of the EU. “French Polynesia - FP”, “French Guyana - FG” and all the others mentioned above are not on that list of 27 country codes either. Therefore, any territory in the EU but listed as a polity might get excluded from hastily configured EU filters, like what Google seems to have made. I would assume that GPDR does apply to most of the places I mentioned, making the mistake that Google made common among all those edge cases.
rikkuri, you are not alone.
France seems to be being most of those headaches. However, both the US (with Porto Rico, Guam, and more) and the UK are impressive specialists in confusing sovereignty): the Faroe Islands, the Isle of Man, Guernsey, and Jersey all used to be somehow in the EU, but not when the UK was in. Northern Ireland is probably the most heated situation of all those. I will not go into the nightmare that is deciding between UK, or GB, or one of EN, SC, WA, and NI.
Andorra, Monaco, Vatican, San Marino, and Liechtenstein are generally considered outside, or “observers,” of the EU but in the EEA (those countries plus Norway). Pro-tip: EEA is de facto the relevant grouping in most cases.
More importantly, all those places plus many rather large actual countries (Canada, Switzerland, Japan, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea, and Argentina) have privacy rules that are equivalent to the EU’s and have been granted “adequacy” status. I’d expect all those need to be excluded from Bard for the same reason but many are not… Curious.
Are part of Denmark, not the UK. The other ones you mentioned are essentially part of the UK (I'm too lazy right now to look up the official terminology in the UK is for them).
I’ll let you deal with the threats from Faroese that you dare not respect their autonomy and/or independence, but — Yes, you are right: I picked the wrong crown that they are not controlled by.
I can’t remember: they are not part of the EEA, somehow, right?
Guernsey, Jersey, Man and Gibraltar (how could I forget the already overlooked victim of Brexit) are “Crown dependencies,” i.e., like dozens of countries, King Charles III is nominally the sovereign, but it’s somewhat closer. The main difference with say Jamaica or New Zealand is that were attached to the EU, and their passport is de facto a British passport (and used to be de facto an EU passport), but it didn’t say so on the booklet itself. They just had exceptions in the fine print of each international treaty. All have exceptions carved for the weirdest thing, like who is allowed duty-free alcohol on boats to and from…
This is the most informative yet entertaining rant outside of a Wendover Production I have encountered in a while. You had me at "safe space". Well done!
Descriptive name guards from feature creeping because every one understands the scope of service. If it is always tempting to add new features to the existing services, creation of new services should be done to be easier.
Right, the article itself actually uses this as a compelling reason for cute names. If I release "X service", then it inevitably becomes "X and Y service" and the old name is now misleading.
