ie8 fix

How the new European data law will affect U.S. companies

By | January 25, 2012, 5:13am PST

Summary: With the draft European data protection regulation announced, it won’t just affect the 500 million Europeans. U.S. companies with European users should also take heed.

If you thought that because you were a U.S. company that European rules would not affect you, think again. Europe has a population of over 500 million people, which is nearly twice that of the United States.

The new Regulation signals that the tide has turned. The 1995 Directive focused on building the online economy, and favouring businesses large and small to expand and grow, while the 2012 Regulation will reverse the fortunes for businesses and focus on European end users.

Internet companies will have to seek explicit consent from its users to use data about them, including when it is being collected, told for how long it will be stored, and for what purpose it is being used for.

A European Commission spokesperson confirmed to ZDNet that the proposed measures are “focused on younger people”, particularly teenagers, students and young adults, in a bid to “protect the consequences of putting photos and other information on social network websites”.

It does not guarantee the right to have data held by local and European law enforcement agencies deleted, however.

But the proposed “right to be forgotten” laws have already been met with harsh criticism from the wider Web industry. It will create a right that will not only be difficult to implement, but could have a detrimental effect on the use of the Web in Europe.

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer, gave an insight on what the wider argument could be amongst businesses and European regulators. While Web companies provide employment and spur on economic growth — such as seen with Facebook’s impact on the European economy — governments should not get in the way.

“In Europe, in the United States, throughout the world, we need to make sure we are investing, we are investing in technology, and we are investing in basic education so that people can take advantage of these tools,” she said.

“The Internet and social media, it’s not just posts and pictures and fun things with your friend. But this is really serious stuff. This is about growth. This is about jobs.”

Facebook as a company remained silent in the run-up to the new Data Protection Regulation, but will likely suffer its consequences.

Reuters quoted Microsoft’s European chief operating officer, Ron Zink, as saying the proposals may be “too prescriptive”. Microsoft is one of the few companies pushing for harmonisation of privacy laws between the U.S. and the EU, but even it is concerned over the scope of the ‘right to be forgotten” rule.

“If one person puts photos on their SkyDrive and makes them available to everyone on the public Internet, and then later asks us for the content to be removed, we can take it off our servers,” Zink said.

Businesses are expected to lobby heavily for amendments that benefit them, and reduce the long-term workload that would be expected as part of the new Regulation’s finer details.

Details of data breaches — something every company will have to deal with at some point — also takes a high standing in the Regulation. Since the Sony breach, where over 70 million user accounts were hacked, Europe is responding by enforcing a “24-hour rule”.

“Companies that suffer a data leak must inform the data protection authorities and the individuals concerned, and they must do so without undue delay. As a general rule, without undue delay means for me ‘within 24 hours’,” Reding said in a speech earlier this week.

But should a company not be aware of a hack, a breach, or a data loss for 24 days, let alone 24 hours, it applies more pressure on companies to be aware of their own internal security matters and data protection policies.

The U.S. Department of Commerce weighed in, saying that the rule is “simply too short” and could lead to disproportionate fines, and even to false alarms. This in itself is likely to cause consumer frustration and unnecessary worry.

If companies are found to have broken the rules of the Regulation, stiff financial penalties not far behind Europe’s competition and antitrust penalties can be imposed; something not conducive to innovation in an already tight economic climate.

While some consider this to be a “tax on businesses”, again highlighting the shift from business growth to consumer rights, the Regulation could be seen as a reactionary set of rules and laws that does not deal with the fact that many still choose to upload vast amounts of their data to the Web.

These are just a number of examples where the borderless Web means that European law takes just as much precedence as other sovereign states, as long as companies are operating within Europe’s walls or has European customers.

The rules need to be approved by European member states and the European Parliament before they can come into effect. This could mean heavy amendments or outright rejection.

The Regulation in its current form should be seen as a warning flare, and a dictation of how a company should be acting in its present state.

However, a lot is still yet to change, so businesses should take heed of the warnings today. Change is afoot and the European authorities are about to shake the global data-collecting industry to its core. The announcement of the Regulation does not guarantee that all of its contents will go through, but it gives a grace period of two to three years for company practices and polices to be changed to comply with the overall measures.

Today’s announcement:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit. Details of which are restricted, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

51
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Nse, BSe, Mcx and Ncdex trading tips
sharegyan001 11th Feb
If you are trading in NSE, BSE, MCX and in NCDEX then let sharegyan give you all stock trading gyan
0 Votes
+ -
AH AH AH AH AHAH!
dfumagalli@... 25th Jan
So, Sony and other mega interests would love to impose SOPA PIPA and all this garbage, but when they get hit with the same dumb wooden club by the end users they cry and whine?
Well done!
@dfumagalli@... BINGO!!....nice post....blunt and accurate! wink
Funny how all these mega corporations can easily mine all our data to target ads, and make a ton of money, but when you ask them to delete the data, it becomes too cumbersome.
0 Votes
+ -
700?
asx245 25th Jan
According to wikipedia, the European Union has a population of 502 million. The United States 312 million. Please correct your mistake. Thanks
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@asx245 Europe has over 700 million, EU member states have around 500 million. Good spot.
@asx245 Hmm, I wonder if Wikipedia is now accepted as a legitimate "source" for facts!
0 Votes
+ -
People have a right to know...
jasondlnd Updated - 25th Jan
People have a right to know how long companies will hold on to their data, what they intend to do with said data, and why the data is being collected.

Too many people blithely upload personal information to various sites and then cry and complain about the ads or security of those sites, often stating "I didn't know they were going to use my data for "

By putting it in their face, making them *aware* of how the data is intended to be used and how long the company intends to hold onto that data, and then hitting the company with a fine when they *don't* use the data in the way they claimed to adds personal responsibility on two sides...one on the side of the company using and hosting the data and the other on the user's end, as they will be readily informed of what is to be done with the data they are uploading.

Win/win situation.
0 Votes
+ -
Transparency is key.
Cayble 25th Jan
@jasondlnd

I generally agree with your point. I get a little sick of people who say that people should just, more or less, be naturally aware that information they give out on the net could be used in various ways they may not like. While its true that one might think people should be naturally aware, the sad truth is that most simply don't think in those kind of terms.

The fact is there is no good reason why people should not be informed of exactly how their information is going to be used. Clearly people come in all kinds and sorts, some of who may be quite aware of potential pitfalls and some who simply don't have so much as a clue, and a bunch of people somewhere in between.

Companies obviously would rather not fully inform the public, generally speaking. There is a real potential that for many people just reading about what their info could be used for would wake them up to the possible pitfalls of giving out information and that could put a genuine dent in a businesses ability to collect nearly as much data as they had in the past.

While most people who write and post around here have understood for a very long time what can happen with private information and how it can be used to generate income, there are many out there who still do not, and marvel at how some successful websites can operate and supply a so called service for free. Really.

Transparency is where its at. Or at least where it should be at. If it happens its going to be very interesting at just how much free data collection by these companies dries up.
@Cayble

I have no sympathy for the general retarded public.

But being transparent is just good business ethics.
@otester

What if one of those so-called 'retards' was one of your family of friends?? Cold shoulder and a 'well I told you didn't I..."??

Simple fact is a lot of the bigger companies (Google and FB especially) wrap up their 'services' in this gooey layer that the non-technically minded often don't question and often once mistakes are made it can be too late to remedy things...

Unfortunately, in many a current business stratagem, transparency is NOT seen as part of the working model!
Personally I'd favor an international law prohibiting the sharing of anyone's information. What one posts on FB or Google+ should stay there. Or, if they wish to share my information then ask me first and be prepared to pay me a percentage of the profits. I'd say a 50-50 split would be fair. Of course that'll never happen.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: a 50-50 split would be fair
fatman65536 Updated - 25th Jan
@neverhome

Not for me, it will have to be 90/10.

And I will give you two guesses who gets `the lion's share`.
0 Votes
+ -
@neverhome LOL, we just might start having more pirate businesses; that is exactly what copyright is meant to do, but check out the pirate ships sailing the web today happy

Though, they will have to be publicly known to be an established business, so that should be the blockade to the pirate businesses....oh wait....have we forgotten about EULAs? The simple work around this is to create more larger EULAs and bury these infos on how the user's information will be used without their knowing; thus, they click the "I agree" button (like I do majority of the time; cause I never share my private infos wink ) b4 they are allowed to get the benefits.

Conclusion; this is the year to become a lawyer.
0 Votes
+ -
exactly
pantherfan690 26th Jan
@MrElectrifyer

Even if this is enacted, even the technically savvy crowd will probably have trouble understanding the legaleze the information will be codified in. The reason many people dont use those EULA's is because its loaded with so much legal jargon people feel like they just did their taxes! If they dont write it in plain language you will need to be a lawyer to understand what the data will be used for as spelled out in their information.

So yea, good year to be a scumb.......err lawyer
@neverhome
your percentage of the profits is the 'right' to use their service. Please, don't act like Facebook (or other free online services) is a human right or something: don't use it if you don't agree with how they earn their money.
@neverhome well said agree 100%..Regards
0 Votes
+ -
Oh Boo Hoo
StephenInScotland 25th Jan
Yes this will be a lot of pain. Yes it will require a lot of work. But is has all been done before in the name of the customer. I cannot believe the amount of work I have to do in my finance company because we have an interest in America and are therefore subject to Sarbanes-Oxley.
I bet if the US passed this it wouldn't get nearly the same reaction. (or maybe it would - did I hear some say SOPA?)
Government should stay out of the internet wether it be business or individual. I am adamantly against SOPA/PIPA but also feel individuals should be responsible for themselves and their online activity. Neither party needs government intervention !!
@partman1969@...

There is one issue that a lot of people here are forgetting about. Do a search on your name and see how much information people can gather about you wihtout you ever posting anything on the web yourself. Companies are mining public records and a lot of other non-public records like email addresses (past and current), tracking down relative information, etc, etc, and putting it out on the web. This is a bunch of crap. I don't know of anyone who said it was OK for a company to datamine their information and put it all into 1 easy location to make a profit off of it. I don't care if some of it is public record or not, why are these companies allowed to datamine this information and put it into an easy to find and follow format for crackers and identity thieves to use.
0 Votes
+ -
Ha! Ya. Right.
Cayble 25th Jan
@partman1969@...

Even the Wild West came to an end. And like it or not, mostly for good reason.

Firstly, your wish is a pipe dream without question. For thousands of reasons, one being that governments are already knee deep into all kinds of web related legalities.

Secondly, your dream of governments staying out of the web is something of the same kin that many different peoples wishes are about the government "staying out" of one thing or another. Most people have something on the go in their lives that make them wish the government had of stayed out of it. The problem is that they also have about 5 dozen things in their life they are glad the government has a handle on, perhaps even thinking the government should be more involved and take a stronger stance. And unfortunately that results in a multitude of overlap between the things people say the government doesn't do enough about and places people say the government shouldn't be involved in at all.

Face it, as humans we are all so far from being of one mind that the saying "cant please all the people all the time" is about as factual as you can get.
@partman1969@... I'm sorry, but I heard similar sentiments about SOPA recently too, the idea that the internets should be off limits to government is either na??ve or dangerous, depending on your views or experience. The internet does "change faster" than government regulations have or can. But that just means that we should expect retroactive legislation, not that we should say that it is already like that so the government should keeps there hands off.

If you (or anyone) actually believes that the government should be beyond government intervention, I would like to hear arguments for why. Sadly it seems a lot like a pipedream of internet savvy people, unfortunately the bulk of the population is not like that (don't read, and definitely don't post to zdnet etc) and governments need to protect their people and their businesses amongst other things. Now that "everyone" uses the internet it just a fact that world governments need to get more involved in it.
@partman1969@... I am not "pro-SOPA" or anything (although like all/most of us, I am anti-piracy) but governments have a role and a responsibility, and they can't just treat the internet as some sort of anything goes badlands that lies beyond their borders. Although I do also believe that the government (all governments in general) need to change to better understand the internet, and not just restrict the internet to make it something they understand.
0 Votes
+ -
Privacy would be good
sboverie 25th Jan
The new EU law could help us in the US to increase our privacy in the face of the new Google announcement about their privacy policy.
We should do it here.
It should be law here seriously there taking advantage of individuals information.
Just because i come to your site you should not have the right to sell my info.
Dose Google tell how much employees make who work for google not if they can help it. Do they give out board memebers and investors Info?
All this will result in is another unreadable EULA type of warning that very few people will try to read and fewer still will comprehend.
@harrim47 LMAO Very true and well put, +10!! grin
Like most corporate executives who live in corporate fantasy world, Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook???s chief operating officer believes that use of government on the web should be limited to the users and not the corporations.

While it???s perfectly OK to enact all kinds of egregious and unethical so called copyright protection laws its not OK to put any restrictions on the exploitative acts by corporations against the individual. Typical corporate hypocrite.
0 Votes
+ -
Internet ID...
adornoe@... Updated - 25th Jan
like proposed by government officials in the U.S., would suffice to take care of your "privacy on the internet". That ID could be traceable to all of your information over the internet, no matter where it lands or who uses it.

However, that internet ID would, in itself, be a violation of privacy, because, the government, and any online company with the capabilities, could track all of your online activities, warranted or not.

The other option is to get those online entities that keep information on users, to make it known that, the information submitted by users will be "kept, used and mined", for whatever purposes that company decides would be beneficial to it. So, being as how that company could "IDentify" a user, then that company could also let the user manage that IDentity, and if the user decides to "delete" any and all of his information from that online company's storage/facilities/services, the it should be as simple as allowing a delete function to all such users. I'd rather have as many different IDs as there are online services that a person uses. One ID would be too intrusive and highly subject to ID piracy, or to too much spying.
0 Votes
+ -
Misdirection
David1225 Updated - 25th Jan
The Europeans, and soon after the Americans, were duped by their governments into believing that information collection by private business was a horrible intrusion on their privacy rights. And so, a sea change in public attitudes commenced. Of course, this is silly. While there are discrete areas where certain kinds of information, such as health information, can lead to mischief in the hands of certain private businesses, the only harm resulting from the collection of personal information from folks like Google and Facebook is that you'll get advertisements targeted specifically to you. Advertisements that you can either halt or ignore. Scary! But what this misdirection is all about is to avoid looking at the real privacy risks associated not by the collection of information not by private businesses, but by the government. That is what the laws should address. But, we live in an irrational "anti-corporate" political environment where demonizing business serves the larger goal of deifying government. If you think getting advertisements is in pain in the ass, try facing a criminal investigation or audit based upon personal information in the hands of Uncle Sam or your local state.
@David1225

I agree government should not keep my information. But I do not agree that other people, websites or corporations should be able to use my private information with out my permission. Yes, I do not want them to advertise to me. But more importantly I do not want to have others decide which news articles I see based on my prior interests. I simply do not need that kind of censorship. Ask me to opt in and I will probably do it often. But do not use my private information without my permission.
In a way this is a anti-corporate politically, but only to the extent that I see corporate lobbying ruining this country's politics by bribing every politician in office. This is another issue you bring up. My focus here is I want to protect my privacy. This may be a step in the right direction.
Sorry @WisDad,
but if you do not want them to advertise to you, so, it's very simple: don't use their services! One cannot claim to have a right to use a service that cost no money to him but an enourmous amount of work and money to the enterprise who provides it, and at the same time dont be annoyed by what can make it free!!
Entierprises like Facebook have been cavalier with personal data. The regulations may go too far but the big internet companies have nobody to blame but themselves.
Corporations simply want to do whatever they please with our information without any consequences. So obviously they aren't happy with this, as it takes away some control and gives it to their users.

They will screen and kick like spoiled children that have been told to clean their room, but hopefully the EU will see through these tantrums, and enact these laws.
0 Votes
+ -
good riddance
G.M.Bakker (CNE, self employed) 25th Jan
Finally, the big corps wanting to know what you do all day, spend your money where and when on what, so they can target you to fill their pockets based on the trends you choose in life....I hope they all get a really sore feeling in the spot where the sun don't shine, because they are a kind of voyeur, a digital voyeur. I just hope these guys have spent so much money to gather all this info on you and me and have to trash it because I want you to. Quit following me around, it feels like someone is poking a finger up my ass. Beware, within a couple of weeks I'm allowed to smash the hand and the fingers, and yes I will gladly!
Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of facebook..."governments should not get in the way....This is about growth. This is about jobs.???

American executives are so cute when they are talking to an international audience, using all of the tea party talking points. No sweetheart, if you want them to listen to you, you have to send people over there with great sacks of money. Only there, they call it bribery and put your flunky in jail. Not like here in america, where we've legalized it.
@Just Watching Now,
Talking about bribery, Europe in the very paradise of it.
At least, American bribery, if we have to call it so, benefits corporations that certainly are not Saints but at least produce wealth, work and innovation that spread all over the world.
European bribery only benefit incompetent bureaucrats and companies who should die because of their incapacity at surviving in a free market.
If you really want to follow Europe route, be prepared to what we are experiencing from decades: tremendous rates of unemployment, absolute lack of innovation, (why EU have to legislate over services 90% of the time located in USA? Why a continent with almost twice the population of USA and still well between the wealthiest nations in the world produce so little in terms of cutting edge technologies?), economical and personal depression (its hard to live in a place so deeply dominated by bureaucracy in every aspect of life, and where hard work and genious ideas are regarded with the gratest suspect). Plus, as we are experiencing now, the ghost of State bankruptcies, because, you see, inefficient bureaucracy costs really a lot, and if at the same time you pass everyday a law that tear down economy and make enterprises flee away you end up having nothing more to squeeze money from.
Well, that said, European countries are not at all the same at this regard, but EU legislators seem so much often be inspired by the worst!
0 Votes
+ -
@franf

Would you explain then the difference between lobbying, giving 'campaign donations', etc and bribery?

Why it is fine for the industry to lobby the US government and have international rights (and arrest people all over the world for breaches of US law which didn't take place IN the US) and not for Europe to try to protect the individual (instead of the corporations)?

As for producing 'cutting edge technology', perhaps you overlook the fact that radar, jet engines, automobiles, TV, radio and a host more (even the world wide web) are all European inventions - you may have developed them but you never invented them
I really don't understand. If people want to use *free* services like fb. g+ and the millions of free stuff you can enjoy in the internet, it is absolutely *obvious* that all this work is paid with ads. And ads, to be effective, *must* be targeted. Or maybe someone think that facebook, google and all the others are charitable organizations, with all their employees working for free?!
Of course, people should be more aware of this.
But it's a problem of education and information, every time you sign for a service you agree to a lot of conditions that generally nobody reads. That's not companies fault, and I dont think we the users need to be defended by a bunch of bureaucrats that problably dont care a bit for the freedom of the users, while they care a lot about the possibility of collecting huge fines that, of course, are going to be used to feed European enormous bureaucracy and wasting of citizens money.
Being a citizen of EC, i am literally terrified of what can come out from the minds of these people.
Government should stay out of the internet wether it be business or individual. I am adamantly against SOPA/PIPA but also feel http://www.onradioz.com/
individuals should be responsible for themselves
http://www.entyahla.com/
and their online activity. Neither party needs government intervention !!
Since I was visiting your site, I want to take an advantage to drop my comments here. We???ll, People have a right to know how long companies will hold on to their data, what they intend to do with said data, and why the data is being collected. best pmp boot camp
You open your mouth you pay the consequences! What is your problem. Same goes for companies as well and IT managers. Everyone. However since it is our country, or your country, it belongs to the people not the corporations. We must protect the people first and foremost and then our financial interest. The FCC has been granted through the people to protect our (people's) right to privacy and freedom of speech. Where is our freedom of speech today, in the bylaws of corporate interest?, in the aspirations of political ******? Since Americans have little to say about privacy and freedom of speech maybe then we should applaud the Europeans.
It is very difficult for a company in Internet to actually commit how long the data colud be keeped and used. For any content including this reply could be easily copy and paste into other site or someone's computer. Not to mention files and photos shared in Facebook and blogs. Therefore it is impotant for all Internet users to think twice if you really want to leave your personal info in that web site.
0 Votes
+ -
It should be your choice:
NeverLift 25th Jan
Anything that you submit for general public viewing or access, by that act, is now in the public domain and, short of breaking laws such as ID theft, embezzlement, etc., anybody can take it, manipulate it, combine it with public data from other sources, even sell it.

If you submit the data under password protection and provide controlled access to a selected audience, nobody else, including the site owner and any associates, should be able to use it in any way except in aggregation, for a statistical analysis from which your identity, location, photos, etc., cannot be derived. That is the same usage permitted for census data, as an example.

No site should be permitted to accumulate data about you without your specific authorization. Opt-in must be a requirement, not opt-out as an option you must choose. The only exception there is using it specifically to assist you -- that is, Google recording and analyzing my searches solely to offer me the most likely hits I'd like to see, proactively and as I type, is a convenience for me and improves my experience. The moment they use or release that data in any other way, except in statistical aggregations describe in the preceding paragraph, they should be punished, big time -- with massive monetary damages, even being blocked by the appropriate authorities. I include in that prohibition selecting the ads to display based upon my history, rather than simply the current query, or sales pitches for other services or goods, including telephone or email solicitations.

The punishment must be severe enough to hurt; for Google, I'd suggest $1 million per person whose data has been so used. And not by civil suit; you can't afford the lawyers that would take. Rather, it should be a criminal offense, with indictment and trial (or a plea bargain!), and the victim -- you -- receives part of the penalty.
0 Votes
+ -
Sauce for goose ...
mikew_z 26th Jan
Just as long as European users realise that their online/cloud data held by US-owned companies (eg. your Gmail traffic ...) is open to requisition by US Government agencies.
This rule only makes sense. The giants put a lot of time and effort into their data collection and mining efforts without giving much, if any, thought to the individuals right of privacy or long term consequences. Please be certain that if there was a profit in placing a "time limit" on the data in their their collection they would not find it so difficult to do.
The EU has it right.
The NFL has the "Tuck Rule" and now the EU will have the "Google Rule": Internet companies will have to seek explicit consent from its users to use data about them.

No more free web sites in exchange for letting them mine your data.
I could be wrong, but I don't remember seeing the same furore from US citizens about US government demands to have full access to private data held by US companies about European citizens, whether that data is held in the US or elsewhere in the world. Frankly, we may be 'best friends forever' but I don't even want UK authorities having carte blanche access to my private life, let alone the (often leaky and occasionally corrupt) agencies of the US. At least EU regulations are designed to afford some protection to end-users, many of whom are older people and children with attendant lack of nous. I want to know who has access to my data, how long it will be kept for and what will be done with it, up front, just as business demands information from me up front.
0 Votes
+ -
From the top..
Jow_Blow 27th Jan
There is no safe haven if you're going to operate on the "public" Internet. The entire system is owned by the same criminals at the top. Regardless of which side the ocean.
"If you thought that because you were a U.S. company that European rules would not affect you, think again. Europe has a population of over 500 million people, which is nearly twice that of the United States."

I am an American citizen. Non-American rules do not affect me. I will not obey any regulation by any body not subject to the United States Constitution.
0 Votes
+ -
Nse, BSe, Mcx and Ncdex trading tips
sharegyan001 11th Feb
If you are trading in NSE, BSE, MCX and in NCDEX then let sharegyan give you all stock trading gyan

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix