Australia Drops Second Google Investigation

What they really meant. by sethstorm · 2012-05-30 19:08 · Score: -1

'In reaching this decision, I have considered the FCC's report, some favors offered by Google to me in a legal way, and don't consider that a new investigation would reveal any information that would change our original finding.'"

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.

Re:What they really meant. by TheEyes · 2012-05-30 19:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or maybe:

'In reaching this decision, I have considered the lack of additional campaign contributions by Microsoft, and don't consider that a new investigation would reveal any information that would change our original finding.'"
Seriously, though, is there anyone here who really thinks this investigation deserves to go around a second time, based on the technical merits? We're talking about going around logging stuff that is being broadcast in the clear, unencrypted, and no more than a few seconds at any location. I know it's important to anti-Googlers because it's pretty much the closest the company has come so far to being evil, but it's kind of a lame complaint when you compare it to what most other tech companies are doing these days (Microsoft and Apple funding patent trolls, Facebook trying to ratchet down privacy protections, most tech companies forcing people to give up legal rights via EULA, etc). Is this seriously the worst thing that can be said about Google? If it is, they've got to be the most ethically-run company on the planet.
Re:What they really meant. by crafty.munchkin · 2012-05-30 19:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why bother with an invasion of privacy case when they can go for the bigger fish? They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.

--
... wait, what?
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 19:58 · Score: -1

So you astroturf for Google, right? How can you possibly excuse the unauthorized collection of data from wifi networks in this manner?
Re:What they really meant. by SeaFox · 2012-05-30 20:13 · Score: 3, Informative

They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.
Multiple billions?
Try about one.
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 20:19 · Score: 1

Ah, well that makes their tax contribution reasonable then. Thanks for the contribution.
Re:What they really meant. by butlerm · 2012-05-30 21:44 · Score: 2

Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.
That is a function of the tax laws. The only reliable way to generate tax revenue on services provided by a foreign company is to charge a goods and services tax on purchases of those services. If the GST was not included in those figures, they are misleading. If the GST applied and was not collected, it should have been. If the GST does not apply, perhaps the powers that be should think about changing that.
It is unreasonable to expect to collect corporate income taxes from corporations that are not actually domiciled in the taxing entity. Legally speaking, it is essentially impossible. Tariffs and GSTs are about the only options.
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 21:45 · Score: 0

"tech companies forcing people to give up legal rights via EULA"
Forcing? Legal rights?
'You ought to discover some day that words have an exact meaning.'
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 22:01 · Score: -1

So the Australian government stole billions from people for the sake of building things of which google enjoyed the use, and people are angry that the aussie government only stole 74k from google?
Stockholm syndrome isn't a strong enough description of this misdirected emotional response.
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 22:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The only reliable way to generate tax revenue on services provided by a foreign company"
We're talking about revenue to and taxes paid entirely by Google Australia.
Re:What they really meant. by vivian · 2012-05-30 23:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sick of all the bloody money the Government blows on royal commissions and investigation of this sort.
They generate hugely expensive, massive documents that no one reads or really gives a damn about in the end, and are basically a way for politicians to say "hey we are doing something about it" without actually doing anything about it.
At the end of the day, who really gives a shit if your wifi connection has been tagged and a bit of data sniffed? if you care that much about it, secure it properly in the first place, reduce your signal strength so you don't overspill your boundary too much, or just run wired instead.
I am glad that this commissioner has seen that another investigation is the complete waste of time it really is - and has instead focused on getting the right laws in place (which they now are). Google admitted wrong, apologised, smacked down the engineer responsible, and paid the fine. End of story.
Can we move on now?
Re:What they really meant. by Tharsman · 2012-05-30 23:13 · Score: 1

I know it's important to anti-Googlers because it's pretty much the closest the company has come so far to being evil
Far from it. Google's "most evil" act so far I'd say was joining with Verizon to kill wireless net-neutrality.
Re:What they really meant. by kqs · 2012-05-31 00:48 · Score: 1

Your bar for evil is set a bit low. Getting Verizon to agree on net-neutrality on wired but not wireless is going farther towards net-neutrality than many others have. If that's evil, all of the companies which didn't get any net-neutrality agreements from a major ISP must be truly diabolical.
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 01:15 · Score: 0

That's nothing. In Spain, Apple is getting a refund over their taxes (in spanish).
Someday, tax laws should get a complete overhaul.
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 02:04 · Score: 0

Then people need to stop voting for these same politicians, of course just like in the States easier said than done. Google only paid, at least they paid just check out how many companies including pharmaceuticals have not bad in 20 years now that is billions of billions.
Re:What they really meant. by Branciforte · 2012-05-31 03:30 · Score: 1

Really? Do you have inside information on this? Do you really believe that Google made multiple billions in Australia? Do you know if they had additional expenses in Australia last year because they were expanding there? Do you know what there expenses were at all? Do you know if they got a tax offset from the government because the brought a whole bunch of new jobs there recently? Do you know what other forms of compensation Google may have offered to Australia? Do you have all this inside information, and an understanding of complex international taxation issues?
Or do you just like to repeat things that you read on the Internet?
Re:What they really meant. by Tharsman · 2012-05-31 04:33 · Score: 1

Thats an extremely hopeful twist on what happened... Google didn't convince Verizon to "agree" on wired net neutrality. Google simply bent over and offered its support in exchange of Android pimping.
It is because of Google that the wireless net neutrality exceptions were accepted, because "Google had nothing to win so their agreement must mean there is no biggie" (other than Google actually having a lot to win from Verizon's Android support.)
Re:What they really meant. by Tough+Love · 2012-05-31 05:05 · Score: 1

Why bother with an invasion of privacy case when they can go for the bigger fish? They are about to go after Google for tax evasion - a few politicians were (rightly) outraged when it became public knowledge that Google only paid $74k in tax on the multiple billions which Australian people and companies paid to them for services provided in Australia.
Just a tip, exaggeration weakens your point.
Indeed, Australia should go after Google for "managing its tax affairs in the way most advantageous to itself". And they should go after Apple and Microsoft too. After all, these "tax optimization" techniques were all pioneered by Microsoft, the other fat techs just follow the leader in that regard. Not saying it's right.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:What they really meant. by wdef · 2012-05-31 05:19 · Score: 1

Why bother with an invasion of privacy case when they can go for the bigger fish? .
Because invasion of privacy is *important*.
Re:What they really meant. by wdef · 2012-05-31 05:21 · Score: 1

Modded -1? You do realize that this decision means Google *will evade prosecution* in Australia? It doesn't just mean no second investigation, it means no further action. So it's ok to eavesdrop and collect passwords? Wardriving is ok? WTF?
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 06:03 · Score: 0

Royal Commissions in Australia have resulted in the large scale dismantling of organized crime, the uncovering and removal of huge levels of corruption and conspiracies between police, government and organized crime, the toppling of State police commissioners, and the sacking and prosecution of large numbers of corrupt police who were, in essence, gangsters. IIRC the Victorian, Queensland and New South Wales police forces were all profoundly restructured as a result of the power of Royal Commissions in Australia. Royal Commissions have extensive powers to protect civil society, change public opinion and prompt Parliament into action. Yes some get it wrong and are hysterical beat-ups. But there have been real wins for freedom from Royal Commissions.
Re:What they really meant. by wdef · 2012-05-31 06:05 · Score: 1

You miss the point altogether. Now, Google will not be prosecuted in Australia for stealing people's data. It is theft whether or not they left their wifi open.
Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 10:03 · Score: 0

You miss the point altogether. Now, Google will not be prosecuted in Australia for stealing people's data. It is theft whether or not they left their wifi open.
No, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
Re:What they really meant. by sethstorm · 2012-05-31 10:25 · Score: 1

It is unreasonable to expect to collect corporate income taxes from corporations that are not actually domiciled in the taxing entity. Legally speaking, it is essentially impossible. Tariffs and GSTs are about the only options.
Tax collection cooperation between countries to moot jurisdictional issues would be a way to handle it as well. For the remaining countries, there's always the military & intelligence departments of a large country, such as the US or Australia.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Re:What they really meant. by TheEyes · 2012-06-01 05:11 · Score: 1

You miss the point altogether. Now, Google will not be prosecuted in Australia for stealing people's data. It is theft whether or not they left their wifi open.
No, it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.
It's not even that; it's failing to turn off your tape recorder when you ride past someone who's shouting into the street from his open window.

Really means "I can't find porn without Google" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 19:18 · Score: 0

'In reaching this decision, I have considered the FCC's report, some favors offered by Google to me in a legal way, and don't consider that a new investigation would reveal any information that would change our original finding.'"

No what he really means is I just figured out that I can't find porn without Google, so I'm wh^H^Hbacking off

Shame Job by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 19:49 · Score: 1

Bit embarrassing to be a Skip when our Government panics over something so foolish and useless. 'Google has collected the shape of mailboxes on their cameras, let's investigate this horrific breach of privacy!' Our minister in charge of the digital economy at the time publicly stated he 'still doesn't know how to use his phone'.

Re:Shame Job by wdef · 2012-05-31 05:23 · Score: 1

Invasion of privacy - a corporation systematically wardriving and data mining people' networks for years unimpeded - is a very serious matter.

Google more powerful than Oz government by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 19:53 · Score: 1, Informative

Now it's official. Australia doesn't want to take on a company with the power and reach of Google. They'll cower before Facebook as well no doubt. Wimps.

Re:Google more powerful than Oz government by dark+grep · 2012-05-30 19:56 · Score: 0

I don't know why this got modded down. I live in Australia and it's a perfectly accurate observation. +1 informative.
Re:Google more powerful than Oz government by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 20:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because GP (and you) have missed the part where they've already went after Google's wifi collection and don't think they'll get anything new from that case. Now Google's tax practices, we'll have to see...
Re:Google more powerful than Oz government by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:08 · Score: 0

And you've missed the part where this decision means Google will not be prosecuted in Australia for this egregious behavior.
Re:Google more powerful than Oz government by wdef · 2012-05-31 06:26 · Score: 1

It got modded down because there are some serious astroturfers here, perhaps some even on the payroll of an arm's length "image management" company. For-hire astroturfers have been uncovered on /. before.
Re:Google more powerful than Oz government by dark+grep · 2012-06-02 18:56 · Score: 1

lol - don't even know what an astroturfer is. Nice title though.

just tax by crutchy · 2012-05-30 20:13 · Score: 1, Funny

the aussie government has easier ways to get blood from the google stone... an "Internet Superprofits Tax", followed closely by a "Google Streetview Car Tax"

while their at it, we might just see a "Windows Tax" soon, along with a "Porn Tax" and a "Slashdot Posting Tax"

The only question is why anyone investigated it? by robbak · 2012-05-30 20:15 · Score: 0

I mean, what is the point? They were investigating using WIFI networks as a way of providing location services for devices without GPS, so they collected data, either in a "just slurp the lot and we'll analyse it later", or a "keep the raw data, we might find it useful" manner.
The only question is why, when they realised it contained private information, they didn't just delete it. Instead, they announced that they had inadvertently intercepted private data. Then all these government agencies started to make a fuss, and we all got something to natter about for a couple of years. Well, that's a small positive, I guess.
So, I'm happy that someone has not bothered to investigate this nothing, again. Let's hope the rest of the someones make the same decision.

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp

Only France and Netherlands... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 20:31 · Score: 0

France and Netherlands were the only two countries that conducted a real full blown inquiry, analyzed the collected data and fined Google.

The found health data, sex life related data, and even highlighted that data from hidden SSID WiFi network was collected...

Re:Only France and Netherlands... by vsync64 · 2012-05-30 22:42 · Score: 1

There isn't any such thing as a hidden network when you're broadcasting it on a radio. And unless Google was brute-forcing everyone's encryption keys, they got to nothing private that anyone felt important to conceal.

--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Re:Only France and Netherlands... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 05:12 · Score: 0

Wrong. Eavesdropping is never acceptable. Analogy: you don't encrypt your voice IRL do you? So it's ok for people to listen? You assume users even understand that their wifi is not encrypted. Many do not. Your post is more pro-google astroturf.

Mens Messenger cheap handbags Bag Leather Creatin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 20:45 · Score: -1

If Mens Travel Backpacks leather is also creating a fashion-trend and nfl jerseys for sale shiny and sturdy then it will offer the greatest value to its purchaser.

R.I.P. Slashdot by oldhack · 2012-05-30 20:55 · Score: 1

Nice while it lasted.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.

Re:R.I.P. Slashdot by wdef · 2012-05-31 05:48 · Score: 1

Agreed, look at the antiprivacy, pro-google nonsense here. People think Google shouldn't be prosecuted for stealing data. Astonishing, the end of privacy is already here and hacker culture is dead on /.

R.I.P. Toby by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 21:18 · Score: 0

Beta tester zerotka (otherwise known as Keith here on the blog and facebook) has been called the Jane Goodall of SpyParty, because he studies the NPCs4 and then writes about their behavior, sometimes uncovering serious bugs in my code in the process. However, because he stares at the party so longâ¦well, better to use his own words:

zerotka: I had recently decided to go into practice mode and watch how the AI partied. I decided to start off with watching the waiter and how party members would react after getting a drink. I was hoping to find some tells so i spent quite a bit of time with it. I think after about the 10th or so game, i had to write a short-story-like-thingy. I had shared it with a couple other testers and they thought i should post it on the forums. I was hesitant at first, but alas, here i am.

Toby
The other day I had taken a few minutes and watched the waiter, Toby.
I watched him from outside the ballroom.
He walked about, person to person, and offered drinks.
The guests had no respect for Toby in anyway.
The more i watched, the more overwhelmed with sadness i had become.

He would approach a guest and extend out his tray
And politely waitâ¦.
He received no form of acknowledgement.
They all simply ignored him.

If they happened to be thirsty, theyâ(TM)d turn around,
grab a drink from the tray and immediately return to the conversation.
Not a âoeThanksâ, Not a, âoeHowâ(TM)s your dayâ,
Nothing.

Sometimes, a guest would turn around to grab a drink
but when they saw it was Toby they would return to the conversation.
After i saw that, i.. ..i lost control of myself.
âoeDonâ(TM)t let them do that to you Toby!â I had screamed.
He was completely invisible to them.
They would even run into him!

Several minutes of constant disrespect had drained the life out him.
He began to believe what everyone was doing to himâ"He believed he was a robot, an AI.
If i had enough bullets, Iâ(TM)d shoot every one of those jerks for you Toby!
But i only had one bullet.
And even if i had enough to kill all of them, more would spawn to replace them.
A tear had formed in my eye.

I had grabbed my sniper and centered Toby in the sights.
He had walked toward the window and stared at me.
I could tell by his blank expression
that his life had somehow spiraled out of control
And he knew there was only one way out of it.
I switched the safety off.
Iâ(TM)m sorry Toby.

The tear had fallen down my cheek and onto the ground.
The glasses on the tray had crashed to the floor,
Guests had screamed and cowered in fear.

Even though the spy had gotten away
I still felt like it was a small victory.

I hope in digital heaven, they serve you alcohol.

- www.spyparty.com/

Complete Lies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 21:25 · Score: 0

How can a rouge engineer outfit every car with millions of dollars worth of WIFI without anyone noticing?

Re:Complete Lies by AHuxley · 2012-05-30 23:06 · Score: 2

Thats the Jedi trick, the elephant in the room.
The diligent engineer did know what he was doing and did pass on his issues up the ladder. Nothing was done.
http://digitaljournal.com/article/324002
"This private data would then âoebe analyzed offline for use in other initiatives,â like researching how well Googleâ(TM)s other services are used, the document said."
http://www.dailytech.com/FCC+Google+Knowingly+Used+Street+View+Cars+to+Snoop+on+Emails+Texts/article24574.htm has more

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Privacy Law can't hurt Google anyway by CuteSteveJobs · 2012-05-30 21:57 · Score: 2

Privacy Laws in Australia are a feelgood thing so the public thinks they are protected when they really have no protection at all. Apart from bugging devices, Australia's privacy laws are very weak. The worst thing Google would face out of this would be a letter from the Privacy Commissioner saying 'please don't do that.' That letter isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Look at these slap on the wrist penalties:

An apology
A change to the respondent's practices or procedures
Staff counselling
Taking steps to address the matter, for example providing access to personal information, or amending records
Compensation for financial or non-financial loss
Other non-financial options, for example a complimentary subscription to a service.
http://www.privacy.gov.au/complaints/outcomes

Don't get excited about the financial compensation. That is only if you have suffered economic loss and the employee who did it doesn't have to pay a cent.

http://www.caslon.com.au/privacyguide3.htm
http://www.privacy.gov.au/complaints/outcomes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_in_Australian_law

Re:Privacy Law can't hurt Google anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-30 23:30 · Score: 0

"A change to the respondent's practices or procedures" can be a fairly big deal. I've been in companies with that, and it doesn't get forgotten, it changes behavior, and means lawyers get involved in a lot of decisions.

As an Australian. by AbRASiON · 2012-05-30 22:00 · Score: 1

Sorry :/ some people are fucking stupid and have no idea about technology.

Re:As an Australian. by wdef · 2012-05-31 05:50 · Score: 1

And no idea about or desire for privacy apparently.
Re:As an Australian. by AbRASiON · 2012-06-01 12:49 · Score: 1

If you're stupid enough to broadcast information you don't want out there, it's your own fault.

Read L Lessig's book for "why" this can happen... by ivi · 2012-05-31 00:04 · Score: 1

"Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress - and a Plan to Stop It"

(There are -also- some very good videos about of Lessig presenting its main ideas;
we heartily recommend them to all.)

Lets Tax the Internet! Re:What they really meant. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 00:21 · Score: 0

Yes, lets tax all service providers on the Internet!

It will be great!!

So, how are you going to tax Google/Facebook/Twitter/.. ? Per impression?

!!!

Troll article by slimjim8094 · 2012-05-31 01:25 · Score: 1

Despite a damning FCC report released last month claiming that senior manager within Google were aware that a 'rogue' engineer was working on the project on the side, he said a second investigation wouldn't yield any new results. [...] "In reaching this decision, I have considered the FCC's report and don't consider that a new investigation would reveal any information that would change our original finding.'"

So, despite information in the FCC report, he's not doing an investigation because it's already in the FCC's report?

Sounds to me like he said "oh, the FCC found this, I trust that they did a good job on it so I won't waste everybody's time/money"

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.

Re:Troll article by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-31 03:46 · Score: 0

Sounds to me like he said "oh, the FCC found this, I trust that they did a good job on it so I won't waste everybody's time/money"
Yeah, fuck that rat bastard! He's being paid by the taxpayers to waste everybody's time and money; how dare he shirk so!
Re:Troll article by wdef · 2012-05-31 05:51 · Score: 1

You totally fail to understand that this decision means Google will not be prosecuted in Australia.

Re:The only question is why anyone investigated it by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-31 02:30 · Score: 2

RTFS again. There was an ethically questionable engineer at Google who was responsible for collecting and retaining the unnecessary data. If memory serves, he wanted to do statistical analysis on the passwords he was collecting. Eventually, Google fessed up to it, even though they could have just covered it up and no one would ever have known. The only possible question is why his superiors took so long to deal with the problem once they knew about it, and my guess would be that they wanted to give him a chance to clean up his act before sacking him. He didn't, so they did.

In short, they're squeaky-clean on this issue, and any efforts to get it investigated further are unjustifiable.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Re:The only question is why anyone investigated it by wdef · 2012-05-31 05:26 · Score: 1

The only possible question is why his superiors took so long to deal with the problem once they knew about it.

But that is serious enough to warrant an investigation and prosecution. They didn't give a damn. People don't seem to follow that this means there will be NO prosecution for wardriving and unauthorized data mining. It beggars belief that anyone on /. doesn't get how serious that is, especially for a company in the business of profiling users.

Re:The only question is why anyone investigated it by Samantha+Wright · 2012-05-31 05:41 · Score: 1

Uh? They reported it when they could have hid it, with essentially no risk to themselves. Doesn't that count as a damn?

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

Tax is off-topic by wdef · 2012-05-31 06:07 · Score: 1

I call straw man on all this tax talk. The topic is privacy invasion and theft of data.

Re:The only question is why anyone investigated it by wdef · 2012-05-31 06:22 · Score: 1

But this data theft went on for a long time with their knowledge. Management was negligent.

Wardriving illegal? by robbak · 2012-05-31 11:09 · Score: 1

People don't seem to follow that this means there will be NO prosecution for wardriving and unauthorized data mining. It beggars belief that anyone on /. doesn't get how serious that is, especially for a company in the business of profiling users.

What? How could intercepting data transmitted into a public space in the clear be liable to prosecution? And how could that be 'unauthorized data mining'? I have metal in my car keys, and they intercept that data all the time. Mind you, all it does with it is convert it into a couple of microjoules of heat, but my notebook's and phone's wifi hardware goes further.
I 'get' exactly how serious it is. I have no idea why it ever became the subject for a single slashdot article.

--
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp

Re:The only question is why anyone investigated it by Samantha+Wright · 2012-06-01 03:32 · Score: 1

Did it? Okay. I guess that's something.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

cheap handbags Bag is One of The Leading Products by echoc · 2012-06-05 15:16 · Score: 1

Cartier cheap handbags takes a leading role in the trend of fashion styles, therefore, the pursuit of excellence and bold innovation of it has become a very needing thing, and its main products are so many that you can really enjoy the shopping fun, such as watches, jewelry, leather goods, accessories and perfume. Its products in the major cities of the Cartier authorized distributors, including Shanghai, Beijing, Shenzhen and Chengdu. Cartier products are delicate and jeweled masterpieces, these products are inlaid diamonds and jewelry, for the majority of China is consumers.And at here, we will give the priority chanel handbags to the Cartier Bag, because we have the most popular style in this year and it is in a reasonable price that offered at here. And in another thing, the bag is always the necessities to most of we women, It made in a painstaking and very serious way that the style of it is of course is very fashion follow. Since the new year is on the corner, and a new year owns new atmosphere, everybody is happy at this moment, and a gift to ourselves is real an amazing thing. After a year;sard work, so this special moment, just do the thing that attracts you and do not hesitate to take the action.A good brand has its special history to attract the public, and it is also the unique reason that earns the good favors. When we want one thing, we always want to know the source of it. Of course the good brand concentrates all its workers . I would very like to have it in the special new year and enjoy the pleasing mood which given by the love thing. In another way, bag design as an important branch of the clothing industry also plays a strong role in promoting. Into the study in this era of fashion, the bag toward the visual appearance is luxurious, comfortable and exquisite touch, firm structure, elegant, sophisticated nfl jerseys for sale technology and detailed direction. As a bag designer, in addition to have some design skills, but also need to understand some basic principles of modern design and consumer demand.

Slashdot Mirror

Australia Drops Second Google Investigation

63 comments