This is getting surreal. RMS himself said it was a GPL violation, but now everyone's trying to prove him wrong and declare that it wasn't. I never thought I'd see people in a GPL violation article on Slashdot defending the violator, much less contradict RMS himself on what is a violation and what isn't.
It's amusing seeing people become defense lawyers in a GPL violation case when they're so eager to bring out the pitchforks all those times that it's not GNU doing the violating.
But no instructions were provided either. RMS already said Emacs was in violation of the GPL, so I'm not sure what the point is of all these investigative posts trying to prove that it's not.
Not only does RMS disagree with you since even he says Emacs is in violation, but the GPL stipulates that the source code must either be included, or a written offer to provide it must be included, and neither was done. You don't just provide the source by request.
I think it's interesting that this is a story on Slashdot. The GPL is a copyright license and therefore relies on copyright law to have any power. Anti-copyright, pro-piracy stories are often posted here, yet whenever there's a GPL violation story, copyright is suddenly important again.
It's become something of a Slashdot cliche to see this: "How dare the RIAA sue those pirates! Piracy isn't even theft!"
Followed by this: "Somebody stole GPL code? The FSF should take them to court!"
Just pointing out a common double-standard around here.
So where's the beating? I haven't yet seen a refutation of the data in the study. Just a bunch of lame terminology like "climate change deniers."
There are tons of flaws in today's global warming models, which is obvious if you actually read the reports. Several scientists even admit they are inaccurate. Unfortunately, tons of urban hippies have hijacked the movement and turned it into the same old religious belief that seems to be ingrained in human beings--a pristine Eden (nature) that was corrupted by sin (technology) which must be purged 'lest we face a Judgement Day (global warming and all the kooky things it's claimed to cause by outspoken liberals, from poverty to racism to wars). If it's not Christianity, it's environmentalism.
Re:This site works best with...
on
OK Go Goes HTML5
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If Chrome uses open standards and protocols, there's no reason for it to be Chrome-only. You say competitors are "left in the dust" because Chrome is developed at such an "astonishing pace" (it's easy to appear that way when you constantly bump major version numbers), but Chrome is based on the open source WebKit, the same engine Safari uses that was developed mostly by Apple. There's nothing particularly unique to Chrome except for its Javascript engine, which doesn't use some futuristic version of Javascript that nobody else can run.
Not to mention that the claim that Chrome is based entirely on "open standards and protocols" is ridiculous--the browser ships the closed-source, proprietary Flash plug-in and supports both AAC and MP3 audio playback.
So when Apple posts HTML5 demos that only work in Safari, everyone shit on them. I fully expect here on Slashdot to jump on Google's case for making this Chrome-only. Right, guys? Guys?
I understand the problem completely. It seems it's you who doesn't (it doesn't surprise me that you posted anonymously once again).
The phone ownership issue at the end of your post is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with my point that a year-old security issue is still an issue.
So because it's optional, nobody should be informed about its privacy issues? What you're effectively saying is that nobody should ever criticize anything in the free market. That's really stupid.
When anyone criticizes Windows on Slashdot, should people say, "Don't like Windows, don't use it"? If someone dislikes a film, "Don't like the movie, don't watch it"?
A security expert is criticizing a privacy policy of Google+ is information people should know about. Or do you believe nobody should be informed about anything?
We're not supposed to scrutinize it because it's opt-in? How will less technically-educated users be aware of the risks they're taking if those who are more informed about the subject don't speak up for everyone's sake?
Google, to its credit, at least had the decency to step up and say "Yeah, our mistake. We're sorry."...
Neither company was being malicious or trying to invade their user's privacy, but at least Google showed a lot more forthrightness and honesty while Apple tried to hide the issue.
I keep seeing this opinion on Slashdot, and I guess that it must be due to some incorrect belief that Google proactively stepped forward and admitted what happened, when the opposite is true.
Google's data collection occurred over 2006-2010, a period of four years in which they archived over 600 gigabytes of data. Four years. That's a long time to not be aware that your own software is sniffing everything. You're really telling me they never did a test run and noticed that they were archiving everything in range?
Furthermore, Google only admitted to the issue under threat of investigation by German regulators. Otherwise, you would have never known about it, and it's likely the data collection would have continued. What likely happened is that, internally, Google ignored the privacy issue because, like many Slashdotters, they incorrectly assumed that any publicly accessible network is fair game and that it's not their problem if it ends up in the recorded data. When they realized the information would be seen by German regulators and that it would create a public controversy, they suddenly acted as if they didn't know what was going on and that it was all a big accident they were trying to rectify through honesty.
Even if it was an accident, it's a criminally negligent one. But come on. Four years of accidental data collection? To believe that requires a level of gullibility that's never afforded to Microsoft or Apple around here. Let's be open about it--there is a pro-Google bias on Slashdot in which they are given the benefit of the doubt in all situations while their competitors are chastised for lesser flaws.
You're getting modded down (using the "Overrated" modifier which avoids meta-moderation), but the truth is that Google collected the data for a whopping 4 years and archived about 600 gigabytes of data. That's a pretty long-term "accident" to overlook. If not for German regulators, we would never have even heard about it.
From a technical viewpoint, there's no difference between Starbuck's open wifi, and the one at my home. The point of all this is that Google's access wasn't malicious, they did accidentally collect data they didn't intend to - which is very obvious after the fact, I guess no-one thought about it enough beforehand.
They "accidentally" collected this data for 4 years, totaling over 600 gigabytes of data. Furthermore, they only admitted to it under inquiry from German regulators. Come on.
Hi, anonymous Google defender who appears in every Google article.
Your post is bizarre. According to you, it's okay for Google to spy on you because your neighbor might be spying on to too. You also ignore the fact that people explicitly give permission to phone companies to know their MAC address, while Google drove their data-sniffing software around residential areas without warning.
The war on drugs comment is also completely random and irrelevant.
But really, they've already explained what they were doing, it it makes perfect sense why others were hit by it. Google was gathering information on public access points to be able to map them, the access point data that was gathered was from routers that were set to appear as Public (unencrypted and non-hidden).
Slashdotters keep focusing on the fact the routers were unencrypted, and that doesn't matter legally or ethically. By that logic, I could listen in on the conversations in your house from the street using sensitive microphones without repercussion, or I could peek through your windows using binoculars if you left a curtain cracked open.
People are making it sound like google was sitting outside of peoples houses for days at a time, when they were not gathering more information than one could gather driving by at 35-50MPH.
Clearly, you can gather a lot of information with Google's equipment and software driving. These were residential areas, so the speed was more likely to be 15-20 MPH and not the speedy pace you imply.
That is more or less on par with a couple arguing loudly on a park bench, complaining about what a jogger heard.
It's absolutely nothing like that. The networks were set up in households with an expectation of privacy, not out in a park. Also, Google's data collection goes far beyond merely overhearing someone's loud argument.
Oh fucking please, they used vehicles equipped with average off-the-shelf wifi equipment to collect data that devices were openly broadcasting.
What does it being off-the-shelf equipment have to do with anything? It doesn't matter if they were "openly broadcasting." By that logic, I could stand outside your house with extra-sensitive microphones and listen to the conversations your having. After all, you're "openly broadcasting" the sound waves through the surrounding atmosphere.
There's such a thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Being a free service doesn't absolve it from criticism. In fact, being free means it should be scrutinized more heavily, along with the motives of the advertising company providing it, because nothing is truly "free" and there is always a catch.
If anonymous, they can have an infinite number of accounts to spam and troll from.
No, they wouldn't be able to have an "infinite number of accounts."
And just because you wouldn't like a particular person's content doesn't mean everyone should give up their privacy. The benefits of anonymity far outweigh the negatives. The only reason Google doesn't like anonymity is because they want to get their hands on your personal data to sell it to advertisers. The benevolent little Linux-using search company from 2001 is long gone.
Slashdot Mirror
For the hundredth time, that is not how the GPL defines source code. Has anyone here read the GPL?
This is getting surreal. RMS himself said it was a GPL violation, but now everyone's trying to prove him wrong and declare that it wasn't. I never thought I'd see people in a GPL violation article on Slashdot defending the violator, much less contradict RMS himself on what is a violation and what isn't.
Better tell RMS that he's wrong then, since he's the one who says Emacs is in violation of the GPL.
No, it's not. This incident is proving just how many Slashdotters don't even understand the GPL. The "by request" obligation is for physical media.
That's not how the GPL defines source code.
It's amusing seeing people become defense lawyers in a GPL violation case when they're so eager to bring out the pitchforks all those times that it's not GNU doing the violating.
But no instructions were provided either. RMS already said Emacs was in violation of the GPL, so I'm not sure what the point is of all these investigative posts trying to prove that it's not.
Not only does RMS disagree with you since even he says Emacs is in violation, but the GPL stipulates that the source code must either be included, or a written offer to provide it must be included, and neither was done. You don't just provide the source by request.
Well, RMS himself says Emacs is in violation of the GPL, so you must be wrong in your interpretation.
It's also been a key hindrance. Just sayin'.
I think it's interesting that this is a story on Slashdot. The GPL is a copyright license and therefore relies on copyright law to have any power. Anti-copyright, pro-piracy stories are often posted here, yet whenever there's a GPL violation story, copyright is suddenly important again.
It's become something of a Slashdot cliche to see this:
"How dare the RIAA sue those pirates! Piracy isn't even theft!"
Followed by this:
"Somebody stole GPL code? The FSF should take them to court!"
Just pointing out a common double-standard around here.
So where's the beating? I haven't yet seen a refutation of the data in the study. Just a bunch of lame terminology like "climate change deniers."
There are tons of flaws in today's global warming models, which is obvious if you actually read the reports. Several scientists even admit they are inaccurate. Unfortunately, tons of urban hippies have hijacked the movement and turned it into the same old religious belief that seems to be ingrained in human beings--a pristine Eden (nature) that was corrupted by sin (technology) which must be purged 'lest we face a Judgement Day (global warming and all the kooky things it's claimed to cause by outspoken liberals, from poverty to racism to wars). If it's not Christianity, it's environmentalism.
So it's more closed-open bullshit from Google?
If Chrome uses open standards and protocols, there's no reason for it to be Chrome-only. You say competitors are "left in the dust" because Chrome is developed at such an "astonishing pace" (it's easy to appear that way when you constantly bump major version numbers), but Chrome is based on the open source WebKit, the same engine Safari uses that was developed mostly by Apple. There's nothing particularly unique to Chrome except for its Javascript engine, which doesn't use some futuristic version of Javascript that nobody else can run.
Not to mention that the claim that Chrome is based entirely on "open standards and protocols" is ridiculous--the browser ships the closed-source, proprietary Flash plug-in and supports both AAC and MP3 audio playback.
So when Apple posts HTML5 demos that only work in Safari, everyone shit on them. I fully expect here on Slashdot to jump on Google's case for making this Chrome-only. Right, guys? Guys?
I understand the problem completely. It seems it's you who doesn't (it doesn't surprise me that you posted anonymously once again).
The phone ownership issue at the end of your post is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with my point that a year-old security issue is still an issue.
There's nothing contradictory about pointing out privacy issues in an optional product. I suspect Google fans just don't like seeing Google criticism.
So because it's optional, nobody should be informed about its privacy issues? What you're effectively saying is that nobody should ever criticize anything in the free market. That's really stupid.
When anyone criticizes Windows on Slashdot, should people say, "Don't like Windows, don't use it"? If someone dislikes a film, "Don't like the movie, don't watch it"?
A security expert is criticizing a privacy policy of Google+ is information people should know about. Or do you believe nobody should be informed about anything?
We're not supposed to scrutinize it because it's opt-in? How will less technically-educated users be aware of the risks they're taking if those who are more informed about the subject don't speak up for everyone's sake?
Choosing a Google service for privacy reasons is a fairly stupid thing to do.
I keep seeing this opinion on Slashdot, and I guess that it must be due to some incorrect belief that Google proactively stepped forward and admitted what happened, when the opposite is true.
Google's data collection occurred over 2006-2010, a period of four years in which they archived over 600 gigabytes of data. Four years. That's a long time to not be aware that your own software is sniffing everything. You're really telling me they never did a test run and noticed that they were archiving everything in range?
Furthermore, Google only admitted to the issue under threat of investigation by German regulators. Otherwise, you would have never known about it, and it's likely the data collection would have continued. What likely happened is that, internally, Google ignored the privacy issue because, like many Slashdotters, they incorrectly assumed that any publicly accessible network is fair game and that it's not their problem if it ends up in the recorded data. When they realized the information would be seen by German regulators and that it would create a public controversy, they suddenly acted as if they didn't know what was going on and that it was all a big accident they were trying to rectify through honesty.
Even if it was an accident, it's a criminally negligent one. But come on. Four years of accidental data collection? To believe that requires a level of gullibility that's never afforded to Microsoft or Apple around here. Let's be open about it--there is a pro-Google bias on Slashdot in which they are given the benefit of the doubt in all situations while their competitors are chastised for lesser flaws.
You're getting modded down (using the "Overrated" modifier which avoids meta-moderation), but the truth is that Google collected the data for a whopping 4 years and archived about 600 gigabytes of data. That's a pretty long-term "accident" to overlook. If not for German regulators, we would never have even heard about it.
They "accidentally" collected this data for 4 years, totaling over 600 gigabytes of data. Furthermore, they only admitted to it under inquiry from German regulators. Come on.
Hi, anonymous Google defender who appears in every Google article.
Your post is bizarre. According to you, it's okay for Google to spy on you because your neighbor might be spying on to too. You also ignore the fact that people explicitly give permission to phone companies to know their MAC address, while Google drove their data-sniffing software around residential areas without warning.
The war on drugs comment is also completely random and irrelevant.
Slashdotters keep focusing on the fact the routers were unencrypted, and that doesn't matter legally or ethically. By that logic, I could listen in on the conversations in your house from the street using sensitive microphones without repercussion, or I could peek through your windows using binoculars if you left a curtain cracked open.
Clearly, you can gather a lot of information with Google's equipment and software driving. These were residential areas, so the speed was more likely to be 15-20 MPH and not the speedy pace you imply.
It's absolutely nothing like that. The networks were set up in households with an expectation of privacy, not out in a park. Also, Google's data collection goes far beyond merely overhearing someone's loud argument.
What does it being off-the-shelf equipment have to do with anything? It doesn't matter if they were "openly broadcasting." By that logic, I could stand outside your house with extra-sensitive microphones and listen to the conversations your having. After all, you're "openly broadcasting" the sound waves through the surrounding atmosphere.
There's such a thing as a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Being a free service doesn't absolve it from criticism. In fact, being free means it should be scrutinized more heavily, along with the motives of the advertising company providing it, because nothing is truly "free" and there is always a catch.
No, they wouldn't be able to have an "infinite number of accounts."
And just because you wouldn't like a particular person's content doesn't mean everyone should give up their privacy. The benefits of anonymity far outweigh the negatives. The only reason Google doesn't like anonymity is because they want to get their hands on your personal data to sell it to advertisers. The benevolent little Linux-using search company from 2001 is long gone.