Slashdot Mirror

The powerful media companies in Hollywood have shown great results earlier. For instance, the White House threatened Russia trading with raised toll fees, unless Russia shut down an illegal MP3 site. Which Russia did. In Sweden the PirateBay was attacked by the government, in fact there are wikileaks diplomat mails proving this (site in swedish http://falkvinge.net/2010/12/2... ) that every new swedish law/investigation about "fighting terrorists" was in fact, commanded by the powerful media industry in Hollywood. For instance, Taylor Swift left Spotify, because she didnt earn any money. But Spotify said they paid millions to her. But her media company took the lion share and gave her tiny fraction so she left Spotify. In response, Spofity declared they pay 70% of all money they receive, to the media companies in Hollywood. And if the artists dont earn anything, it is not Spotify's fault. The media companies take everything. In fact, Spotify hardly earns any money because they pay so much to Hollywood. Thus, Google telling Hollywood that they earned 1 billion is chicken shit. They want more. Much more. They want 70% of what Google earns - just like Spotify. They will not be content with 1 billion.

3) Sweden was so mad at the US extradition program ignoring their ban on use of their airspace for extradition flights that they caused a diplomatic rift with the US in 2006 by disguising their special forces soldiers as airport workers to sneak aboard a suspected extradition plane. And how do we know about this event? Why, Wikileaks of course!

On one hand they are mad, on the other hand it continues to happen. It is very unlikely that it happens without high level consent from the swedes. This being a major problem.

Also both the women are now uncooperative, one of them has even fled to Australia.

I am not supporter of Assange, and consider him a megalomaniac, but his concerns are quite valid.

This news site is hypocritical. One the one hand they encourage pirating IP of other companies, and on the other hand they charge advertising fees for their own IP (news articles). Pirate activists give activists a bad name.

ABSTRACT
This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.

In http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/0... The abstract is there because the title of the article will enrage the folks doing the prosecution...

"-- pushed forward with NSA surveillance of all Americans;"
vastly stripped down surveillance. BTW, that's their job.

Where do you get the idea it was vastly stripped down? Snowden waited to do his leaking because he was hopeful Obama would change things. It was when Obama changed nothing ...

Snowden said he thought about disclosing the program sooner but was hopeful the election of President Barack Obama would change things. But "[Obama] continued with the policies of his predecessor," Snowden said.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/th...

---

"-- seeks to make such surveillance inescapable;"
wanting to be ab; to execute legal warrants is no making surveillance inescapable.

Really, after everything we've learned in the last year about how utterly ignored the 4th amendment is, you think this about warrants?

"-- tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan over the previous "conservative" administration"
there wasn't enough troops to deal with the war. What would you have him do? All this shows ois the the previous administration underestimated needed capacity.

He could also have just left. NOTHING is going to fix that region EVER.

"-- redefined "collection" to mean "reading" in order to avoid following the 4th Amendment (would that work for filesharer's who didn't listen to downloaded music? Not a chance.)"
and?[Emphasis added]

I not you skipped the due process free execution thing, but anyway,with respect to the 4th Amendment: see STASI: http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/0...

Also, why do you hate the Constitution? It makes you seem very unAmerican when you publicly crap on the 4th Amendment.

"-- has killed thousands of innocent people with drone strikes in numerous countries."
which is far fewer if they used none drone weaponry. Civilian deaths is tragic, but historically it's a lot less now then any other war.

This is your defense of the Nobel Peace Prize winner causing thousands of deaths?? "well, he could have caused even more." Serial Killer Defense attorneys should take note -- "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it was only 52 victims he hacked up, imagine what he could have done if he was President!"

"-- destroyed the War Powers Act by engaging in war in Libya without Congressional Approval."
He has congressional approval. More specifically, the office of the presidency has authorization. YOU might want to ask yourself why the pubs scream about this, but don't actually talk about removing the power congress gave him?
too wit:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Last Sunday was the 90th day of bombing in Libya, but Mr. Obama â" armed with dubious legal opinions â" is refusing to stop Americaâ(TM)s military engagement there. His White House counsel, Robert F. Bauer, has declared that, despite the War Powers Act, the president can continue the Libya campaign indefinitely without legislative support. This conclusion lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.

I understand that Karpeles (of Mt.Gox fame) wrote his own SSHD using PHP. Let's use that! :-)

http://falkvinge.net/2014/03/1...

Mybitcoin.com copycat scam, right on schedule.

The Gox Crater: Crowd Detectives Reveal Billion-Dollar Heist As Inside Job
Thousands of volunteering and self-organizing detectives have been meticulously laying a puzzle that reveals the Gox billion-dollar heist as an inside job. As smoke clears on the implosion of the Empty Gox bitcoin exchange, thousands of people in the community committed to revealing the truth behind the stonewalling exchange. What was claimed first to be a technical problem, then an outside theft, has been conclusively determined that the MtGox management knew too much, too long ago, to have this be an ordinary case of theft.

Oh, look. An NSA shill posting AC on Slashdot. Didn't see that coming!

Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA.

Besides everyone that has the constitutional right to not be searched without probably cause and warrant? How about the companies that were being spied on for economic purposes? Were they big winners from that? No? How strange.

How about the big tech companies (such as anyone in cloud computing or cryptography) that took a major hit as a result of the leaks? You think they are happy that they are losing money now that people know how insecure these systems really are? How about Google/Yahoo/Microsoft/etc. that are suffering the same backlash on top of needing to invest a lot more resources to fix holes that the NSA was exploiting? What about RSA?

How about Lavabit and Silent Circle? These are just two examples of businesses that were dismantled because of legal pressure. They are completely legal businesses.

How about anyone that isn't actually doing anything wrong, but our government decides to harass/blackmail/defame anyways? We know that the NSA will find your porn and be more than happy to tell everyone about it. Blackmail is NOT OK!

We also know that the NSA has been writing and distributing malware. How about TorMail or any other (legitimate) service provided by Freedom Hosting? We know that the FBI confiscated the servers, but the NSA helped with installing malware on any connection and siphoning data regardless of whether or not the user was attempting to access a legal service or not. Hell, we even know that the NSA took part in hacking consumer Tor nodes to initiate a MITM attack in the hope that they might be able to track someone unrelated.

I think I've made my point. I could keep going, if I had to. There is a hell of a lot of people being wronged by this program, but lets turn your own game on you.

Name a single innocent person who has been affected by the NSA.

It's your turn. Name a single person or incident that has been stopped, hindered, or investigated in relation to terrorism from the NSA's programs. Trick question, we already know that there isn't any These programs have nothing to do with terrorism, so get your head out of your ass and stop pretending that it's OK for the government to infringe on our rights for their own personal gain.

Sweden had not concerns on doing it against Russia. And UK tapped cables in a lot of places. But they (along with other european countries) are just US minions, they had to obey, no matter what national or international law say.

Rick Falkvinge points out that "with 100% absolute certainty [we know] that the wiretapping industry – NSA, GCHQ, FRA, etc – has stopped a total of exactly zero terror plots". See http://feeds.falkvinge.net/~r/Falkvinge-on-Infopolicy/~3/0uW0HpNnG-k/

Wait what? It's no secret that the reason FRA exists is to tap the underwater cables carrying almost all of Russia's traffic and hand it over to the US. There was an uproar against the creation of FRA in Sweden - but it was met with statements from our prime minister to the effect of "It's best for us all if we don't talk about this anymore".

Earlier documents put in context with recent revelations show that Sweden has been systematically wiretapping Russia on behalf of the United States. This is clear after putting a number of previous questionable agreements and developments in context today.

http://falkvinge.net/2013/07/07/documents-sweden-wiretapping-russias-international-traffic-for-the-nsa/

Sweden - NSA Codename "Sardine" - more than likely receives secret funding from the NSA to establish the infrastructure, just like the UK does. They may even recieve more funding than the UK given their gateway status to Russian internet traffic.

Also check out the professor blog website I linked previously - you cannot trust Swedens perception of "strong protections" anymore - there are good reasons why Sweden is now rated below Botswana, Romania and Senegal in the WJP Rule of Law Index. Sad how bad it has got there, really.

Terrorists are real.

So are bathtubs, so are stairs and so are traffic accidents, all which cause more lives lost than terrorists.

Any death other than the one of old age is terrible. Accidents happen that cause people to suffer for quite a while before dying. Some people have lost their lives in earthquakes - literally buried alive, waiting days for a rescue that never come. Other people die in house fires in the most horrible agony you might imagine. Therefore, Terrorists do not frighten me any more than an earthquake would.

Oh, sure. Terrorists are horrible people, hell-bent on violating the worst crimes of war possible. They are no stranger to detonating a nuclear bomb in the middle of any decently sized american city. Does that thought scare me? Yes, a bit. But does it make me cower in fear under my bed? No sir. I'm not afraid of these terrorists, because I know that if I'm afraid of them, then I'll always be afraid. The Terrorists have won.

I put my faith in the state to protect me as much as possible from these terrorists, as well as protect my liberties as best can. Unfortunately this paralyzing fear of terrorists have made the state erode my liberties without actually protecting me from terrorists. Therefore, I oppose those changes.

It's not about being stupid or brave. It's about not letting a bunch of jackasses control my life. And as long as I draw breath, they won't.

No, you're not the only one

I originally wasn't going to post this because I thought it would sound too preachy, but, based on some other responses here, I think it could be appropriate.

There is a digital civil war coming as we transition out of the industrial age and into the digital revolution. Giving the next generation a solid fundamental understanding of digital technology is critical to ensuring the future belongs to them. They should learn that computers exist to serve the user and that any attempt to subvert this is oppressive and tyrannical: DRM, encryption that hides the keys from you, locked bootloaders, aggressive warranty voiding policies that presume user user liability, etc.

How this translates into fun IT fair stuff ... programming is a good start. Web programming languages give a pretty good bang for the buck for instant results a long you've setup the server environment before-hand. Although, really, if you've got a Linux box setup, getting Apache and PHP running can be done in a single apt-get command and 10 minutes of configuring.

That said, any interpreted programming language with a nicely readable syntax is probably a good choice.

How would taking apart old laptops or cheap knock-off tablets not be relevant? Maybe compare and contrast PC-style systems and SOCs to demonstrate the sliding scale between compactness, capability and performance. See if you can find a way to contrast the generally crippled suckiness of mobile platforms with the endless capabily and vast software ecosystem of a real desktop system. Show them why all their base shouldn't belong to Apple and Google.

Maybe come up with some sort of creative blockade to mimic DRM that they have to tweak around with the system to bypass.

Just get them interested enough to see that computers should do what they say, when they say. Addict them to that incredible feeling of control over a machine whose only job is to say, "yes, master," and not, "I can't let you do that, Dave."

Consider that Sweden wiretapped russian international traffic for the NSA and vetoed EU investigation against US spying the message is clear. They are not stepping back even when is clear for everyone what they are perpetrating, just keep raising the bets.

If Bradley Manning wins 2013 Nobel Peace Prize and Snowden wins the 2014 one it should give a clear message to the US. Anyway, this is happening in Sweden and they are very friendly with the NSA, i doubt that it happens.

Along with UK veto'd the discussion of NSA spying without informing their population, wiretapped Russia, and we know what they did with Assange and Pirate Bay. From a country that used to be proud of its defense of human rights the path to the bottom was pretty fast.

hmm where did you get that? the swedish freedom is the freedom to do nothing. there's even worse cases in past 12 years than what you provided though.

their biggest human rights faults have always been being too trusting of the americans wanting to do the right thing, or germans, or whoever. heck, they sell offensive weaponry too, as if USA wasn't using it in offensive ways.

Along with UK veto'd the discussion of NSA spying without informing their population, wiretapped Russia, and we know what they did with Assange and Pirate Bay. From a country that used to be proud of its defense of human rights the path to the bottom was pretty fast.

Link

- If so, why the fuck am I prompted to pay/log in to download the full text?

- And if so, why the fuck are these parasite website like Springer and ACS still allowed to paywall publicly funded research??

Because you only funded the research, and they're publishing the results?

Or perhaps because they need to pay for staff, keep the website alive, and send prints to the handful of universities. You know, logistics, distribution.

Oh, and they admittedly need to make boat loads of money, too. Publishing is still a great business to be into -- there probably wouldn't be any copyright laws without them.

Whichever it is, methinks it's less noteworthy than public research ending up as patent applications. (Especially when they're filed by drug companies, which rarely fund more than the last round of tests for things that public research has proven to work for all intents and purposes, the patent application, and the marketing.)

By the way, researchers with a sense of decency will post a late draft somewhere on their site. Just google its title:

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/75839

Without meaning to sound frivolous, do you have a link?

I actually had missed these things - Google didn't turn up much. From my brief Googling, it seems that at least the Swedish Pirate Party aren't in favour of actually abolishing copyright, they just want to give it a significant overhaul.

The Pirate Times introduces the 3 elected representatives: Iceland Report #4 : History Made by a Hair’s Breadth

Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original (Swedish) Pirate Party, comments: celandic Pirate Party WINS, Enters Parliament

Another article on TorrentFreak: Pirate Party Enters Iceland’s National Parliament After Historic Election Win

It's nothing new. I wrote about this a year ago, when the same issues came up http://falkvinge.net/2012/06/29/your-email-privacy-is-under-increasing-threat/

I'm gonna take a wild guess and say the right answer is probably two. But let's wait and see what comes out at the trial.

Either you take a wild guess, or you wait. You took the guess and told everyone else to wait, almost like you thought you were imparting some digging sarcasm.

I don't know anything about the Swedish prosecution. Oh wait, actually I do remember accusations of Sweden acting like a lapdog for either the USA or its Copyright Cartel.

Oh shit, there's a cable, Stockholm 09-141, which explicitly says to prosecute TPB owners, and implicitly has a quid pro quo on the special 301 list, which is to say, do what we ask and you wont be on it.

Sweden has been accused of external influence in Assange's trials. It has been accused of meddling in RIAA affairs, despite the Swedish Prosecution Authority explicitly being separate from both courts and police, and implicitly from other governments.

Given your conditions, I'm going with option 1. Just a wild guess - but you're right, let's wait for the results.

In terms of principles and values Wikileaks has a lot in common with the Pirate Party and the Australian chapter ( http://pirateparty.org.au/ ). I see no reason in making yet another party. Unless they just want to capitalize on name recognition. I guess that's probably the sole reason - ro re-invent that wheel (pirate wheel: http://falkvinge.net/pirate-wheel/ ).

I'm strongly pro-pirate party but..

Falkvinge set up an email list that lets people email every MEP. So maybe they merely banned Falkvinge email list, rather than filtering out the email on the ban.

I'm completely fine with voters emailing every MEP when they care about an issue, but (a) send a different email to your own MEPs so that they know you know their names, and (b) doing so via an email list downgrades the importance further.

As MEPs are nationwide, these issues are already sorted out partially by simply the language and dialect the email is written in. If you email an Italian MEP in English they probably won't give your email too much weight, although a British person living in Italy does vote for Italian MEPs.

Ideally, Falkvinge should set up mail too links page that addresses each country specifically, offering emails in all national languages and english for non-natives who wish to customize it. If you want to click em' all, that's great.

I'm strongly pro-pirate party but..

Falkvinge set up an email list that lets people email every MEP. So maybe they merely banned Falkvinge email list, rather than filtering out the email on the ban.

I'm completely fine with voters emailing every MEP when they care about an issue, but (a) send a different email to your own MEPs so that they know you know their names, and (b) doing so via an email list downgrades the importance further.

As MEPs are nationwide, these issues are already sorted out partially by simply the language and dialect the email is written in. If you email an Italian MEP in English they probably won't give your email too much weight, although a British person living in Italy does vote for Italian MEPs.

Ideally, Falkvinge should set up mail too links page that addresses each country specifically, offering emails in all national languages and english for non-natives who wish to customize it. If you want to click em' all, that's great.

Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party has a good summary of the attempt to ban porn as well as a call to action. Apparently getting e-mail through to the parliamentarians is not as straight forward as one might wish. Christian EngstrÃm, MEP, also of the Swedish Pirate Party has a good analysis of the attempted ban. Basically it's a grab at control and censorship under another guise.

In the article Trusting Telcos With Internet Is Like Trusting Fox With Henhouse, Rick writes

To people in Sweden, this seemed mind-bogglingly odd: in the small Scandinavian country, private entrepreneurs had been fibering apartment blocks wholesale for years. I had fiber in my own apartment in 1999, and keep enjoying a 100 megabit-connection with several static, public IPs – from where you’re reading this article, as I run my server from home.

The take-home from this is that telcos have a conflict of interest, while hydro companies have underused poles in your neighbourhood.

I say it again: anybody with an ounce of intelligence could figure out that your actions would've led to a legal battle

But of course. You could say that we've accomplished exactly what we were after - the copyright mafia having shown that they consider their interests to be above those of the common carrier principle. That forces other carriers, larger than us and with their own legal departments, to join us in lobbying.

I've been an internet user for 20+ years and am very concerned with the damage your pirate party is doing to our freedom on the net.

What damages would that be? I'm also a 20+ years Internet user (note the capital 'I') and I'm extremely happy that us oldies finally have representation in democratic parliaments. The pirates in the EU parliament were instrumental in defeating ACTA - if you've heard of it.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/31/three-strikes-against-acta-in-european-parliament-today/

As to the name - it's perfect. As evident by it having been adopted by 60 parties world wide.

I believe both he and the Swedish Pirate Party have updated our views.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/10/19/stallman-endorses-pirate-party-position-on-trademarks-patent-and-copyright-monopolies/

FYI, there's a method behind the madness of this "silly" name...

http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/17/yes-the-pirate-party-is-a-silly-name-and-thats-why-it-works/

http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/20/why-the-name-pirate-party/

FYI, there's a method behind the madness of this "silly" name...

http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/17/yes-the-pirate-party-is-a-silly-name-and-thats-why-it-works/

http://falkvinge.net/2011/02/20/why-the-name-pirate-party/

Given chinese tendency to install malware on hardware,

Death twitches - Nokia caught wiretapping encrypted traffic from its handsets

http://falkvinge.net/2013/01/11/death-twitches-nokia-caught-wiretapping-encrypted-traffic-from-its-handsets/

Join the club!

Today, the Swedish Pirate Party filed formal charges against Swedish banks for their discrimination against WikiLeaks

http://falkvinge.net/2012/12/17/pirate-party-presses-charges-against-banks-for-wikileaks-blockade/

Yes, and yet, I don't see them whining about Facebook who have outright breached European data protection laws time and time again without serious punishment.

Presumably in part, because of this sort of thing:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big-money-to-smear-google-audaciously/

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

You're kidding, right? Our (Dutch) minister of justice recently suggested it might be a good idea to use DNA gathered and stored for research (with the donors being told that it would be used for that specific reason alone) for criminal investigations like this one as well.

FYI, that did happen in Sweden. The donors are all citizens born after 1975.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/07/19/sweden-paradise-lost-part-3-comprehensive-population-dna-database/

There is a separate provision of U.S. copyright law that prohibits the importation into the United States, “without the authority of the owner of copyright,” of copies of a work “acquired outside the United States.” – Slate

The law is unambiguous:

(1) Importation.—Importation into the United States, without the authority of the owner of copyright under this title, of copies or phonorecords of a work that have been acquired outside the United States is an infringement of the exclusive right to distribute copies or phonorecords under section 106, actionable under section 501. – Importation and Exportation, US Copyright Law

The case is still open, but basically one side is arguing that what ever you own, you don't own it once you take it to USA. After that point you are just a licencee. And it the US copyright owner does not approve you buying the stuff from abroad, you are violating the licence. I recommend you read the article linked at the top to get the picture.

That would be about fucking time.

I remember that time in HS when the English teacher was asked a question that was formulated in a way that made obvious exactly how the student had misunderstood the data. Then the teacher answered in a way that made obvious exactly how he had misunderstood how the student had undersood it.

Stat analysis of the different ways things can be understood is a very good way to ensure shitty teachers don't get the questions wrong. This is an important innovation, waiting to happen.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/08/27/saving-jobs-in-copyright-industry-is-counterproductive-regressive-policy/

"Saving jobs is counterproductive because progress means making more things with less labor."

Yes, see here:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big-money-to-smear-google-audaciously/

Three reasons possession of child porn must be re-legalized in the coming decade by Rickard Falkvinge.

If he'd written "should, in my reasoned opinion," instead of "must" I'd be slightly more inclined to listen.

I agree that the absolutism of the laws can ensnare non-perverts. The specific point about ubiquity of Google Glasses and accidentally becoming a witness seems too far fetched for now. Punishing consensual acts of the barely underaged is definitely a problem, and kiddie porn law isn't the only example. Using this as a pretext for other bullshit is also definitely a problem.

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/
The biggest point added in his followup is about how ridiculous it is to criminalize fictional and/or nonsexual work.

Read the links before you mod the post. The toxicity that exists around the subject impairs most people from having a serious discussion about the subject, and instead rely on the reaction they've been trained to have. Try to resist this reaction as you read the following two well-written articles:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/

Read the links before you mod the post. The toxicity that exists around the subject impairs most people from having a serious discussion about the subject, and instead rely on the reaction they've been trained to have. Try to resist this reaction as you read the following two well-written articles:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/07/three-reasons-child-porn-must-be-re-legalized-in-the-coming-decade/

http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/11/child-porn-laws-arent-as-bad-as-you-think-theyre-much-much-worse/

Something this fool of a politician should read: Three reasons possession of child porn must be re-legalized in the coming decade by Rickard Falkvinge.

Abstract: This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.

Yes. We (and Wikipedia) should be encrypting our communications from the start. A lot has been written about why we should use encryption, some of it from around 20 years ago. It's an uphill fight still these days and many won't become interested until it is too late. If you haven't already, consider throwing your own cryptoparty.

This is the fundamental problem with anti-Google FUD, despite all the claims of "Google collects this", and "Google collects that", the claims that it's a privacy nightmare have yet to materialise. Google has a lot of information on me and has for over 10 years, but I've never ever seen it end up in the hands of other companies I'm not happy with or used in ways I was not expecting.

Compare this to Facebook, Microsoft, Monster.com who have all also had data on me and have managed to pass it to companies I did not give them permissions to leak it to which is a breach of the Data Protection Act in the UK. I know for a fact it was these companies as only these companies held such data. For example, I had a friend who my only connection to was via MS Messenger and who none of my other friends knew. This friend was later recommended, to me as a contact on both LinkedIn and Facebook so it's pretty clear Microsoft sold/leaked my contact information to these companies. Similarly I've had spam to e-mail addresses uniquely used for each of these companies. Google? Never had any such thing.

But it's all part of this sort of thing:

http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/02/how-microsoft-pays-big-money-to-smear-google-audaciously/

This is why Google is constantly being probed over privacy, which is no bad thing - companies should be held accountable to privacy laws - but there is a gross disparity between what Google gets investigated for and what Microsoft, Facebook et. al. do not. It doesn't take much to put two and two together and see why when Microsoft is pouring so much into trolling Google with lobbyists in various governments and parliaments across the globe.

Personally I prefer to stick to the facts, maybe one day the fanboys will be proven right and Google will spread every single bit of data they hold on me far and wide across the internet and use my information to steal all my money and fit me up for a murder I did not commit or whatever the fanboys and trolls predict will happen to anyone that uses Google's services, but right now there's no sign of any such thing with Google and again, in contrast, there is with companies like Microsoft and Facebook. Hell, even Amazon managed to fuck up one of my orders once and ended up sending my book, the packing receipt with my name, address, e-mail and so forth on to some random person, whilst sending me someone elses details and their order in a box with my address on which is still worse than anything Google has done.

I give my consent for some companies to hold some of my data, and whilst Slashdot has more than it's fair share of "off-the-grid" fantasists I'd wager none of them actually genuinely practice that ideology and that pretty much everyone here hands some private data over to private companies - possibly even against their will as government mandated data collection is passed to 3rd parties to store/process. The companies I respect are the ones who keep that data safe and do not abuse that data, Google is one of those who for over a decade now, has not let me down in this respect, which is more than can be said for 90% of other tech companies I've dealt with. There's a massive divide between what it's claimed Google could do with your data, and what it has ever actually done with it in practice. I'm under no illusion that it uses it to improve it's ad service and so forth, but that's the price I pay for using their services, what it doesn't do is sell or pass my data on to others, at which point it is much more out of my control as to what it's used for, and that's what matters to me.