- New! We now accept ACH Payments, View Payment Options
Forums > Social Discussion > Google Chrome - and other privacy issues re. Google
Login/Join to ParticipatePosted:Google seems to overtake Microsoft on the fast lane... unfortunately not in regards of courtesy but in regards of spying on its users...
Creating a full profile of me, based upon my browsing habits, is not what I prefer my browser to do and experts fear that at some stage I could be identified by what I enter and how I do it... much like a digital fingerprint.
So far I am using Google for most - if not all - of my searches, hence I am strongly reconsidering being part of a 'silent support group'...
I shalt look for alternatives to Google...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1222664582)
EDIT_REASON: tile edited - topic expanded
Creating a full profile of me, based upon my browsing habits, is not what I prefer my browser to do and experts fear that at some stage I could be identified by what I enter and how I do it... much like a digital fingerprint.
So far I am using Google for most - if not all - of my searches, hence I am strongly reconsidering being part of a 'silent support group'...
I shalt look for alternatives to Google...
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1222664582)
EDIT_REASON: tile edited - topic expanded
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTom
"Every site you visit, mines your data" - that exactly how? I usually get the message: "'blablabla' wants to set a cookie." I reject it 99% of the time (except for services that require it - like Yahoo, Flickr and such - to get access to their site). So how exactly do they mine my browsing history (or future)?
there are other ways apart from cookies to track you, using embedded images is making a comeback
Originally Posted By: PyrolificI'm amazed noone thinks its a problem that Google is moving to monopolise the information service provision market. If a single private corp moved to buy and secretly control access to all the books in the world, would you be worried then?
the emergence of social bookmarking IMHO will eventually replace search, sorry tom you wont like it because they profile you with your input giving you more sites your actually interested in instead of having to search through all the duds.
IMHO google may create a monopoly but they will only maintain it while they are generateing the best search results, if they remove the end user experience from their focus they will create an opportunity for a competitor who will take up a good chunk of their market share by providiing a solution to the pain experienced by the consumers
"Every site you visit, mines your data" - that exactly how? I usually get the message: "'blablabla' wants to set a cookie." I reject it 99% of the time (except for services that require it - like Yahoo, Flickr and such - to get access to their site). So how exactly do they mine my browsing history (or future)?
there are other ways apart from cookies to track you, using embedded images is making a comeback
Originally Posted By: PyrolificI'm amazed noone thinks its a problem that Google is moving to monopolise the information service provision market. If a single private corp moved to buy and secretly control access to all the books in the world, would you be worried then?
the emergence of social bookmarking IMHO will eventually replace search, sorry tom you wont like it because they profile you with your input giving you more sites your actually interested in instead of having to search through all the duds.
IMHO google may create a monopoly but they will only maintain it while they are generateing the best search results, if they remove the end user experience from their focus they will create an opportunity for a competitor who will take up a good chunk of their market share by providiing a solution to the pain experienced by the consumers
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
DeletePosted:wow - I'm more and more astonished how far things' been moving.
Ben, thanks for the info and link
Images in HTML eMails: Usually my Yahoo blocks images in my mails and asks me whether I want them displayed - which I don't, as long as the sender is unknown.
Btw I'm in no doubt that the primary focus of Google is to provide the best service for users and therefore maximmize their own revenue.
Simta:
Originally Posted By: articleIn September, director Eben Moglen filed suit against Monsoon Media in a case that was settled out of court
Pls note that a "settlement" does not equal "having won the case". This is a very important aspect of law. It might be not so easy to understand but it definitely is not the same.
As far as my knnowledge goes it's not setting a precedent... which is one reason why there are such settlements...
Seye: once again - thanks a lot for taking the time to explain and filling my gaps... good ol' BBs - whaddaya need more
Originally Posted By: seyeAt the very least every time you browse from one page to another (regardless of whether you click a link or type a URL) the previous URL is available to both servers. This means that any page you browse from or to will know the last and next pages that you browse. Assuming that you have a history log in your browser this is usually accessible to any server that you access.
This means that my browsing history is accessible for any server? Wow - (I repeat myself) - we've already been going a long way down. Is this where FF offers me to delete my cookies, browsing history and the like?
And if I were to separate my surfing and exploring the net to the internet cafes (anonymous) and then do my personal thing on my own machine - to get around it?
Lots of effort...
Originally Posted By: seyeI'm not entirely sure why this is a problem though. It just means that the links (or potentially content) that you are offered can be tailored to what you are doing at that moment in time.
True, in the meantime Google ceased to offer me PrOn websites, simply when searching for "fun"... That's a good development.
Originally Posted By: seyeThese details can then be tied to your IP address or a unique identifier on your machine allowing the details tied to you as a user to be logged on the server over time. (cookies are not strictly necessary for this - they are simply a more polite way of mining data).
Hang on... so apart from seperating my surfing and working modi - what exactly is that "unique identifier" you're talking about (other than IP) and would a "hide IP"-software act as a detour around the problem?
Originally Posted By: seyeFrom you logging in to a site the server can see:
* Country
* Region
* O/S (including version numbers)
* Browsing History
* Browser (including version)
* IP Address
And much more!
The highlighted text is what concerns me
Sorry to be such a noob - maybe I just fear the unknown
Originally Posted By: seyeGoogle (to the best of my knowledge) does not sell your profile (or its contents) to third parties. The information is only available to google's own programs. In fact google have actively resisted giving up these details to government bodies. Even the US who are usually happy to pay large sums of money for such information.
While on this subject Google also took a stand against the Chinese government about freedom of information. They did lose in the end but they made a stronger statement than any western government has.
Again, the highlighted areas are the ones of my concern.
The US government trying to buy Googles informations? And this doesn't concern any US citizen? Seems as if these guys have completely resignated - I understand as I did the same back then when we had the same -censored- running our government for 16 consecutive years.
The public was and still is all too ready to surrender civil rights under the guise of the "war against terror". I briefly followed Bush's speech in front of the UN: "No cause can justify the taking of innocent lives..." errm, eat your own principles, dude - including kidnapping, torture and taking hostages.
The general public is too easy on violations of civil and human rights, only to fight an invisible, omnipresent enemy (that might not even exist).
In the case of the Chinese government: what exactly has been the result of Google's "loss" and how did it affect Chinese dissidents?
Originally Posted By: seyeI'm not entirely sure why this is seen as a problem? You are offered information that is relevant to you.
(...)
We are not talking profiling in the CIA / MI5 sense. Its simply offering you relevant adverts.
Lurch has put forth an argument that clicks into this. At this point, Google is not planning to merge or to sell out (and it might be unlikely in the near future) - but what if the Googlers decide to have their day? Who guarantees that data is not passed on and merged?
And second: what about data theft and resale?
Usually the fish smells from its head... but for a user it's enough that a data-entry clerk is in need of ca$h...
Originally Posted By: seyeIf this really upsets you download Chrome and use the 'Incognito Mode'. No data will then be stored on your machine from websites and the data that is sent to them will be limited. This is Google's peace offering to those who share your concerns.
Now that's the height of it Thanks You advise me to download Chrome? 
No way to achieve the same result in FF?
Originally Posted By: seyeI personally dont see it as a problem. I'm not concerned about giving up these kind of personal details. In fact I see it as a positive step in the evolution of the internet. This is why I love Amazon. It is good use of available technology. 99% of internet users will agree, especially if they understand that there are no sinister motives behind this.
Maybe it's hard to understand for 99% of the worlds population (errm, internet users) that I don't necessarily trust my government (in everything). I'm not amazed. Bush got voted back into office. Many people been unhappy about what happened in the first election - nobody is really ready attempting to change the electoral process (that has proven itself to be antiquated).
Nobody seems to really be concerned about the western world happily adapting to totalitarian standards (kidnappings and "violent interrogation" amongst a few)... The toll of 5.000 civilian lives that got spoilt on 9/11 might be one of the lowest 'investments' to get the western world to surrender its principles and civil rights.
I'm no friend of conspiracy theories, hence a few important questions remain after 9/11 (and I advise to watch 9/11 and 9/11 mysteries to get a brief idea). As initially said: I'm not a friend of conspiracy theories but (to me) it's hard to turn a blind eye on certain issues.
What is so disturbing (to me) is that people are happy to surrender their rights when they feel threatened - okay this part I understand - but to happily surrender just because of the comfort to personalized ads???
Show me a government or corporation that truly acts in the interest of its citizens/customers alone. Meaning it would dissolve itself if it's getting aware that it doesn't
Originally Posted By: seyeGoogles sponsorship of OSS is not a simple tax write off. They dont just donate to projects. They fund them wholesale. I cannot think of another company who employ so many people to release FREE software and then allow ANYONE to contribute to or alter it.
Google actively promote community spirit on the net. They also work incredibly hard to make our lives easier (Gmail, Docs, Sketchup, Chrome, etc).
Google also allow us the benefits of their data through accurate searches as well as services like Trends.
Which in turn is making you (fully) trust them - objective achieved... ?
I could view it much more positively and say that they're just trying to create a feedback-loop. They make their (immense) profit by the community, so they just repay them (feeding crumbs to catch the fish).
"Making lives easier"... this might (sorry to say that) at worst cost your freedom... (no pun intended) what you're saying here (IMHO) is like going to the zoo and telling the children that "we're just trying to make life easier for these poor animals".
This post has gained tremenduous length - my excuses and gratitude for keeping up
Ben, thanks for the info and link
Images in HTML eMails: Usually my Yahoo blocks images in my mails and asks me whether I want them displayed - which I don't, as long as the sender is unknown.
Btw I'm in no doubt that the primary focus of Google is to provide the best service for users and therefore maximmize their own revenue.
Simta:
Originally Posted By: articleIn September, director Eben Moglen filed suit against Monsoon Media in a case that was settled out of court
Pls note that a "settlement" does not equal "having won the case". This is a very important aspect of law. It might be not so easy to understand but it definitely is not the same.
As far as my knnowledge goes it's not setting a precedent... which is one reason why there are such settlements...
Seye: once again - thanks a lot for taking the time to explain and filling my gaps... good ol' BBs - whaddaya need more
Originally Posted By: seyeAt the very least every time you browse from one page to another (regardless of whether you click a link or type a URL) the previous URL is available to both servers. This means that any page you browse from or to will know the last and next pages that you browse. Assuming that you have a history log in your browser this is usually accessible to any server that you access.
This means that my browsing history is accessible for any server? Wow - (I repeat myself) - we've already been going a long way down. Is this where FF offers me to delete my cookies, browsing history and the like?
And if I were to separate my surfing and exploring the net to the internet cafes (anonymous) and then do my personal thing on my own machine - to get around it?
Lots of effort...
Originally Posted By: seyeI'm not entirely sure why this is a problem though. It just means that the links (or potentially content) that you are offered can be tailored to what you are doing at that moment in time.
True, in the meantime Google ceased to offer me PrOn websites, simply when searching for "fun"...
That's a good development. Originally Posted By: seyeThese details can then be tied to your IP address or a unique identifier on your machine allowing the details tied to you as a user to be logged on the server over time. (cookies are not strictly necessary for this - they are simply a more polite way of mining data).
Hang on... so apart from seperating my surfing and working modi - what exactly is that "unique identifier" you're talking about (other than IP) and would a "hide IP"-software act as a detour around the problem?
Originally Posted By: seyeFrom you logging in to a site the server can see:
* Country
* Region
* O/S (including version numbers)
* Browsing History
* Browser (including version)
* IP Address
And much more!
The highlighted text is what concerns me
Sorry to be such a noob - maybe I just fear the unknown Originally Posted By: seyeGoogle (to the best of my knowledge) does not sell your profile (or its contents) to third parties. The information is only available to google's own programs. In fact google have actively resisted giving up these details to government bodies. Even the US who are usually happy to pay large sums of money for such information.
While on this subject Google also took a stand against the Chinese government about freedom of information. They did lose in the end but they made a stronger statement than any western government has.
Again, the highlighted areas are the ones of my concern.
The US government trying to buy Googles informations? And this doesn't concern any US citizen? Seems as if these guys have completely resignated - I understand as I did the same back then when we had the same -censored- running our government for 16 consecutive years.
The public was and still is all too ready to surrender civil rights under the guise of the "war against terror". I briefly followed Bush's speech in front of the UN: "No cause can justify the taking of innocent lives..." errm, eat your own principles, dude - including kidnapping, torture and taking hostages.
The general public is too easy on violations of civil and human rights, only to fight an invisible, omnipresent enemy (that might not even exist).
In the case of the Chinese government: what exactly has been the result of Google's "loss" and how did it affect Chinese dissidents?
Originally Posted By: seyeI'm not entirely sure why this is seen as a problem? You are offered information that is relevant to you.
(...)
We are not talking profiling in the CIA / MI5 sense. Its simply offering you relevant adverts.
Lurch has put forth an argument that clicks into this. At this point, Google is not planning to merge or to sell out (and it might be unlikely in the near future) - but what if the Googlers decide to have their day? Who guarantees that data is not passed on and merged?
And second: what about data theft and resale?
Usually the fish smells from its head... but for a user it's enough that a data-entry clerk is in need of ca$h...
Originally Posted By: seyeIf this really upsets you download Chrome and use the 'Incognito Mode'. No data will then be stored on your machine from websites and the data that is sent to them will be limited. This is Google's peace offering to those who share your concerns.
Now that's the height of it Thanks You advise me to download Chrome? No way to achieve the same result in FF? Originally Posted By: seyeI personally dont see it as a problem. I'm not concerned about giving up these kind of personal details. In fact I see it as a positive step in the evolution of the internet. This is why I love Amazon. It is good use of available technology. 99% of internet users will agree, especially if they understand that there are no sinister motives behind this.
Maybe it's hard to understand for 99% of the worlds population (errm, internet users) that I don't necessarily trust my government (in everything). I'm not amazed. Bush got voted back into office. Many people been unhappy about what happened in the first election - nobody is really ready attempting to change the electoral process (that has proven itself to be antiquated).
Nobody seems to really be concerned about the western world happily adapting to totalitarian standards (kidnappings and "violent interrogation" amongst a few)... The toll of 5.000 civilian lives that got spoilt on 9/11 might be one of the lowest 'investments' to get the western world to surrender its principles and civil rights.
I'm no friend of conspiracy theories, hence a few important questions remain after 9/11 (and I advise to watch 9/11 and 9/11 mysteries to get a brief idea). As initially said: I'm not a friend of conspiracy theories but (to me) it's hard to turn a blind eye on certain issues.
What is so disturbing (to me) is that people are happy to surrender their rights when they feel threatened - okay this part I understand - but to happily surrender just because of the comfort to personalized ads???
Show me a government or corporation that truly acts in the interest of its citizens/customers alone. Meaning it would dissolve itself if it's getting aware that it doesn't
Originally Posted By: seyeGoogles sponsorship of OSS is not a simple tax write off. They dont just donate to projects. They fund them wholesale. I cannot think of another company who employ so many people to release FREE software and then allow ANYONE to contribute to or alter it.
Google actively promote community spirit on the net. They also work incredibly hard to make our lives easier (Gmail, Docs, Sketchup, Chrome, etc).
Google also allow us the benefits of their data through accurate searches as well as services like Trends.
Which in turn is making you (fully) trust them - objective achieved... ?
I could view it much more positively and say that they're just trying to create a feedback-loop. They make their (immense) profit by the community, so they just repay them (feeding crumbs to catch the fish).
"Making lives easier"... this might (sorry to say that) at worst cost your freedom... (no pun intended) what you're saying here (IMHO) is like going to the zoo and telling the children that "we're just trying to make life easier for these poor animals".
This post has gained tremenduous length - my excuses and gratitude for keeping up
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTomwow - I'm more and more astonished how far things' been moving.
things have been like this for alooooong time
Originally Posted By: FireTom And if I were to separate my surfing and exploring the net to the internet cafes (anonymous) and then do my personal thing on my own machine - to get around it?
depends what your searching for, if you remember the privacy is dead thing, it can be possible to identify you just from your search terms.
Originally Posted By: FireTomHang on... so apart from seperating my surfing and working modi - what exactly is that "unique identifier" you're talking about (other than IP) and would a "hide IP"-software act as a detour around the problem?
doesnt matter what you do to hide your IP if your isp is logging all your data .... particularly if they decide to sell it to marketers as im fairly sure AOL do (i cant find the original link about AOL selling data though :()
Originally Posted By: FireTom
The public was and still is all too ready to surrender civil rights under the guise of the "war against terror".
yep but sadly that has always been the case
Originally Posted By: FireTom
And second: what about data theft and resale?
its nothing new, personally id be more concerned about the data your credit card company has on you. Atleast Google is built by techies who understand the technology
Originally Posted By: FireTom
but for a user it's enough that a data-entry clerk is in need of ca$h...
manual data entry is becoming a thing of the past
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Nobody seems to really be concerned about the western world happily adapting to totalitarian standards (kidnappings and "violent interrogation" amongst a few)...
this is nothing new, its just that the media has gotten better at delivering it
Originally Posted By: FireTom "Making lives easier"... this might (sorry to say that) at worst cost your freedom... (no pun intended) what you're saying here (IMHO) is like going to the zoo and telling the children that "we're just trying to make life easier for these poor animals".
the difference tom is that the animals in the zoo are unhappy about their box, its in their face it restricts what they can do, our box makes our lives easier, our box is more like a zooalogical park where its like being in the wild but if the animal gets sick theres a vet to look after it, there is never a shortage of food and occasionally some tourists drive by in the distance to take a look at you, funding your pampered lifestyle. In much the same way that advertisers fund all of the free email/search/social networking/video hosting/photo hosting/etc services on the net
things have been like this for alooooong time
Originally Posted By: FireTom And if I were to separate my surfing and exploring the net to the internet cafes (anonymous) and then do my personal thing on my own machine - to get around it?
depends what your searching for, if you remember the privacy is dead thing, it can be possible to identify you just from your search terms.
Originally Posted By: FireTomHang on... so apart from seperating my surfing and working modi - what exactly is that "unique identifier" you're talking about (other than IP) and would a "hide IP"-software act as a detour around the problem?
doesnt matter what you do to hide your IP if your isp is logging all your data .... particularly if they decide to sell it to marketers as im fairly sure AOL do (i cant find the original link about AOL selling data though :()
Originally Posted By: FireTom
The public was and still is all too ready to surrender civil rights under the guise of the "war against terror".
yep but sadly that has always been the case
Originally Posted By: FireTom
And second: what about data theft and resale?
its nothing new, personally id be more concerned about the data your credit card company has on you. Atleast Google is built by techies who understand the technology
Originally Posted By: FireTom
but for a user it's enough that a data-entry clerk is in need of ca$h...
manual data entry is becoming a thing of the past
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Nobody seems to really be concerned about the western world happily adapting to totalitarian standards (kidnappings and "violent interrogation" amongst a few)...
this is nothing new, its just that the media has gotten better at delivering it
Originally Posted By: FireTom "Making lives easier"... this might (sorry to say that) at worst cost your freedom... (no pun intended) what you're saying here (IMHO) is like going to the zoo and telling the children that "we're just trying to make life easier for these poor animals".
the difference tom is that the animals in the zoo are unhappy about their box, its in their face it restricts what they can do, our box makes our lives easier, our box is more like a zooalogical park where its like being in the wild but if the animal gets sick theres a vet to look after it, there is never a shortage of food and occasionally some tourists drive by in the distance to take a look at you, funding your pampered lifestyle. In much the same way that advertisers fund all of the free email/search/social networking/video hosting/photo hosting/etc services on the net
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Delete
Posted:Originally Posted By: simtaOriginally Posted By: FireTom
[quote=previous article]In September, director Eben Moglen filed suit against Monsoon Media in a case that was settled out of court Oct. 30. On Nov. 19, the center filed suits against High Gain Antennas and Xterasys for violations of the GPL.
the bolded text shows the cases that have already been won.
the monsoon media case was settled out of court.
the suits against High Gain Antennas + Xterasys were won in court AFAIK.
[quote=previous article]In September, director Eben Moglen filed suit against Monsoon Media in a case that was settled out of court Oct. 30. On Nov. 19, the center filed suits against High Gain Antennas and Xterasys for violations of the GPL.
the bolded text shows the cases that have already been won.
the monsoon media case was settled out of court.
the suits against High Gain Antennas + Xterasys were won in court AFAIK.
"the geeks have got you" - Gayle
DeletePosted:Oh - thanks for that
Originally Posted By: softwarefreedom.orgAccording to the lawsuits filed yesterday, both companies have continued to distribute BusyBox illegally without source code, despite having been contacted by SFLC.
(...)
"We've asked the SFLC to file these lawsuits to ensure that every user has the same freedom to access BusyBox under GPL version 2, which requires access to source code," said Rob Landley, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We let companies do what they like with BusyBox on their hardware, and what we asked in return was that they let us reproduce what they've done with BusyBox on our hardware. That's the deal embodied in the GPL."
However in these cases I can't quite see how Monsoon, HGA or Xterasys made bucks from source code-alterations and selling... which is what I was referring to. Maybe I'm just not interpreting the case right. Oh, I guess I got it - they violated the license by not revealing the altered SC - they didn't sell the stuff... right?
Ben: so I'm a late bloomer
... what to do?
Dunno how I can be identified by my search terms alone... okay, if I'm typing "BKK" (airport code) instead of "Bangkok"... but hey, I'm not the only one looking for "fun+for+free" am I?
How is the "ISP logging all your data" if I'm using one at home and a different one in the Internet-cafe?
And another (different) one at various free Wi-Fi hotspots in restaurants, airports and such?
Ever been reading George Orwell "1984"? The public has been ignorant for quite some time, but it doesn't mean that a) they will remain like this forever and b) I have to dig sh*t for that reason...
Re. data theft and resale? You're sooo much putting the finger on the spot... Just now I got a credit card after 4 years of not having one... thanks for that. However - am I paying my rolling papers with it? No. Would I be paying 'personal support' (that I'm not using anyway)? No. So what data could my credit card company store about me? Thanks for the remainder that I shouldn't order a copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" online and pay by CC though
Whilst "manual data entry is becoming a thing of the past" - clerks in need of ca$h, won't... so what about data theft in such companies?
Originally Posted By: Benthe difference tom is that the animals in the zoo are unhappy about their box, its in their face it restricts what they can do, our box makes our lives easier, our box is more like a zooalogical park where its like being in the wild but if the animal gets sick theres a vet to look after it, there is never a shortage of food and occasionally some tourists drive by in the distance to take a look at you, funding your pampered lifestyle. In much the same way that advertisers fund all of the free email/search/social networking/video hosting/photo hosting/etc services on the net
Even though I doubt that all animals are unhappy about their box - you want to tell me that all people are happy about it?
Can't quite follow up on the picture of free medicare and sufficient, free food either
See, I repeat that I'd be willing to pay 30 bucks/ year for my eMail or Flickr or YouTube, IF I would NEVER EVER have to accept their cookies and face data mining/ selling again. The reason for me NOT opting to pay is that I would still have to accept their cookies and them doing what they're doing...
Originally Posted By: softwarefreedom.orgAccording to the lawsuits filed yesterday, both companies have continued to distribute BusyBox illegally without source code, despite having been contacted by SFLC.
(...)
"We've asked the SFLC to file these lawsuits to ensure that every user has the same freedom to access BusyBox under GPL version 2, which requires access to source code," said Rob Landley, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We let companies do what they like with BusyBox on their hardware, and what we asked in return was that they let us reproduce what they've done with BusyBox on our hardware. That's the deal embodied in the GPL."
However in these cases I can't quite see how Monsoon, HGA or Xterasys made bucks from source code-alterations and selling... which is what I was referring to. Maybe I'm just not interpreting the case right. Oh, I guess I got it - they violated the license by not revealing the altered SC - they didn't sell the stuff... right?
Ben: so I'm a late bloomer
... what to do?Dunno how I can be identified by my search terms alone... okay, if I'm typing "BKK" (airport code) instead of "Bangkok"... but hey, I'm not the only one looking for "fun+for+free" am I?
How is the "ISP logging all your data" if I'm using one at home and a different one in the Internet-cafe?
And another (different) one at various free Wi-Fi hotspots in restaurants, airports and such?Ever been reading George Orwell "1984"? The public has been ignorant for quite some time, but it doesn't mean that a) they will remain like this forever and b) I have to dig sh*t for that reason...
Re. data theft and resale?
You're sooo much putting the finger on the spot... Just now I got a credit card after 4 years of not having one... thanks for that. However - am I paying my rolling papers with it? No. Would I be paying 'personal support' (that I'm not using anyway)? No. So what data could my credit card company store about me? Thanks for the remainder that I shouldn't order a copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" online and pay by CC though Whilst "manual data entry is becoming a thing of the past" - clerks in need of ca$h, won't... so what about data theft in such companies?
Originally Posted By: Benthe difference tom is that the animals in the zoo are unhappy about their box, its in their face it restricts what they can do, our box makes our lives easier, our box is more like a zooalogical park where its like being in the wild but if the animal gets sick theres a vet to look after it, there is never a shortage of food and occasionally some tourists drive by in the distance to take a look at you, funding your pampered lifestyle. In much the same way that advertisers fund all of the free email/search/social networking/video hosting/photo hosting/etc services on the net
Even though I doubt that all animals are unhappy about their box - you want to tell me that all people are happy about it?
Can't quite follow up on the picture of free medicare and sufficient, free food either
See, I repeat that I'd be willing to pay 30 bucks/ year for my eMail or Flickr or YouTube, IF I would NEVER EVER have to accept their cookies and face data mining/ selling again. The reason for me NOT opting to pay is that I would still have to accept their cookies and them doing what they're doing...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTom
However in these cases I can't quite see how Monsoon, HGA or Xterasys made bucks from source code-alterations and selling
they make money by selling it bundled with their hardware http://www.myhava.com/products.html
br>
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Ben: so I'm a late bloomer ... what to do?
do some more research into Google and their corporate culture before referring to them as the enemy
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Dunno how I can be identified by my search terms alone... okay, if I'm typing "BKK" (airport code) instead of "Bangkok"... but hey, I'm not the only one looking for "fun+for+free" am I?
watch privacy is dead again they explain it in there
Originally Posted By: FireTom
How is the "ISP logging all your data" if I'm using one at home and a different one in the Internet-cafe? And another (different) one at various free Wi-Fi hotspots in restaurants, airports and such? if you check your email/hop etc it makes it easy to connect you
Originally Posted By: FireTomNo. So what data could my credit card company store about me? Thanks for the remainder that I shouldn't order a copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" online and pay by CC though
got a bank account? its linked with your credit card. from your bank account the banks can determine how often you get paid and by who --> what type of jobs you might have, how often you withdraw cash --> how well you budget, if you pay your bills electronically --> ~ how many people you live with, how often you transfer money to savings --> reflects your personality, which atm machines you use --> travel patterns and habits (ie you only travel x kms from home on average), if you only have money coming in and none going out --> your supported by someone else/have a cash in hand job etc etc etc
we are moving towards a cashless society (its in the banks interest, in much the same way they acquired the bulk of gold that was used as currency so they had more control on the "value" of money) at which point EVERYTHING you buy will be data mined
Originally Posted By: FireTomWhilst "manual data entry is becoming a thing of the past" - clerks in need of ca$h, won't... so what about data theft in such companies?
what about it? it will continue to happen until manual data entry is a thing of the past
Originally Posted By: FireTomEven though I doubt that all animals are unhappy about their box - you want to tell me that all people are happy about it?
lol riiiiiight, i doubt that there is anything that all people are happy about. My point is that most people are clueless that its happening, generation Y doesnt care about privacy, check out the documentary growing up online if your interested
Originally Posted By: FireTomSee, I repeat that I'd be willing to pay 30 bucks/ year for my eMail or Flickr or YouTube
that's nice but your in a very very small minority which is why it wont happen
However in these cases I can't quite see how Monsoon, HGA or Xterasys made bucks from source code-alterations and selling
they make money by selling it bundled with their hardware http://www.myhava.com/products.html
br>
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Ben: so I'm a late bloomer
... what to do?do some more research into Google and their corporate culture before referring to them as the enemy
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Dunno how I can be identified by my search terms alone... okay, if I'm typing "BKK" (airport code) instead of "Bangkok"... but hey, I'm not the only one looking for "fun+for+free" am I?
watch privacy is dead again they explain it in there
Originally Posted By: FireTom
How is the "ISP logging all your data" if I'm using one at home and a different one in the Internet-cafe?
And another (different) one at various free Wi-Fi hotspots in restaurants, airports and such? if you check your email/hop etc it makes it easy to connect youOriginally Posted By: FireTomNo. So what data could my credit card company store about me? Thanks for the remainder that I shouldn't order a copy of "Fahrenheit 9/11" online and pay by CC though
got a bank account? its linked with your credit card. from your bank account the banks can determine how often you get paid and by who --> what type of jobs you might have, how often you withdraw cash --> how well you budget, if you pay your bills electronically --> ~ how many people you live with, how often you transfer money to savings --> reflects your personality, which atm machines you use --> travel patterns and habits (ie you only travel x kms from home on average), if you only have money coming in and none going out --> your supported by someone else/have a cash in hand job etc etc etc
we are moving towards a cashless society (its in the banks interest, in much the same way they acquired the bulk of gold that was used as currency so they had more control on the "value" of money) at which point EVERYTHING you buy will be data mined
Originally Posted By: FireTomWhilst "manual data entry is becoming a thing of the past" - clerks in need of ca$h, won't... so what about data theft in such companies?
what about it? it will continue to happen until manual data entry is a thing of the past
Originally Posted By: FireTomEven though I doubt that all animals are unhappy about their box - you want to tell me that all people are happy about it?
lol riiiiiight, i doubt that there is anything that all people are happy about. My point is that most people are clueless that its happening, generation Y doesnt care about privacy, check out the documentary growing up online if your interested
Originally Posted By: FireTomSee, I repeat that I'd be willing to pay 30 bucks/ year for my eMail or Flickr or YouTube
that's nice but your in a very very small minority which is why it wont happen
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
DeletePyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Total posts: 3289
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Total posts: 3289
Posted:^^^ Pay for content is the next big thing on the net - it's widely recognised that the current trend of 'free access to info' is going to become tighter and tighter, not looser and looser. If you want quality content, you are going to have to pay for it, ie HD video streaming wont be free, but your crappy youtube quality video of a duck taking a 
in Minesota will be.
in Minesota will be.--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTomOh - thanks for that
Originally Posted By: softwarefreedom.orgAccording to the lawsuits filed yesterday, both companies have continued to distribute BusyBox illegally without source code, despite having been contacted by SFLC.
(...)
"We've asked the SFLC to file these lawsuits to ensure that every user has the same freedom to access BusyBox under GPL version 2, which requires access to source code," said Rob Landley, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We let companies do what they like with BusyBox on their hardware, and what we asked in return was that they let us reproduce what they've done with BusyBox on our hardware. That's the deal embodied in the GPL."
However in these cases I can't quite see how Monsoon, HGA or Xterasys made bucks from source code-alterations and selling... which is what I was referring to. Maybe I'm just not interpreting the case right. Oh, I guess I got it - they violated the license by not revealing the altered SC - they didn't sell the stuff... right?
you made the point that people could take OSS and use the code to make a piece of software they could sell. the cases i quoted dont show that, but they do show companies breaking the GPL agreement.
if someone did try to use some source code from an OSS project and sell it as their own piece of software it would get found out and effective legal action would be taken.
EDITED_BY: simta (1222300021)
Originally Posted By: softwarefreedom.orgAccording to the lawsuits filed yesterday, both companies have continued to distribute BusyBox illegally without source code, despite having been contacted by SFLC.
(...)
"We've asked the SFLC to file these lawsuits to ensure that every user has the same freedom to access BusyBox under GPL version 2, which requires access to source code," said Rob Landley, a developer of BusyBox and a named plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We let companies do what they like with BusyBox on their hardware, and what we asked in return was that they let us reproduce what they've done with BusyBox on our hardware. That's the deal embodied in the GPL."
However in these cases I can't quite see how Monsoon, HGA or Xterasys made bucks from source code-alterations and selling... which is what I was referring to. Maybe I'm just not interpreting the case right. Oh, I guess I got it - they violated the license by not revealing the altered SC - they didn't sell the stuff... right?
you made the point that people could take OSS and use the code to make a piece of software they could sell. the cases i quoted dont show that, but they do show companies breaking the GPL agreement.
if someone did try to use some source code from an OSS project and sell it as their own piece of software it would get found out and effective legal action would be taken.
EDITED_BY: simta (1222300021)
"the geeks have got you" - Gayle
DeletePosted:Thanks Simta What I referred to is, that people do learn from OSS. They can take the code, modify it and develop a piece off software that then can be sold. I am almost certain that (as with every intellectual property) there is a threshold, after which a software is regarded "genuine" (just as in patent-rights)... It might not be 'bad' anyway, there is an evolution happening any which way.
Ben - how detailed you want me to get into my way of how I am paying my bills? Trust me on one thing: the credit card company or my bank (at this point) is the least of my worries, when it comes to "data security" sorry, inside joke.
I am opposing getting rid of cash and (in the near future) it's not going to happen. If it's a thing that is bound to come, we will have to think of ways to prevent people from connecting the strings. We were thinking that cash is gone way over a decade ago, when credit cards started to move in strong... now what do we got? Some shops don't even like to take credit cards anymore - and personally I use them only where I absolutely have to.
Originally Posted By: Bendo some more research into Google and their corporate culture before referring to them as the enemy
Now that sounds awfully snippy - where have I referred to Google as "the enemy"? You repeat that claim, even though I tried to make it clear before. To recite: "Google Chrome - the enemy within?" I was referring to one Google product and mentioned Google Earth as a second product that needs to be observed (besides the fact that I join Josh in his concerns re. Google monopolizing the Internet advertising market - a moonopoly is in nobodies interest, but of Google)
I seem to have hit a weak spot in you by criticising Google? Skepticism is not a bad thing and raising questions ain't either... IMHO
re. data theft
Originally Posted By: Benwhat about it? it will continue to happen until manual data entry is a thing of the past
Well I'm afraid it will continue to happen even beyond that.
Originally Posted By: Bengeneration Y doesnt care about privacy
Which is one of the very few things (besides cellphone ringing tone mania) that really separates me from this conditioned generation: the complete submission to the system, without asking, without criticism and protest (except for online petitions) for the comfort of living a "pampered lifestyle". It's not merely "privacy" - it's "civil rights" my friend...
It seems as if we're moving so much closer to a "Matrix-reality" and it seems "generation Y" is embracing it like a long lost lover...
Fortunately there is still (enough) hope out there
Originally Posted By: benthat's nice but your in a very very small minority which is why it wont happen
thanks for pointing out just how special I am...
Now, Josh has hit the crack: "Pay for content"... is a thing of the future... FUN - at some stage the industry will require us to pay for quality content and STILL aim to mine, process and sell our data. (as I said before: I'd pay for "no-ads" IF I wouldn't have to accept their (tracking) cookies - but there is no way around it, which is why I don't loose on both ends)
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1222312476)
What I referred to is, that people do learn from OSS. They can take the code, modify it and develop a piece off software that then can be sold. I am almost certain that (as with every intellectual property) there is a threshold, after which a software is regarded "genuine" (just as in patent-rights)... It might not be 'bad' anyway, there is an evolution happening any which way.Ben - how detailed you want me to get into my way of how I am paying my bills? Trust me on one thing: the credit card company or my bank (at this point) is the least of my worries, when it comes to "data security"
sorry, inside joke.I am opposing getting rid of cash and (in the near future) it's not going to happen. If it's a thing that is bound to come, we will have to think of ways to prevent people from connecting the strings. We were thinking that cash is gone way over a decade ago, when credit cards started to move in strong... now what do we got? Some shops don't even like to take credit cards anymore - and personally I use them only where I absolutely have to.
Originally Posted By: Bendo some more research into Google and their corporate culture before referring to them as the enemy
Now that sounds awfully snippy - where have I referred to Google as "the enemy"? You repeat that claim, even though I tried to make it clear before. To recite: "Google Chrome - the enemy within?" I was referring to one Google product and mentioned Google Earth as a second product that needs to be observed (besides the fact that I join Josh in his concerns re. Google monopolizing the Internet advertising market - a moonopoly is in nobodies interest, but of Google)
I seem to have hit a weak spot in you by criticising Google? Skepticism is not a bad thing and raising questions ain't either... IMHO
re. data theft
Originally Posted By: Benwhat about it? it will continue to happen until manual data entry is a thing of the past
Well I'm afraid it will continue to happen even beyond that.
Originally Posted By: Bengeneration Y doesnt care about privacy
Which is one of the very few things (besides cellphone ringing tone mania) that really separates me from this conditioned generation: the complete submission to the system, without asking, without criticism and protest (except for online petitions) for the comfort of living a "pampered lifestyle". It's not merely "privacy" - it's "civil rights" my friend...
It seems as if we're moving so much closer to a "Matrix-reality" and it seems "generation Y" is embracing it like a long lost lover...
Fortunately there is still (enough) hope out there
Originally Posted By: benthat's nice but your in a very very small minority which is why it wont happen
thanks for pointing out just how special I am... Now, Josh has hit the crack: "Pay for content"... is a thing of the future... FUN - at some stage the industry will require us to pay for quality content and STILL aim to mine, process and sell our data. (as I said before: I'd pay for "no-ads" IF I wouldn't have to accept their (tracking) cookies - but there is no way around it, which is why I don't loose on both ends)
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1222312476)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Originally Posted By: Pyrolific^^^ Pay for content is the next big thing on the net - it's widely recognised that the current trend of 'free access to info' is going to become tighter and tighter, not looser and looser.
widely recognised by who? Big name artists have started offering free album downloads eventually the movie industry will catch up and do the same. There's a new generation of consumers who have grown up with the attitude that information is free.
Originally Posted By: Pyrolific If you want quality content, you are going to have to pay for it, ie HD video streaming wont be free, but your crappy youtube quality video of a duck taking a in Minesota will be.
Add &fmt=18 to the end of the URL and you will get a better quality youtube video. Once they start to monetize youtube (one of googles hugely uncapitalised resources) you will find that the quality of the director accounts becomes much more like HD. Particularly once the grid becomes publically available of...band connection
widely recognised by who? Big name artists have started offering free album downloads eventually the movie industry will catch up and do the same. There's a new generation of consumers who have grown up with the attitude that information is free.
Originally Posted By: Pyrolific If you want quality content, you are going to have to pay for it, ie HD video streaming wont be free, but your crappy youtube quality video of a duck taking a
in Minesota will be. Add &fmt=18 to the end of the URL and you will get a better quality youtube video. Once they start to monetize youtube (one of googles hugely uncapitalised resources) you will find that the quality of the director accounts becomes much more like HD. Particularly once the grid becomes publically available of...band connection
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
DeletePosted:Ben...
Originally Posted By: MTV articleThe bandmembers [Radiohead], who have been free agents since the release of 2003's Hail to the Thief, decide to release the album by themselves in two formats: download-only, which allows fans to name their price for the album, and as a deluxe "discbox" version (priced at approximately $80).
I searched the entire arrticle for "free downloads" - couldn't find any "Big name artists have started offering free album downloads".... please point them out
Originally Posted By: BenOnce they start to monetize youtube (one of googles hugely uncapitalised resources)
...it will nose-dive and people will go back to the park to indulge in their exhibitionism (which is why they haven't yet, IMHO)
Originally Posted By: MTV articleThe bandmembers [Radiohead], who have been free agents since the release of 2003's Hail to the Thief, decide to release the album by themselves in two formats: download-only, which allows fans to name their price for the album, and as a deluxe "discbox" version (priced at approximately $80).
I searched the entire arrticle for "free downloads" - couldn't find any "Big name artists have started offering free album downloads".... please point them out
Originally Posted By: BenOnce they start to monetize youtube (one of googles hugely uncapitalised resources)
...it will nose-dive and people will go back to the park to indulge in their exhibitionism
(which is why they haven't yet, IMHO)the best smiles are the ones you lead to
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTom
I am opposing getting rid of cash and (in the near future) it's not going to happen. ..... We were thinking that cash is gone way over a decade ago, when credit cards started to move in strong
10 years ago most people where not online, back then there was also a huge fear around online shopping and having your details stolen (and rightly so, lots of the online shopping systems used to stored your details in plain text in publicly accessible directories, back then before google "hacks" where widely known you could use google to find them). Those same fears aren't held by the majority of people these days so bearing in mind that Gen Y doesn't care, what exactly is stopping a cashless society?
Originally Posted By: FireTom
I seem to have hit a weak spot in you by criticising Google?
Tom imagine that instead the thread was called, FireTom - a _____? and the contents where recalling an instance where you where seen talking to a child in a public place, instead of finding out what the actual situation was the poster took a few bits of information and filled in the blanks to paint you in a negative light by implying that your a _____. Several people then explain that the reality is that you where helping a lost child find their mother, but the original poster persists that your a _____. That is what you have done in this thread.
Had you put something together like http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook/
that implies that the CIA is using facebook to monitor you, I might not agree with you but at least I could see you have done some homework to put a case together to support what you have implied. Instead you have had people who are tech literate give you more information, even after simta explained how Google Chrome being open source means that anyone can modify it as they see fit, you still persist in implying that Google's actions are unethical, when the reality is that they are giving you the tools to have some level of anonymity which seems to be so important to you. I find this frustrating because it seems your not listening.
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Skepticism is not a bad thing and raising questions ain't either... IMHO
I agree, however you have to ask the right questions. For example if im doing market research
If I ask
"I have developed this new pen, do you like it."
Most people will say yes not because they like it but because they want to be polite, and its just a pen so they dont have a strong opinion either way.
If I ask
"Would you buy this pen"
Most people will still say yes because they want to be polite, and they might buy it if the price was right.
If I ask
"Would you buy this pen for $100"
Most people will say no.
If you want an useful answer you have to deal with facts and remove implications particularly ones that have no evidence one way or the other.
EDITED_BY: ben-ja-men (1222418636)
I am opposing getting rid of cash and (in the near future) it's not going to happen. ..... We were thinking that cash is gone way over a decade ago, when credit cards started to move in strong
10 years ago most people where not online, back then there was also a huge fear around online shopping and having your details stolen (and rightly so, lots of the online shopping systems used to stored your details in plain text in publicly accessible directories, back then before google "hacks" where widely known you could use google to find them). Those same fears aren't held by the majority of people these days so bearing in mind that Gen Y doesn't care, what exactly is stopping a cashless society?
Originally Posted By: FireTom
I seem to have hit a weak spot in you by criticising Google?
Tom imagine that instead the thread was called, FireTom - a _____? and the contents where recalling an instance where you where seen talking to a child in a public place, instead of finding out what the actual situation was the poster took a few bits of information and filled in the blanks to paint you in a negative light by implying that your a _____. Several people then explain that the reality is that you where helping a lost child find their mother, but the original poster persists that your a _____. That is what you have done in this thread.
Had you put something together like http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook/
that implies that the CIA is using facebook to monitor you, I might not agree with you but at least I could see you have done some homework to put a case together to support what you have implied. Instead you have had people who are tech literate give you more information, even after simta explained how Google Chrome being open source means that anyone can modify it as they see fit, you still persist in implying that Google's actions are unethical, when the reality is that they are giving you the tools to have some level of anonymity which seems to be so important to you. I find this frustrating because it seems your not listening.
Originally Posted By: FireTom
Skepticism is not a bad thing and raising questions ain't either... IMHO
I agree, however you have to ask the right questions. For example if im doing market research
If I ask
"I have developed this new pen, do you like it."
Most people will say yes not because they like it but because they want to be polite, and its just a pen so they dont have a strong opinion either way.
If I ask
"Would you buy this pen"
Most people will still say yes because they want to be polite, and they might buy it if the price was right.
If I ask
"Would you buy this pen for $100"
Most people will say no.
If you want an useful answer you have to deal with facts and remove implications particularly ones that have no evidence one way or the other.
EDITED_BY: ben-ja-men (1222418636)
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Deleteben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTomBen...
Originally Posted By: MTV articleThe bandmembers [Radiohead], who have been free agents since the release of 2003's Hail to the Thief, decide to release the album by themselves in two formats: download-only, which allows fans to name their price for the album, and as a deluxe "discbox" version (priced at approximately $80).
I searched the entire arrticle for "free downloads" - couldn't find any "Big name artists have started offering free album downloads".... please point them out
try reading the article next time
Originally Posted By: MTV articleOctober 10: In Rainbows is made available for download. Over the next two months, much speculation ensues as to just how many people downloaded it and exactly how much they paid to do so: Early reports have more than 1.2 million fans downloading it at an average price of $8, though later findings by comScore, a company that measures consumer activity online, adds that more than 60 percent of downloaders paid nothing for the album. Neither Radiohead nor their publicists discuss the financial aspects of the download experiment, though the band does issue a statement dismissing comScore's findings as "wholly inaccurate."
Originally Posted By: MTV articleOctober 8: Trent Reznor announces the end of his 13-year relationship with Interscope Records, writing on his site, "As of right now, Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contact with any label. ... It gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit." He then goes on to write that there are "exciting times" ahead. And he's not kidding: Within a week, he promises (threatens?) to scuttle Interscope's release of a Year Zero remix album by leaking tracks from it to the Internet, then announces that he's partnering with Saul Williams to release The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust! via download, and gets into a public argument with the Universal Music Group over the legality of a proposed fan-only remix site, before deciding to launch the site himself.
http://theslip.nin.com/
is the link to the NIN latest album free download
Originally Posted By: MTV articleThe bandmembers [Radiohead], who have been free agents since the release of 2003's Hail to the Thief, decide to release the album by themselves in two formats: download-only, which allows fans to name their price for the album, and as a deluxe "discbox" version (priced at approximately $80).
I searched the entire arrticle for "free downloads" - couldn't find any "Big name artists have started offering free album downloads".... please point them out
try reading the article next time
Originally Posted By: MTV articleOctober 10: In Rainbows is made available for download. Over the next two months, much speculation ensues as to just how many people downloaded it and exactly how much they paid to do so: Early reports have more than 1.2 million fans downloading it at an average price of $8, though later findings by comScore, a company that measures consumer activity online, adds that more than 60 percent of downloaders paid nothing for the album. Neither Radiohead nor their publicists discuss the financial aspects of the download experiment, though the band does issue a statement dismissing comScore's findings as "wholly inaccurate."
Originally Posted By: MTV articleOctober 8: Trent Reznor announces the end of his 13-year relationship with Interscope Records, writing on his site, "As of right now, Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contact with any label. ... It gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit." He then goes on to write that there are "exciting times" ahead. And he's not kidding: Within a week, he promises (threatens?) to scuttle Interscope's release of a Year Zero remix album by leaking tracks from it to the Internet, then announces that he's partnering with Saul Williams to release The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of Niggy Tardust! via download, and gets into a public argument with the Universal Music Group over the legality of a proposed fan-only remix site, before deciding to launch the site himself.
http://theslip.nin.com/
is the link to the NIN latest album free download
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Deleteben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:got a mobile phone? at the moment it requires your friends to accept a request for you to stalk. ... i mean track them
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Delete
Posted:Pyrolific - It was a function that was built into the stats program on a unix box that I used to rent (I think a feature of AWStats at the time). As I said - I havent looked into this in ages. I'm sure (given open source coding) that history can be made available quite easily.
Ben - I use CoPilot Live on my phone. I can give anyone a tracker that will allow them access to my GPS coordinates. This means that it must be being tracked all the time anyway. (Although I have completely failed so far to locate myself online with it)
Tom - As yet I have no reason to distrust Google. They have always acted in an ethical manner (as far as I have seen) and are a massive benefit to the internet community and the world as a whole (the China and US goverment cases were completely unprecedented in the business world). If they act differently I may be forced to change my stance.
On the other hand I have been lied to by my government over and over again. Today their ID card design has been unveiled. Now there is someone I dont trust with my personal data!
Ben - I use CoPilot Live on my phone. I can give anyone a tracker that will allow them access to my GPS coordinates. This means that it must be being tracked all the time anyway. (Although I have completely failed so far to locate myself online with it)
Tom - As yet I have no reason to distrust Google. They have always acted in an ethical manner (as far as I have seen) and are a massive benefit to the internet community and the world as a whole (the China and US goverment cases were completely unprecedented in the business world). If they act differently I may be forced to change my stance.
On the other hand I have been lied to by my government over and over again. Today their ID card design has been unveiled. Now there is someone I dont trust with my personal data!
Delete
Posted:So, first off - in Germany at least you don't need approval to stalk, errm track someone on his mobile and AFAII the stalked, errm tracked one doesn't even get a notification that and who traced him... 
which I believe is an outrage and should be fixed asap.
Second off, thanks for highlighting the crucial parts in that article you linked to. I read it and tried to speed up the process by searching (CTRL+F) "free" and "download", which returned with the exact two passages that I quoted. Anglo is still my second lingo - I'm trying
Thanks for enlightening me that these were referring to "free downloads"... Whilst 1.2 million times 8$ to me still is 9.6 million $, however and the In Rainbow album had a miserable download rate...
However it seems we're getting caught up in semantics.
Thirdly, let me ask you: Are you trying to annoy me? Or to derail this thread, Ben? If so, you're on the right track...
There is a major difference between "raising a question" and "making an allegation". Right now, if I punch in the two keywords you are suggesting, my name and your 'allegation' I get results that directly link to this discussion. Thanks for that, Ben. Good job... There is another link to the discussion whether or not *ill* should receive the death penalty. And as far as I remember you're the one PRO death penalty but maybe my opposition to your views makes you link the two topics.
Originally Posted By: BenThat is what you have done in this thread.
And that is NOT true. Please point out the moment where I have accused Google of an unlawful action, or finally stop to make such allegations. I repeatedly tried to explain to you that I am not hailing Google as the enemy. Your frustration originates in your own mind, exclusively.
The concern I raised are shared and if you kindly eat your own advice, I wouldn't have to do it for you:
Originally Posted By: eWeekOne day after Google's beta launch of the Web browser Sept. 2, users complained that Section 11 of the end-user license agreement gave Google too much control over information after it was entered into the browser.
An anonymous Google Watch reader told me Sept. 2 that his company is banned from using Chrome.
He also noted that a security officer of another organization told him Chrome was put on that company's banned software list, calling for users to remove it from their system. The reason? He explained:
Google has included some extremely harsh terminology in their user license that gives them ownership of content you view through the viewer. In our environment that could include source code, proprietary information stored in PDFs viewed online and other property. Until we can research the impact, this browser will remain on the do not install list.
- a problem Google is currently fixing.
Originally Posted By: Wiki article on ChromeOn 2 September, a CNET news item[12] drew attention to a passage in the terms of service for the initial beta release, which seemed to grant to Google a license to all content transferred via the Chrome browser.[13] The passage in question was inherited from the general Google terms of service.[14] The Register summarized the passage as "Your copyright goes up in smoke."[15] On the same day, Google responded to this criticism by stating that the language used was borrowed from other products, and removed the passage in question from the Terms of Service.[16] Google noted that this change would "apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."[17] There were subsequent concerns about the browser's use of an unusual tracking feature that sends information about visited websites back to Google. The company stated that this is only enabled when users opt in by checking the option "help make Google Chrome better by automatically sending usage statistics and crash reports to Google" when installing the browser.[18]
Originally Posted By: Google blogoscopedThe auto-suggest feature of Googles new Chrome browser does more than just help users get where they are going. It will also give Google a wealth of information on what people are doing on the Internet besides searching.
Provided that users leave Chromes auto-suggest feature on and have Google as their default search provider, Google will have access to any keystrokes that are typed into the browsers Omnibox, even before a user hits enter.
Originally Posted By: PC world article "7 reasons for and 7 reasons against Chrome5. You're giving advertisers extra ammo.
Have you seen all the hype about Google's privacy practices and how much of your data it shares with advertisers? Imagine the potential ammo you're giving it by using this browser. Google will now have total control over your experience from the time you open Chrome to the time you shut down. In some sense, you might just as well invite DoubleClick to watch over your shoulder while you surf.
Originally Posted By: Mashable.comGerman Security Office Smells Stink on Google Chrome
(...)
And just so were thorough, the way weve learned of this official relay is the through the German blog Spreeblick, sourced by Philipp Lensen of Google Blogoscoped. Lensen summarized the matter thusly:
The Federal Office for Information Security warned Internet users of the new browser Chrome. The application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the Internet, as a spokesperson for the office told the Berliner Zeitung. It was said to be problematic that Chrome was distributed as an unfinished advance version. Furthermore it was said to be risky that user data is hoarded with a single vendor. With its search engine, email program and the new browser, Google now covers all important areas on the Internet.
which I believe is an outrage and should be fixed asap.Second off, thanks for highlighting the crucial parts in that article you linked to. I read it and tried to speed up the process by searching (CTRL+F) "free" and "download", which returned with the exact two passages that I quoted. Anglo is still my second lingo - I'm trying
Thanks for enlightening me that these were referring to "free downloads"... Whilst 1.2 million times 8$ to me still is 9.6 million $, however and the In Rainbow album had a miserable download rate...
However it seems we're getting caught up in semantics.
Thirdly, let me ask you: Are you trying to annoy me? Or to derail this thread, Ben? If so, you're on the right track...
There is a major difference between "raising a question" and "making an allegation". Right now, if I punch in the two keywords you are suggesting, my name and your 'allegation' I get results that directly link to this discussion. Thanks for that, Ben.
Good job... There is another link to the discussion whether or not *ill* should receive the death penalty. And as far as I remember you're the one PRO death penalty but maybe my opposition to your views makes you link the two topics.Originally Posted By: BenThat is what you have done in this thread.
And that is NOT true. Please point out the moment where I have accused Google of an unlawful action, or finally stop to make such allegations. I repeatedly tried to explain to you that I am not hailing Google as the enemy. Your frustration originates in your own mind, exclusively.
The concern I raised are shared and if you kindly eat your own advice, I wouldn't have to do it for you:
Originally Posted By: eWeekOne day after Google's beta launch of the Web browser Sept. 2, users complained that Section 11 of the end-user license agreement gave Google too much control over information after it was entered into the browser.
An anonymous Google Watch reader told me Sept. 2 that his company is banned from using Chrome.
He also noted that a security officer of another organization told him Chrome was put on that company's banned software list, calling for users to remove it from their system. The reason? He explained:
Google has included some extremely harsh terminology in their user license that gives them ownership of content you view through the viewer. In our environment that could include source code, proprietary information stored in PDFs viewed online and other property. Until we can research the impact, this browser will remain on the do not install list.
- a problem Google is currently fixing.
Originally Posted By: Wiki article on ChromeOn 2 September, a CNET news item[12] drew attention to a passage in the terms of service for the initial beta release, which seemed to grant to Google a license to all content transferred via the Chrome browser.[13] The passage in question was inherited from the general Google terms of service.[14] The Register summarized the passage as "Your copyright goes up in smoke."[15] On the same day, Google responded to this criticism by stating that the language used was borrowed from other products, and removed the passage in question from the Terms of Service.[16] Google noted that this change would "apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."[17] There were subsequent concerns about the browser's use of an unusual tracking feature that sends information about visited websites back to Google. The company stated that this is only enabled when users opt in by checking the option "help make Google Chrome better by automatically sending usage statistics and crash reports to Google" when installing the browser.[18]
Originally Posted By: Google blogoscopedThe auto-suggest feature of Googles new Chrome browser does more than just help users get where they are going. It will also give Google a wealth of information on what people are doing on the Internet besides searching.
Provided that users leave Chromes auto-suggest feature on and have Google as their default search provider, Google will have access to any keystrokes that are typed into the browsers Omnibox, even before a user hits enter.
Originally Posted By: PC world article "7 reasons for and 7 reasons against Chrome5. You're giving advertisers extra ammo.
Have you seen all the hype about Google's privacy practices and how much of your data it shares with advertisers? Imagine the potential ammo you're giving it by using this browser. Google will now have total control over your experience from the time you open Chrome to the time you shut down. In some sense, you might just as well invite DoubleClick to watch over your shoulder while you surf.
Originally Posted By: Mashable.comGerman Security Office Smells Stink on Google Chrome
(...)
And just so were thorough, the way weve learned of this official relay is the through the German blog Spreeblick, sourced by Philipp Lensen of Google Blogoscoped. Lensen summarized the matter thusly:
The Federal Office for Information Security warned Internet users of the new browser Chrome. The application by the company Google should not be used for surfing the Internet, as a spokesperson for the office told the Berliner Zeitung. It was said to be problematic that Chrome was distributed as an unfinished advance version. Furthermore it was said to be risky that user data is hoarded with a single vendor. With its search engine, email program and the new browser, Google now covers all important areas on the Internet.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:but we posted a link earlier on in this thread which pointed to the fact that the EULA agreement to chrome had been changed.
there's been a few programs recently including the soon-to-come-out version of firefox which included a EULA with similarly dodgy things in it which they have retracted.
it seems in the face of it they just took a standard EULA and posted it without making sure exactly what was in it.from both companies they have corrected their actions BEFORE the release version of the product comes online. i know ive said it before but it needs to be repeated, chrome is still in BETA testing phase. usually a program wouldnt get this much attention when still in beta phase, but because it is google it happens.
i think we should be happy that there are companies the size of google and mozilla that realise how important customer concerns are and react to them in good time.
wait til the final release of google chrome is out, then give the coders sometime to really go through it with a tooth comb, and if theres any dodgy things in it, they will release a version which takes those out then you can have the speed and confidence in the security of the browser
there's been a few programs recently including the soon-to-come-out version of firefox which included a EULA with similarly dodgy things in it which they have retracted.
it seems in the face of it they just took a standard EULA and posted it without making sure exactly what was in it.from both companies they have corrected their actions BEFORE the release version of the product comes online. i know ive said it before but it needs to be repeated, chrome is still in BETA testing phase. usually a program wouldnt get this much attention when still in beta phase, but because it is google it happens.
i think we should be happy that there are companies the size of google and mozilla that realise how important customer concerns are and react to them in good time.
wait til the final release of google chrome is out, then give the coders sometime to really go through it with a tooth comb, and if theres any dodgy things in it, they will release a version which takes those out then you can have the speed and confidence in the security of the browser
"the geeks have got you" - Gayle
DeletePosted:Listen, please - I'm feeling a bit disenchanted from the turn this thread has taken recently and am not ready to continue too much further at this point. I don't appreciate facing such statements and getting accused of having made wrongful (criminal) allegations against Google, which I haven't.
I tried to explain myself and my approach to the subject a few times over. I do understand that you all might be fans of Google for your own reasons and I do respect that. If you have the feeling that I didn't, please tell me so - but keep eyes open whether you fabricated your own context or whether it is really out there.
I for my part really appreciated your input up to now and the (patient) advice I received, been learning a lot. Please note that I also tried to keep this as friendly as possible, despite upcoming frustration on my side...
For the time being I would like to point out:
1) above I posted risen concerns about Google Chrome by means of a few, superficially picked articles from people who understand a lot more about the Internet and data mining than I do.
Personally I don't care whether Chrome is OSS or not, I'm not a software engineer - and I shouldn't have to be one to use or render such product.
Regardless of whether or not Chrome in the end will be an acceptable product: It is available as we speak.
2) Even though it's NOT primarily about the license agreement - Google 'accidentally' picking a license with crude wording for it's hailed new browser? And this is acting as a valid excuse? You got to be kidding me.
After all we're not talking about some bunch of backyard kids but the almighty Google - one of the largest net capitalizing companies on the Internet.
I got taught another important lesson when it comes to question other peoples idols: don't go there - or at least use a disposable nick.
What you seem persistently incapable or unwilling to understand is that political situations can change. They can change fast and radical. We've seen this happening in the wake of 9/11 and it might happen again and for the worse than ever before.
Oh, right - you're not a Muslim, living in the US (or elsewhere) - accidentally getting detained to and interrogated in Guantanamo for having had the wrong friends (remember that in every terrorist might be a family member, friend or lover - who doesn't necessarily reveal his intentions to his acquaints)... "Oh, but if you're innocent you got nothing to fear" - dream on, brother.
Oh, and there is no witch hunt going on when it comes to *ill* - so I can easily put (private) names in a -censored- context and then slip into hiding... Thanks again, Ben.
Oh, and last re. Google 'showing the stink to the Chinese government':
Google and China over Tibet
Originally Posted By: boingboing.netGoogle has agreed to filter out every aspect of Tibetan life that the Chinese government finds offensive, leaving only propaganda, misrepresentations, and outright lies about Tibet and Tibetans. It's amazing. The Tibetan people spent thousands of years developing their history and culture, and Google managed to make it disappear in little more than a year with only a few algorithms.
Chinese dissident suing Google for taking his name from search results
Originally Posted By: timesonlineA former Chinese university professor who was dismissed after he founded a democratic opposition party, plans to sue Yahoo! and Google in the United States for blocking his name from search results in China.
Guo Quan, an expert on classical Chinese literature and the 1937 Nanjing massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese troops, last week issued an open letter pledging to bring a lawsuit against Google after he discovered that his name had been excised in searches of its google.cn portal in China.
This one is aimed at Yahoo, not Google - I only quote it here to show how crucial privacy is
Originally Posted By: rconversations.blogsAnother development that surfaced in the English-language media on Thursday and Friday this past week is a new lawsuit against Yahoo!. It was filed on February 21st in San Francisco by two men, Guo Quan, a Nanjing-based scholar and acting chairman of the underground New People's Party, and Zheng Cunzhu, head of the Western U.S. branch of the Democratic Party of China.
They are suing Yahoo! for a couple of reasons. Guo Quan says that Yahoo! China has removed his name from their search results without any legally valid reasons, after Guo published an open letter calling for political reform. Zheng Cunzhu claims that he cannot return to China for fear of arrest - because Yahoo!'s handover of e-mail records to the police also implicated him - and as a result has lost property.
But this can't happen to Google as they don't offer Gmail within China in the first place... right?
What Google didn't do in China acc. to Ethan Zuckerman
Originally Posted By: My heart is in AccraIn the recent debate over Googles decision to provide censored search results on their Google.cn service, I feel that not enough attention was paid to what Google DIDNT do in China. Google didnt introduce their Gmail service on a Chinese server. They didnt introduce Blogger, either, and their senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin (disclosure: friend, Berkman colleague, co-author with me on academic papers) says on the Google blog, were not going to offer some Google products, such as Gmail or Blogger, on Google.cn until were comfortable that we can do so in a manner that respects our users interests in the privacy of their personal communications.
In other words, Google decided they couldnt sacrifice China as a market entirely by continuing to provide a search engine thats largely unusable in China, despite a recognition that a censored search engine is, at best, a morally questionable proposition. But when it came to publishing and communication tools - tools with a strong potential to land users in prison - theyve ceded the market (and the legal problems) to Yahoo!, Microsoft and Chinese companies. Its not a perfect solution, by a long shot, but its certainly more responsible than Yahoo!s solution, which seems to be to cooperate with the Chinese government to imprison political dissidents.
So why isnt Yahoo! seeing the outrage that Google saw in the wake of its decision to put up a Google.cn search engine? It may be that we, as the web public, expect more of a company that has as an unofficial motto Dont be evil as opposed to Yahoo!, which despite its cool and webby origins appears as maintstream and commercial as anything else on the web. It may be that many of us (myself included) use Google every day and Yahoo! seldom and dont like the idea that were supporting a company that makes moral compromises.
And I guess he's hit the nail on the head...
Timesonline on the same topic:
Originally Posted By: Times onlineGoogle will face a showdown with shareholders over its business in China and other territories that censor the web, at its annual meeting on May 10.
The Office of the Comptroller of New York City, which controls police, fire department and teachers pensions funds, has demanded a shareholder vote calling for measures designed to safeguard free speech online.
The vote will include a call for Google not to store information that can identify its users in internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
Other policies being proposed ask that Google not engage in "proactive censorship" and that it use all legal means to resist demands for censorship.
Google's board has recommended a vote against the shareholder proposal. Since two thirds of Googles voting stock is owned by its co-founders and chief executive, who sit on the board, the proposal has no chance of being passed.
And let me spell it out for you once more: I'm n o t h a i l i n g G o o g l e a s t h e e n e m y - n e v e r h a v e.
I tried to explain myself and my approach to the subject a few times over. I do understand that you all might be fans of Google for your own reasons and I do respect that. If you have the feeling that I didn't, please tell me so - but keep eyes open whether you fabricated your own context or whether it is really out there.
I for my part really appreciated your input up to now and the (patient) advice I received, been learning a lot. Please note that I also tried to keep this as friendly as possible, despite upcoming frustration on my side...
For the time being I would like to point out:
1) above I posted risen concerns about Google Chrome by means of a few, superficially picked articles from people who understand a lot more about the Internet and data mining than I do.
Personally I don't care whether Chrome is OSS or not, I'm not a software engineer - and I shouldn't have to be one to use or render such product.
Regardless of whether or not Chrome in the end will be an acceptable product: It is available as we speak.
2) Even though it's NOT primarily about the license agreement - Google 'accidentally' picking a license with crude wording for it's hailed new browser? And this is acting as a valid excuse? You got to be kidding me.
After all we're not talking about some bunch of backyard kids but the almighty Google - one of the largest net capitalizing companies on the Internet.
I got taught another important lesson when it comes to question other peoples idols: don't go there - or at least use a disposable nick.
What you seem persistently incapable or unwilling to understand is that political situations can change. They can change fast and radical. We've seen this happening in the wake of 9/11 and it might happen again and for the worse than ever before.
Oh, right - you're not a Muslim, living in the US (or elsewhere) - accidentally getting detained to and interrogated in Guantanamo for having had the wrong friends (remember that in every terrorist might be a family member, friend or lover - who doesn't necessarily reveal his intentions to his acquaints)... "Oh, but if you're innocent you got nothing to fear" - dream on, brother.
Oh, and there is no witch hunt going on when it comes to *ill* - so I can easily put (private) names in a -censored- context and then slip into hiding... Thanks again, Ben.
Oh, and last re. Google 'showing the stink to the Chinese government':
Google and China over Tibet
Originally Posted By: boingboing.netGoogle has agreed to filter out every aspect of Tibetan life that the Chinese government finds offensive, leaving only propaganda, misrepresentations, and outright lies about Tibet and Tibetans. It's amazing. The Tibetan people spent thousands of years developing their history and culture, and Google managed to make it disappear in little more than a year with only a few algorithms.
Chinese dissident suing Google for taking his name from search results
Originally Posted By: timesonlineA former Chinese university professor who was dismissed after he founded a democratic opposition party, plans to sue Yahoo! and Google in the United States for blocking his name from search results in China.
Guo Quan, an expert on classical Chinese literature and the 1937 Nanjing massacre of Chinese civilians by Japanese troops, last week issued an open letter pledging to bring a lawsuit against Google after he discovered that his name had been excised in searches of its google.cn portal in China.
This one is aimed at Yahoo, not Google - I only quote it here to show how crucial privacy is
Originally Posted By: rconversations.blogsAnother development that surfaced in the English-language media on Thursday and Friday this past week is a new lawsuit against Yahoo!. It was filed on February 21st in San Francisco by two men, Guo Quan, a Nanjing-based scholar and acting chairman of the underground New People's Party, and Zheng Cunzhu, head of the Western U.S. branch of the Democratic Party of China.
They are suing Yahoo! for a couple of reasons. Guo Quan says that Yahoo! China has removed his name from their search results without any legally valid reasons, after Guo published an open letter calling for political reform. Zheng Cunzhu claims that he cannot return to China for fear of arrest - because Yahoo!'s handover of e-mail records to the police also implicated him - and as a result has lost property.
But this can't happen to Google as they don't offer Gmail within China in the first place... right?
What Google didn't do in China acc. to Ethan Zuckerman
Originally Posted By: My heart is in AccraIn the recent debate over Googles decision to provide censored search results on their Google.cn service, I feel that not enough attention was paid to what Google DIDNT do in China. Google didnt introduce their Gmail service on a Chinese server. They didnt introduce Blogger, either, and their senior policy counsel Andrew McLaughlin (disclosure: friend, Berkman colleague, co-author with me on academic papers) says on the Google blog, were not going to offer some Google products, such as Gmail or Blogger, on Google.cn until were comfortable that we can do so in a manner that respects our users interests in the privacy of their personal communications.
In other words, Google decided they couldnt sacrifice China as a market entirely by continuing to provide a search engine thats largely unusable in China, despite a recognition that a censored search engine is, at best, a morally questionable proposition. But when it came to publishing and communication tools - tools with a strong potential to land users in prison - theyve ceded the market (and the legal problems) to Yahoo!, Microsoft and Chinese companies. Its not a perfect solution, by a long shot, but its certainly more responsible than Yahoo!s solution, which seems to be to cooperate with the Chinese government to imprison political dissidents.
So why isnt Yahoo! seeing the outrage that Google saw in the wake of its decision to put up a Google.cn search engine? It may be that we, as the web public, expect more of a company that has as an unofficial motto Dont be evil as opposed to Yahoo!, which despite its cool and webby origins appears as maintstream and commercial as anything else on the web. It may be that many of us (myself included) use Google every day and Yahoo! seldom and dont like the idea that were supporting a company that makes moral compromises.
And I guess he's hit the nail on the head...
Timesonline on the same topic:
Originally Posted By: Times onlineGoogle will face a showdown with shareholders over its business in China and other territories that censor the web, at its annual meeting on May 10.
The Office of the Comptroller of New York City, which controls police, fire department and teachers pensions funds, has demanded a shareholder vote calling for measures designed to safeguard free speech online.
The vote will include a call for Google not to store information that can identify its users in internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
Other policies being proposed ask that Google not engage in "proactive censorship" and that it use all legal means to resist demands for censorship.
Google's board has recommended a vote against the shareholder proposal. Since two thirds of Googles voting stock is owned by its co-founders and chief executive, who sit on the board, the proposal has no chance of being passed.
And let me spell it out for you once more: I'm n o t h a i l i n g G o o g l e a s t h e e n e m y - n e v e r h a v e.
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTom
Oh, right - you're not a Muslim, living in the US (or elsewhere) - accidentally getting detained to and interrogated in Guantanamo for having had the wrong friends (remember that in every terrorist might be a family member, friend or lover - who doesn't necessarily reveal his intentions to his acquaints)... "Oh, but if you're innocent you got nothing to fear" - dream on, brother.
nope im not a muslim, my parents are pakistani and i was born in britain. i was born into a muslim family, but have chosen to lead my life otherwise.
you do not have to tell me i should be more paranoid than i am, i know exactly what its like to stand in a tube train with my staffs and rucksack and be stared at by everyone in the carriage.
i know what its like to be walking through central london and be stop searched 6/7 times in the same day.
i know what its like to walk past armed police guarding the train stations. so dont tell me that i should be more paranoid than i am about the world situation. its made me change my actions at times simply because i dont want to be mistaken for someone with islamic extremist leanings.
but google chrome ISNT something you need to be worried about.
Oh, right - you're not a Muslim, living in the US (or elsewhere) - accidentally getting detained to and interrogated in Guantanamo for having had the wrong friends (remember that in every terrorist might be a family member, friend or lover - who doesn't necessarily reveal his intentions to his acquaints)... "Oh, but if you're innocent you got nothing to fear" - dream on, brother.
nope im not a muslim, my parents are pakistani and i was born in britain. i was born into a muslim family, but have chosen to lead my life otherwise.
you do not have to tell me i should be more paranoid than i am, i know exactly what its like to stand in a tube train with my staffs and rucksack and be stared at by everyone in the carriage.
i know what its like to be walking through central london and be stop searched 6/7 times in the same day.
i know what its like to walk past armed police guarding the train stations. so dont tell me that i should be more paranoid than i am about the world situation. its made me change my actions at times simply because i dont want to be mistaken for someone with islamic extremist leanings.
but google chrome ISNT something you need to be worried about.
"the geeks have got you" - Gayle
DeletePosted:PS:
I value the way the two of you, namely Seye and Simta, were handling this discussion - as in 'opposing my concerns'...
Ben: PM already on the way - pls also respect that I'm sensitive about such kind of comments.
PPS:
Simta - I didn't know that - and my words have not exclusively been addressed in your, Seye's or Ben's direction, but that of "Generation Y" in general...
In times where our governments are out for witch hunts, we can't be all that ignorant about privacy... IMHO
So we should call this thread 'derailed' now?
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1222375128)
I value the way the two of you, namely Seye and Simta, were handling this discussion - as in 'opposing my concerns'...
Ben: PM already on the way - pls also respect that I'm sensitive about such kind of comments.
PPS:
Simta - I didn't know that - and my words have not exclusively been addressed in your, Seye's or Ben's direction, but that of "Generation Y" in general...
In times where our governments are out for witch hunts, we can't be all that ignorant about privacy... IMHO
So we should call this thread 'derailed' now?
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1222375128)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTom
In times where our governments are out for witch hunts, we can't be all that ignorant about privacy... IMHO
if a government net is really gonna be cast chances are your getting caught in it regardless of whether you have some details mined on the net or what you put in your FB profile.
its a very very unlikely event, but if it happens the only chance we might have is that word comes through on the net and you might manage to flee.
In times where our governments are out for witch hunts, we can't be all that ignorant about privacy... IMHO
if a government net is really gonna be cast chances are your getting caught in it regardless of whether you have some details mined on the net or what you put in your FB profile.
its a very very unlikely event, but if it happens the only chance we might have is that word comes through on the net and you might manage to flee.
"the geeks have got you" - Gayle
Deleteben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Originally Posted By: FireTom
Thirdly, let me ask you: Are you trying to annoy me? Or to derail this thread, Ben? If so, you're on the right track...
Nope just making a point. What I wrote was a question as well tom, much like your title it carries implications with it.
Originally Posted By: FireTom
my name and your 'allegation' I get results that directly link to this discussion. Thanks for that, Ben. Good job...
Dont worry i will edit the thread and expunge it from Google's cache (it takes 4 or 5 working days to be removed from the Google cache)
Originally Posted By: FireTom And that is NOT true. Please point out the moment where I have accused Google of an unlawful action, or finally stop to make such allegations.
I said unethical not unlawful there is a difference
Originally Posted By: FireTom I repeatedly tried to explain to you that I am not hailing Google as the enemy. Your frustration originates in your own mind, exclusively.
No Tom, if you say Google Chrome is the enemy, its just a piece of software, it has no will or thought process, which implies that it is the creators who are the enemy.
Originally Posted By: FireTomThe concern I raised are shared and if you kindly eat your own advice, I wouldn't have to do it for you:
there are plenty of people who think that the moon landing was staged in area 51, they get documentaries made up and everything, should we believe them to? You have to look at the source and how valid the comments they are making are, a beta release (ie not for mass consumption but so that hardcore users can give feedback and have input) and the concerns are being addressed .... what more do you want?
Originally Posted By: FireTomWhat you seem persistently incapable or unwilling to understand is that political situations can change. They can change fast and radical. We've seen this happening in the wake of 9/11 and it might happen again and for the worse than ever before.
What you fail to understand Tom is that the corporate culture will affect how a change in the companies values will be accepted. Google hires by committee what this means is that Google has a very strong corporate culture of people who believe in the "dont be evil" motto, if Googles board of directors where to decide it was more profitable to be evil you would find that Google would lose a good chunk of its staff, many large companies have gone under due to the management trying to change the values of the corporate culture, in the technology space this is effect is amplified as the people are the companies largest asset.
Employees at Google operate under social norms more than market norms (ie they believe they are making the world a better place, its more of a family etc etc) employees want more than just a pay check, they need to feel they are making a positive difference in the world, evil empires fail in giving this.
Thirdly, let me ask you: Are you trying to annoy me? Or to derail this thread, Ben? If so, you're on the right track...
Nope just making a point. What I wrote was a question as well tom, much like your title it carries implications with it.
Originally Posted By: FireTom
my name and your 'allegation' I get results that directly link to this discussion. Thanks for that, Ben.
Good job... Dont worry i will edit the thread and expunge it from Google's cache (it takes 4 or 5 working days to be removed from the Google cache)
Originally Posted By: FireTom And that is NOT true. Please point out the moment where I have accused Google of an unlawful action, or finally stop to make such allegations.
I said unethical not unlawful there is a difference
Originally Posted By: FireTom I repeatedly tried to explain to you that I am not hailing Google as the enemy. Your frustration originates in your own mind, exclusively.
No Tom, if you say Google Chrome is the enemy, its just a piece of software, it has no will or thought process, which implies that it is the creators who are the enemy.
Originally Posted By: FireTomThe concern I raised are shared and if you kindly eat your own advice, I wouldn't have to do it for you:
there are plenty of people who think that the moon landing was staged in area 51, they get documentaries made up and everything, should we believe them to? You have to look at the source and how valid the comments they are making are, a beta release (ie not for mass consumption but so that hardcore users can give feedback and have input) and the concerns are being addressed .... what more do you want?
Originally Posted By: FireTomWhat you seem persistently incapable or unwilling to understand is that political situations can change. They can change fast and radical. We've seen this happening in the wake of 9/11 and it might happen again and for the worse than ever before.
What you fail to understand Tom is that the corporate culture will affect how a change in the companies values will be accepted. Google hires by committee what this means is that Google has a very strong corporate culture of people who believe in the "dont be evil" motto, if Googles board of directors where to decide it was more profitable to be evil you would find that Google would lose a good chunk of its staff, many large companies have gone under due to the management trying to change the values of the corporate culture, in the technology space this is effect is amplified as the people are the companies largest asset.
Employees at Google operate under social norms more than market norms (ie they believe they are making the world a better place, its more of a family etc etc) employees want more than just a pay check, they need to feel they are making a positive difference in the world, evil empires fail in giving this.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
DeletePosted:Originally Posted By: BenDont worry i will edit the thread and expunge it from Google's cache (it takes 4 or 5 working days to be removed from the Google cache)
Please mate - at this point I can't notice any editing... will happily continue discussing with you thereafter... in the meantime it will feel uncomfortable.
Simta: I'm not advocating paranoia but to use the internet with brains engaged... I do trust Yahoo - dunno why exactly. Maybe because they provided the best spam and virus protection and never let me down in 9 consecutive years of (free) service.
When I'm reading about Yahoo having surrendered sensitive, private data and helped to jail Chinese dissidents (maybe even more than that) then it hurts me deeply. Because I'm silently supporting a policy that is ditremental to my innermost belief.
I switched to Google to be my search engine, formerly using Yahoo and Alta Vista... I believe they provide an outstanding service and I don't know many people who don't use Google at all.
If the hits the fan - it's best to have it disengaged already. It doesn't help trying to switch it off in that instant and I for my part believe that it's not necessary to violate ppls privacy.
Lets take a very present example: the kid who went on a killing spree in Finland posted vids on YouTube. Police (for some reason) got aware and pulled him for interrogation. They had to let him go and they (for some reason) had to let him keep his gun. Day later he shoots 10 people and himself dead... He shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
If you decide to hang out on the net with hackers and ppl who decide to develop virus' and who decide to infiltrate the Pentagon - on their own behalf - you might get put in the same pot and labelled a 'cyber terrorist'... I guess you understand where I'm pointing at: it's not just about "personalized ads"... I dislike the idea that private or government institutions at some stage know my weak spots, preferences of any kind...
Sounds like, but I'm not even going as far as an "Eagle Eye" scenario... I believe to have a right to privacy. I don't believe in "collateral damage"...
Please mate - at this point I can't notice any editing... will happily continue discussing with you thereafter... in the meantime it will feel uncomfortable.
Simta: I'm not advocating paranoia but to use the internet with brains engaged... I do trust Yahoo - dunno why exactly. Maybe because they provided the best spam and virus protection and never let me down in 9 consecutive years of (free) service.
When I'm reading about Yahoo having surrendered sensitive, private data and helped to jail Chinese dissidents (maybe even more than that) then it hurts me deeply. Because I'm silently supporting a policy that is ditremental to my innermost belief.
I switched to Google to be my search engine, formerly using Yahoo and Alta Vista... I believe they provide an outstanding service and I don't know many people who don't use Google at all.
If the
hits the fan - it's best to have it disengaged already. It doesn't help trying to switch it off in that instant and I for my part believe that it's not necessary to violate ppls privacy.Lets take a very present example: the kid who went on a killing spree in Finland posted vids on YouTube. Police (for some reason) got aware and pulled him for interrogation. They had to let him go and they (for some reason) had to let him keep his gun. Day later he shoots 10 people and himself dead... He shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.
If you decide to hang out on the net with hackers and ppl who decide to develop virus' and who decide to infiltrate the Pentagon - on their own behalf - you might get put in the same pot and labelled a 'cyber terrorist'... I guess you understand where I'm pointing at: it's not just about "personalized ads"... I dislike the idea that private or government institutions at some stage know my weak spots, preferences of any kind...
Sounds like, but I'm not even going as far as an "Eagle Eye" scenario... I believe to have a right to privacy. I don't believe in "collateral damage"...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
ben-ja-men
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
![ben-ja-men]()
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
GOLD Member since Jun 2003
just lost .... evil init
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Total posts: 2474
Posted:Tom if you edit your posts to remove the word ill get the thread expunged, otherwise the web spiders will still bring up the result
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
Delete
Posted:Eagle Eye...or 1984 ?
I understand your concerns Tom, but i can't say i share them with the same passion that you do.
Think of like this....you go into a large department store and notice those dark smoked bubbles that house security cameras. What's your first thought ? that there's someone, right then and there watching you. Watching your every move just looking for an excuse/reason to swoop down and slap the cuffs on you because they think you're acting suspiciously.
It's a common misconception.
What really happens is they need a reason to be watching those cameras, say an employee notices you acting suspiciously, and phoning up to the security office suggesting you may be up to something. It's only then that they actually bring those cameras into play and track your movements. The reason for this is the sheer volume of "information" meaning it would be counter productive to pay people to sit in front of those cameras all day, just watching when those human resources can be used in a more effective manner.
What I'm saying here is "they" actually need a reason to investigate you, both the department store and "the authorities". If you're acting "suspiciously" on the internet, whether it be making postings on sites like ( hypothetical ) bombmakingfortheurbanradicaldotcom or making threats like killing the president on a site like this....someone may/will report you and an investigation may start.
This happened here in Canada a couple of years ago, some guys were discussing a bomb plot on an open message board that was being monitored by an independent journalist. That journalist contacted the police with his concerns, the police looked in, thought they had a case and pounced.
The moral of the story here is be aware that online you're nowhere near as anonymous as you'd like to think you are and if you really want to hide your online activities, then you need to do your browsing from a public computer, and set up and receive a throwaway email account from said public computer. That's the only way to "guarantee" privacy.
AFIK, most investigative techniques involving "cyber crime" are centered around kiddy fiddling.
Ben...That world tracker system is what I was concerned about when I asked whether it needed permission from the phone holder to be activated. That one appears no not need that permission ( find lost phones, keep track of company phones ). If I were concerned about being tracked, I wouldn't own a phone with those capabilities like I wouldn't own a car with On-star or a similar ( phone your GPS coordinates into HQ ) system.
Knowledge is power.
I understand your concerns Tom, but i can't say i share them with the same passion that you do.
Think of like this....you go into a large department store and notice those dark smoked bubbles that house security cameras. What's your first thought ? that there's someone, right then and there watching you. Watching your every move just looking for an excuse/reason to swoop down and slap the cuffs on you because they think you're acting suspiciously.
It's a common misconception.
What really happens is they need a reason to be watching those cameras, say an employee notices you acting suspiciously, and phoning up to the security office suggesting you may be up to something. It's only then that they actually bring those cameras into play and track your movements. The reason for this is the sheer volume of "information" meaning it would be counter productive to pay people to sit in front of those cameras all day, just watching when those human resources can be used in a more effective manner.
What I'm saying here is "they" actually need a reason to investigate you, both the department store and "the authorities". If you're acting "suspiciously" on the internet, whether it be making postings on sites like ( hypothetical ) bombmakingfortheurbanradicaldotcom or making threats like killing the president on a site like this....someone may/will report you and an investigation may start.
This happened here in Canada a couple of years ago, some guys were discussing a bomb plot on an open message board that was being monitored by an independent journalist. That journalist contacted the police with his concerns, the police looked in, thought they had a case and pounced.
The moral of the story here is be aware that online you're nowhere near as anonymous as you'd like to think you are and if you really want to hide your online activities, then you need to do your browsing from a public computer, and set up and receive a throwaway email account from said public computer. That's the only way to "guarantee" privacy.
AFIK, most investigative techniques involving "cyber crime" are centered around kiddy fiddling.
Ben...That world tracker system is what I was concerned about when I asked whether it needed permission from the phone holder to be activated. That one appears no not need that permission ( find lost phones, keep track of company phones ). If I were concerned about being tracked, I wouldn't own a phone with those capabilities like I wouldn't own a car with On-star or a similar ( phone your GPS coordinates into HQ ) system.
Knowledge is power.
Delete
Posted:Originally Posted By: StoutThink of like this....you go into a large department store and notice those dark smoked bubbles that house security cameras. What's your first thought ?
"There is a camera (identify), there is a monitor (analyze), someone might watch it --> watch me (conclusion)."
*now I'm reading on*
Originally Posted By: Stoutwatching you. Watching your every move just looking for an excuse/reason to swoop down and slap the cuffs on you because they think you're acting suspiciously.
Catch me... laughing... You ever got arrested, Stout?
Originally Posted By: Stoutsomeone may/will report you and an investigation may start.
*beeeeeeep* - "Automated keyword observation". Dude, you really believe in "fiction"? This is an EPIC FISA...
Guys your responses start make me ponder: Are we really living on the same planet?
Every day, every minute of the hour, a few hundred thousand phonecalls are getting automatically monitored without warrant. The term "military intelligence" would not be justified otherwise. You really believe it stops right there? Sorry that I have to mumble "how naive"... Hang on, this is HoP - not a cave - and my name is FireTom, not Platon... wow, for an instant I thought this is a nightmare...
Ben: What exactly am I required to do in order to fix?
"There is a camera (identify), there is a monitor (analyze), someone might watch it --> watch me (conclusion)."
*now I'm reading on*
Originally Posted By: Stoutwatching you. Watching your every move just looking for an excuse/reason to swoop down and slap the cuffs on you because they think you're acting suspiciously.
Catch me... laughing...
You ever got arrested, Stout?Originally Posted By: Stoutsomeone may/will report you and an investigation may start.
*beeeeeeep* - "Automated keyword observation". Dude, you really believe in "fiction"? This is an EPIC FISA...
Guys your responses start make me ponder: Are we really living on the same planet?
Every day, every minute of the hour, a few hundred thousand phonecalls are getting automatically monitored without warrant. The term "military intelligence" would not be justified otherwise. You really believe it stops right there? Sorry that I have to mumble "how naive"... Hang on, this is HoP - not a cave - and my name is FireTom, not Platon... wow, for an instant I thought this is a nightmare...
Ben: What exactly am I required to do in order to fix?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:Same planet.....just different philosophies that's all.
Yours hinges on belief , mine hinges on facts.
Yours on distrust and fear, mine on education.
Tom, you started this thread with a premise, and so far you're been presented evidence to suggest that premise isn't true. You want to believe that premise at all costs because it fits in with your self-appointed status as "different" and those in the "normal" world are, by default, evil.
The philosophical differences are based on the the assumptions you make and the ability to at least try to determine the difference between a conspiracy, and a conspiracy theory.
Lurch nailed it a few pages back " Google is evil" looks more like a CT than a real conspiracy......... like Iraq.
Yours hinges on belief , mine hinges on facts.
Yours on distrust and fear, mine on education.
Tom, you started this thread with a premise, and so far you're been presented evidence to suggest that premise isn't true. You want to believe that premise at all costs because it fits in with your self-appointed status as "different" and those in the "normal" world are, by default, evil.
The philosophical differences are based on the the assumptions you make and the ability to at least try to determine the difference between a conspiracy, and a conspiracy theory.
Lurch nailed it a few pages back " Google is evil" looks more like a CT than a real conspiracy......... like Iraq.
Delete
Posted:*taps fingers*
How often do I have to repeat it: I am not hailing Google as the enemy, nor do I say that its "evil"... finally stop putting words into my mouth, guys.
Or acknowledge that you cling on to your bias as much as you accuse me of doing it.
I was simply raising concerns about Google Chrome - concerns that didn't 'just come to me' like the child to a virgin. In the meantime I did quote other people and institutions that handed out warnings and concerns regarding Chrome - and Google.
Maybe you label these people and institutions as 'different' too? Which subsequently would make me less 'different' then
You seem to live in (blind) trust of the informations that you receive - I don't. You don't question the reliability of said informations, I do... Does "weapons of mass destruction" ring a bell in this context? This has nothing to do with "education" and "facts", but with "wannabelieve".
You can continue labeling me as paranoid or a CT'ist - there is nothing I can do to prove otherwise, than finally getting back to join the chorus:
"Google's good, it acts in our best interest. The Internet is good (by default) and nobody needs privacy, except for those privileged.
Trust in all you get fed by institutions and corporations, especially when it's a big corporation that has declared itself as "no evil" - if there is anyone (as by default) Microsoft is evil and Bill Gates is the enemy.
Don't question authority and therefore (by default) Michael Moore is evil and and a defeatist."
Non-Https Image Link
This ^^^ is the real world...
How often do I have to repeat it: I am not hailing Google as the enemy, nor do I say that its "evil"... finally stop putting words into my mouth, guys.
Or acknowledge that you cling on to your bias as much as you accuse me of doing it.
I was simply raising concerns about Google Chrome - concerns that didn't 'just come to me' like the child to a virgin. In the meantime I did quote other people and institutions that handed out warnings and concerns regarding Chrome - and Google.
Maybe you label these people and institutions as 'different' too? Which subsequently would make me less 'different' then
You seem to live in (blind) trust of the informations that you receive - I don't. You don't question the reliability of said informations, I do... Does "weapons of mass destruction" ring a bell in this context? This has nothing to do with "education" and "facts", but with "wannabelieve".
You can continue labeling me as paranoid or a CT'ist - there is nothing I can do to prove otherwise, than finally getting back to join the chorus:
"Google's good, it acts in our best interest. The Internet is good (by default) and nobody needs privacy, except for those privileged.
Trust in all you get fed by institutions and corporations, especially when it's a big corporation that has declared itself as "no evil" - if there is anyone (as by default) Microsoft is evil and Bill Gates is the enemy.
Don't question authority and therefore (by default) Michael Moore is evil and and a defeatist."
Non-Https Image Link
This ^^^ is the real world...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Posted:What I'm sayin' here is that the "information" stored and possibly revealed by google chrome, or any other browser is peanuts when compared to the overall degree of privacy you think you have.
Your concerns about privacy are valid, however the passion with which you defend those concerns by labelling companies as being somehow expected to act in your best interests is IMO, rather curious.
[quote=FireTomI guess you understand where I'm pointing at: it's not just about "personalized ads"... I dislike the idea that private or government institutions at some stage know my weak spots, preferences of any kind...
[/quote]
That's understandable, however you've been presented ways of keeping that information out of the hands of those private or government institutions which are pretty straight forward, like using public computers, and I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could pre pay some sort of wireless connection giving a phony name and address, and accessing that connection on a computer that you paid cash for....
Do you use credit or debit cards ? Do you just expect that your purchasing history is not being kept on file the same way you suspect your browsing history is ? Would you be willing to give up using credit cards in order to keep that information about your "weak spots" out of the hands of government and private institutions ? You have a cell phone ? Of course you do, the number(s) are published on your website. Do you expect that the the numbers that you call and receive calls from are not being recorded by those same institutions ?
Is that your address published on the contacts page of the InJuCo site ? could I just drop in on you at that address ? ( I could even wear my M.I.B suit and start talking about your personal life,,just to really freak you out ) Heck, I bet I could even fly into Munich and "show up at your doorstep" too. You'd have no idea who I am, seeing as you have no idea what I look like because there's no pictures of me, anywhere on the internet. Well there is one, being used for commercial purposes without my permission, but I don't care because it's on a pretty obscure site ( dive shop in Honduras ) without my name attached to the picture.
I can google the word sunafiur, find feurtom and read your Thailand survival guide, I can flip through your flickr account while I'm at it.
All done through information you've freely keyed into the 'net.
Which is why I have a hard time sharing your passion over privacy issues.
Of course, I can't dismiss the idea that you may have another, secret, online identity that you wish to keep hidden....
Your concerns about privacy are valid, however the passion with which you defend those concerns by labelling companies as being somehow expected to act in your best interests is IMO, rather curious.
[quote=FireTomI guess you understand where I'm pointing at: it's not just about "personalized ads"... I dislike the idea that private or government institutions at some stage know my weak spots, preferences of any kind...
[/quote]
That's understandable, however you've been presented ways of keeping that information out of the hands of those private or government institutions which are pretty straight forward, like using public computers, and I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could pre pay some sort of wireless connection giving a phony name and address, and accessing that connection on a computer that you paid cash for....
Do you use credit or debit cards ? Do you just expect that your purchasing history is not being kept on file the same way you suspect your browsing history is ? Would you be willing to give up using credit cards in order to keep that information about your "weak spots" out of the hands of government and private institutions ? You have a cell phone ? Of course you do, the number(s) are published on your website. Do you expect that the the numbers that you call and receive calls from are not being recorded by those same institutions ?
Is that your address published on the contacts page of the InJuCo site ? could I just drop in on you at that address ? ( I could even wear my M.I.B suit and start talking about your personal life,,just to really freak you out
) Heck, I bet I could even fly into Munich and "show up at your doorstep" too. You'd have no idea who I am, seeing as you have no idea what I look like because there's no pictures of me, anywhere on the internet. Well there is one, being used for commercial purposes without my permission, but I don't care because it's on a pretty obscure site ( dive shop in Honduras ) without my name attached to the picture. I can google the word sunafiur, find feurtom and read your Thailand survival guide, I can flip through your flickr account while I'm at it.
All done through information you've freely keyed into the 'net.
Which is why I have a hard time sharing your passion over privacy issues.
Of course, I can't dismiss the idea that you may have another, secret, online identity that you wish to keep hidden....
Delete
Posted:Which one, Captain Morgan's or Native Sons? 
Just kidding.
Stout - how can I explain without getting the box again?
You will have a hard time showing up on my doorsteps - easier to just gimme a call... I'll have the tea brewed ready then and my cards? I prefer cash. I do have a history of not leaving too many traces - other than the infos I voluntarily surrendered. So you get 55 results keying in my eMail... that's quite a low number, isn't it? Do you know my RN because of that? You could find out by contacting my cellphone company...
You will learn more about my personality by reading my posts and my profiles here in my intro - but you will have to undertake effort to link that to my RN... I'm talking about that effort to be(come) an illegal practice.
Just a while ago I was confronted with intelligence - it's okay... and I'm not that much of an interesting person anyway. "Different" - maybe, "special" - for sure
Gosh, at the mo' HoP is my only 2nd life and I don't intend to change that... how booring, huh?
I am passionate about privacy - not completely paranoid as you can see - because I don't like feeling the NEED to hide something. To sneak around public Internet cafe's, keep unregistered numbers and the like - which is why I don't engage in criminal activity. Brrr - I'd be such a bad criminal, tell you that much.
I just happen to believe in fundamental, inalienable civil rights - and the right for privacy is one of them. I oppose the gathering of intelligence for commercial purposes either, I oppose profiling for profit.
First off I was simply raising a question, whether or not Chrome might pose a heightened thread to privacy. I got presented evidence, that didn't quite convince me... I searched and I found counter-evidence that I presented here - did you get convinced by it?
There you go...
I'm not clinging, I am just not convinced that Google = 'good'... that's all.
And I predict that it will get worse, unless we curb these aims. Definitely the commercial interests in general, but also the institutional interests to a good degree.
If you're not concerned about privacy, I'm sure you won't mind warrantless tapping of phone lines either, why not going a small step further and have sudden, warrantless house searches, arbitrary road checks? I mean why not going as far as random drug screenings in shopping malls and giving the results to the traffic and interior department - I got nothing to hide, but (for example) in Germany, those with traces will loose their licenses... how about getting butt-poked anytime you cross an international border as a result?
I'm in that fortunate position to be a Caucasian, non-religious, political non-extremist... I'm quite moderate. But I really dislike the fact that ppl get searched just because they are African or Arabian descent or that (in a possible future) they happen to have searched for and sent an eMail to the "Cha0s C0mputer Club Germany" who (hypothetically) just happened to get wrongfully accused of cyber-terrorism...
Just kidding.
Stout - how can I explain without getting the box again?
You will have a hard time showing up on my doorsteps - easier to just gimme a call... I'll have the tea brewed ready then and my cards? I prefer cash. I do have a history of not leaving too many traces - other than the infos I voluntarily surrendered. So you get 55 results keying in my eMail... that's quite a low number, isn't it? Do you know my RN because of that? You could find out by contacting my cellphone company...
You will learn more about my personality by reading my posts and my profiles here in my intro - but you will have to undertake effort to link that to my RN... I'm talking about that effort to be(come) an illegal practice.
Just a while ago I was confronted with intelligence - it's okay... and I'm not that much of an interesting person anyway. "Different" - maybe, "special" - for sure
Gosh, at the mo' HoP is my only 2nd life and I don't intend to change that... how booring, huh?I am passionate about privacy - not completely paranoid as you can see - because I don't like feeling the NEED to hide something. To sneak around public Internet cafe's, keep unregistered numbers and the like - which is why I don't engage in criminal activity. Brrr - I'd be such a bad criminal, tell you that much.
I just happen to believe in fundamental, inalienable civil rights - and the right for privacy is one of them. I oppose the gathering of intelligence for commercial purposes either, I oppose profiling for profit.
First off I was simply raising a question, whether or not Chrome might pose a heightened thread to privacy. I got presented evidence, that didn't quite convince me... I searched and I found counter-evidence that I presented here - did you get convinced by it?
There you go...
I'm not clinging, I am just not convinced that Google = 'good'... that's all.
And I predict that it will get worse, unless we curb these aims. Definitely the commercial interests in general, but also the institutional interests to a good degree.
If you're not concerned about privacy, I'm sure you won't mind warrantless tapping of phone lines either, why not going a small step further and have sudden, warrantless house searches, arbitrary road checks? I mean why not going as far as random drug screenings in shopping malls and giving the results to the traffic and interior department - I got nothing to hide, but (for example) in Germany, those with traces will loose their licenses... how about getting butt-poked anytime you cross an international border as a result?
I'm in that fortunate position to be a Caucasian, non-religious, political non-extremist... I'm quite moderate. But I really dislike the fact that ppl get searched just because they are African or Arabian descent or that (in a possible future) they happen to have searched for and sent an eMail to the "Cha0s C0mputer Club Germany" who (hypothetically) just happened to get wrongfully accused of cyber-terrorism...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [google chrome privacy issue* google] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > Google Chrome - and other privacy issues re. Google [130 replies]
2. Forums > Dont use google, use google scraper [15 replies]
3. Forums > What I Need - According to Google [79 replies]
4. Forums > Serious issue - behave! Bossomy women and spinning problems [45 replies]
5. Forums > Google and the Bush Administration [52 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2018 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.