Google doesn't sell personal data, that wouldn't make any sense: some business would just buy it and resell it for less. Google sells advertising, where they can sell and resell and resell. It's in their interest to not give too much information away.
Subpoenas are certainly possible, although unlikely for any particular user.
as far as this article is concerned, creating ghost profiles is a war of attrition on those who consciously opt out. it's not just that the info is out there somewhere, it's that it's concentrated in one place, in an easily accessible location for all to see, without their consent. The only way to fight it is to claim the profile (thus validating it 'they got you') and lock it down as much as they let you
I think you've misunderstood the point of these ghost profiles. The objective is to let you participate without giving your personal data. It's not easily accessible for all to see. From the patent claims:
the ghost profile is visible to the first member and is invisible to other members of the social network. (...) generating a ghost profile for the user, the ghost profile being unsearchable
And from the patent summary:
The ghost profiles are not visible to other users and cannot be searched. This way the ghost profile user will be able to experience the advantages of the social network without the pressure of joining (...)
It's only visible to the person who has shared stuff with you.
Most service agreements mandate that anything you upload becomes the property of the service provider.
Not exactly; the copyright is still yours, they just require a extremely loose (and non-revocable) license.
There's a difference between trusting a few associates as you occupy a public space, and trusting a distributed database heuristic-analysis operation run by people who don't care about you, only their bottom line and/or political ambitions.
My bank is also run by people who don't care about me, yet I still trust them with my money, which if I were to lose would affect me much more than having my pictures used publicly.
It's a question of deciding how likely is that. And frankly, I don't think it's very likely. They'd have more to lose than to win.
No, they're not public. Having the possibility that they'll become public in the future is not the same.
It's impossible to live life without trusting people, companies and things. Whether one should trust Google in this case is a different matter - I'm not sure I would. Not that I have to make that decision, since other things (like the real name policy) prevent me from joining anyway.
The difference is that these profiles are not created by the user, but when someone else shares stuff with them.
Re:It's only a problem because Google makes it one
on
The Phantoms of Google+
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Duh, because people don't want to share with the public?
This is a way to limit access to those photos while at the same time giving access to people with a G+ account: they send you a private URL with which you can authenticate yourself without registering.
Not that have some kind of allegiance to the glibc, but what do all those Linux based GPSs, routers, TVs, etc, not to mention all those servers? Franky, I find it hard to believe that Android dwarfs all of those put together.
Ebay sellers have cheap stuff like $2 and $3 cables with free worldwide shipping. I just got a $4 screen for a Nokia with free shipping to my country. They do take a hell of a long time to arrive, though.
Maybe we should consider why do they not want to think and learn, and what can be done to change that. Calling them lazy may be true, but it's a cop-out. Even lazy people can be convinced to think and learn, it just depends on where the incentives are.
If you want to feel superior, sure, blame the lazy assholes. If you want to actually achieve something better for others and yourself, that's a dumb attitude because it leads nowhere.
In common terms, a person isn't necessarily evil even if they did in their lives evil things. How many people do you know that have never did anything evil in their life? Are all the others evil people?
(This is not even going into whether what they did is actually evil; since I don't believe in objective moral standards, I don't think that can be determined).
Note: I'm not saying Google is perfect, and I'm actually moving away from some of their services (and refuse to join G+) because I strongly dislike some of their decisions and I don't really trust them as I did.
all while making a massive pile of money (although not as much as they used to)?
Maybe not the music industry, but "Hollywood" (MPAA members) had record profits year after year from 2006 to 2010, at least. So they're making more money than they used to.
That's only for unninstalling. The major problem is not unninstallation, but updating. The Linux package managers take care of updating all programs, while in Windows it's every program for itself, leading to stupid "updaters" being loaded at startup.
Nothing forces an application to be continuously on-line to support server push.
Server Push is to enable servers to push content to the client that it didn't specifically ask for; for example,/. could push the logo image right after getting a request for the HTML part, so that the client doesn't have to parse the HTML, find the image tag and then do a new request to ask for it.
Supporting server push actually reduces battery and traffic, since you don't need to send requests or keep the connection open for so long.
If a client doesn't want a particular resource being pushed, it can just issue a CANCEL error, which forces the server to stop pushing it.
Not providing a centralized updating system, thus forcing applications to install background services to keep themselves updated, is definitively Microsoft's fault. On Debian, an application can just use the install scripts to add itself to sources.list; it's easier for the developer and better for the user.
Slashdot Mirror
Google doesn't sell personal data, that wouldn't make any sense: some business would just buy it and resell it for less. Google sells advertising, where they can sell and resell and resell. It's in their interest to not give too much information away.
Subpoenas are certainly possible, although unlikely for any particular user.
as far as this article is concerned, creating ghost profiles is a war of attrition on those who consciously opt out. it's not just that the info is out there somewhere, it's that it's concentrated in one place, in an easily accessible location for all to see, without their consent. The only way to fight it is to claim the profile (thus validating it 'they got you') and lock it down as much as they let you
I think you've misunderstood the point of these ghost profiles. The objective is to let you participate without giving your personal data. It's not easily accessible for all to see. From the patent claims:
the ghost profile is visible to the first member and is invisible to other members of the social network.
(...)
generating a ghost profile for the user, the ghost profile being unsearchable
And from the patent summary:
The ghost profiles are not visible to other users and cannot be searched. This way the ghost profile user will be able to experience the advantages of the social network without the pressure of joining (...)
It's only visible to the person who has shared stuff with you.
Most service agreements mandate that anything you upload becomes the property of the service provider.
Not exactly; the copyright is still yours, they just require a extremely loose (and non-revocable) license.
There's a difference between trusting a few associates as you occupy a public space, and trusting a distributed database heuristic-analysis operation run by people who don't care about you, only their bottom line and/or political ambitions.
My bank is also run by people who don't care about me, yet I still trust them with my money, which if I were to lose would affect me much more than having my pictures used publicly.
It's a question of deciding how likely is that. And frankly, I don't think it's very likely. They'd have more to lose than to win.
Nice. I just found out you can use pipes too:
No, they're not public. Having the possibility that they'll become public in the future is not the same.
It's impossible to live life without trusting people, companies and things. Whether one should trust Google in this case is a different matter - I'm not sure I would. Not that I have to make that decision, since other things (like the real name policy) prevent me from joining anyway.
The difference is that these profiles are not created by the user, but when someone else shares stuff with them.
Duh, because people don't want to share with the public?
This is a way to limit access to those photos while at the same time giving access to people with a G+ account: they send you a private URL with which you can authenticate yourself without registering.
No, I don't wonder and I don't care. If you want streaming, use Flash. I'm just telling what *I* use.
I don't think Adobe is expecting Flash to last that long. They're already releasing HTML5 authoring tools to prepare ground.
I use youtube-dl for most videos. It doesn't do streaming, but it doesn't need Flash!
Not that have some kind of allegiance to the glibc, but what do all those Linux based GPSs, routers, TVs, etc, not to mention all those servers? Franky, I find it hard to believe that Android dwarfs all of those put together.
Ebay sellers have cheap stuff like $2 and $3 cables with free worldwide shipping. I just got a $4 screen for a Nokia with free shipping to my country. They do take a hell of a long time to arrive, though.
Getting out in the world is not horrible. Wasting time at some shop is.
Of course, that assumes the TSA will remain restricted to airplanes...
Maybe we should consider why do they not want to think and learn, and what can be done to change that. Calling them lazy may be true, but it's a cop-out. Even lazy people can be convinced to think and learn, it just depends on where the incentives are.
If you want to feel superior, sure, blame the lazy assholes. If you want to actually achieve something better for others and yourself, that's a dumb attitude because it leads nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
In common terms, a person isn't necessarily evil even if they did in their lives evil things. How many people do you know that have never did anything evil in their life? Are all the others evil people?
(This is not even going into whether what they did is actually evil; since I don't believe in objective moral standards, I don't think that can be determined).
Note: I'm not saying Google is perfect, and I'm actually moving away from some of their services (and refuse to join G+) because I strongly dislike some of their decisions and I don't really trust them as I did.
1. It wasn't VISA/MC who suffered the leak.
2. It's the merchant who pays, not the customers (directly, at least)
Yes, you did. The motto never talks about doing evil or not.
So did we.
all while making a massive pile of money (although not as much as they used to)?
Maybe not the music industry, but "Hollywood" (MPAA members) had record profits year after year from 2006 to 2010, at least. So they're making more money than they used to.
That's only for unninstalling. The major problem is not unninstallation, but updating. The Linux package managers take care of updating all programs, while in Windows it's every program for itself, leading to stupid "updaters" being loaded at startup.
Nothing forces an application to be continuously on-line to support server push.
Server Push is to enable servers to push content to the client that it didn't specifically ask for; for example, /. could push the logo image right after getting a request for the HTML part, so that the client doesn't have to parse the HTML, find the image tag and then do a new request to ask for it.
Supporting server push actually reduces battery and traffic, since you don't need to send requests or keep the connection open for so long.
If a client doesn't want a particular resource being pushed, it can just issue a CANCEL error, which forces the server to stop pushing it.
It ca, but I disagree. It'll be a very long time 'till IPsec is widely supported, while SPDY can be used right now.
Not providing a centralized updating system, thus forcing applications to install background services to keep themselves updated, is definitively Microsoft's fault. On Debian, an application can just use the install scripts to add itself to sources.list; it's easier for the developer and better for the user.