I was going to say the same thing. I don't understand Google's position here. They bundle Flash within Chrome, so if the hack goes through Flash to exploit Chrome, it is a Chrome issue. Then again, this is the same company that claims it dropped H.264 in the spirit of openness yet bundles Flash and supports MP3 and AAC playback.
Sometimes openness just needs to take a backseat in order to protect reputation.
This is complete bullshit. If reputation is more important to Google than openness, they shouldn't call themselves an advocate of openness, and neither should their supporters. It's not supposed to matter what other people choose to do with the code. That was supposed to be the "freedom" aspect of open source.
Your post is about things that occurred over 10 years ago, which doesn't refute the point about actually needing a bad deed to complain about. Companies buy other companies all the time, including Slashdot's favorite company, Google.
The exploit is due to a bug in Chrome. ASLR and DEP aren't catch-all protection mechanisms; they're just a default layer of defense against bad code. I realize this is a vehemently pro-Google site that attempts to deflect any blame toward default scapegoats like Microsoft, but your position is just not accurate in this case.
You're actually comparing leaving a WiFi router open to the bloody, fatal sacrifices people made in the past for actual freedom? This community has become totally ridiculous.
I realize this is vehemently pro-Google territory, but it should be noted that Google won't even implement the "Do Not Track" feature in Chrome, and they were caught scanning and archiving personal WiFi data, which they didn't admit to until the German government threatened an audit. They have a history of disregard for user privacy. Let's not pretend they're some benevolent entity looking out for the user.
Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.
What? Google are the ones suing an IT department for choosing their competitors!
Google's reluctance more likely has to due with the fact that, as an online advertiser, their core business relies on tracking user data for context-sensitive ad placement.
If you can't think of what more someone could want for privacy, then you haven't done any research. "Incognito Mode" is about client-side privacy, like cookies and browsing history. "Do Not Track" allows users to declare that their activities and other information shouldn't be tracked by online services. It requires the participation of advertisers and other vendors, and though none are compliant yet (and it's very telling that Google is non-commital), it's a step in the right direction.
After experiences like that, how can some people continue to advocate for "net neutrality" and increased government control of the internet? The potential for abuse and corruption seems so blindingly obvious. A private organization that accessed your Gmail account and located you by phone could be punished for violating privacy laws, but the government is free to sidestep such limitations all the time.
I think anti-piracy laws are only "controversial" on Slashdot, which has become a piracy advocate over the years, particularly for PirateBay and the Pirate Party. This is interesting because Slashdot also supports a copyright license called the GPL that depends on copyright law. This contradiction rarely seems to occur to most readers.
Firms offer to harvest online conversations and collect personal details from social-networking sites, résumé sites and online forums where people might discuss their lives.
You mean like Google already does for its advertisers? In fact, one of the related links in the article is a story about Google titled Google Agonizes on Privacy as Ad World Vaults Ahead, discussing their plans for utilizing their vast archive of valuable user data. The battle for online privacy was lost long ago.
How would a government-controlled internet equate to a free and open one? That's a contradiction. Government control is not more free and open than private control; it's less so, because corporations are run by normal citizens who are subject to the law while the government is often above the law. The Slashdot mentality of portraying corporations as faceless monsters is stupid.
"Net neutrality" would mean politicians and lobbyists would have influence over network traffic. RIAA goons could influence political bureaucrats to "regulate" torrent traffic in the name of preventing economic terrorism. There are so many reasons why a government-controlled internet is one of the worst things in the world.
As for web access being a human right--give me a break. The web is a technological luxury, a privilege. You might as well argue that television, phones, automobiles, and laptops are also human rights. After all, the difference in the lives of someone who owns a car and someone who doesn't is enormous, right? Yet just because a lot of people use something doesn't make it a human right that must be funded and protected through taxes.
Paying for an IP address on an ISP's private network is just a convenient commercial service you pay for. You won't die if you don't have internet access. You might be bored, but boredom isn't something that requires government regulation. We've already got the government up our asses in so many ways, from tapping your phones without warrants to requiring ISPs to retain information on you. You really want the government directly regulating internet traffic too? Talk about something ripe with the potential for abuse and corruption.
To summarize--net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, and web access being a "human right" is total bullshit. It's no more a human right than cars, TVs, and newspapers.
If the next Modern Warfare introduced dramatically different themes, there would be uproar. Sure, set it on the moon, but make sure I’m a grunt following the NPCs who get to play the game, or I’ll swear at you on the internet.
Then perhaps it shouldn't be another damn Modern Warfare game. How about--gasp--a brand new game. I get that not making sequels each year requires creativity and risk, but think of the reward.
I always thought Google's lawsuit was dumb. Government agencies are free to choose Microsoft software if their sysadmins wish to use Microsoft software. Google's response was to criticize that software and tout their own. However, the government is a customer too and is free to choose a product that happens to be in the unique position of having competitors who think their products are better.
Accusations of government favoritism from Google are particularly ironic considering the numerous ties they have to the Obama administration. That there wasn't actually a FISMA certification to begin for Google Apps for Government--the certification was for Google Apps Premier, so Google has quietly filed again for the correct software--just caps the silliness of the whole thing.
Here's the relevant text in the court documents:
On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Google’s representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification. [...] We immediately contacted counsel for Google, shared this information and advised counsel that we would bring this to the Courts attention. According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government. [...] To be clear, in the view of GSA, the agency that certified Google’s Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government.
No, because the Microsoft way to embrace, extend, extinguish was to keep the "how to extend" part to itself and secret, like what they did with Kerberos.
Microsoft's extensions were executed within the Kerberos specification and documented in RFCs 3244 and 4757.
Yet the strategy for the use of the license plate readers has raised questions about whether they represent a system for tracking driving patterns, said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. She said it was hard to tell whether interest in “effective and efficient law enforcement” was being balanced with the “values of privacy and freedom.”
It's hard to argue against the impact on crime that the cameras have, but it would be naive to assume they're not being used to gauge general driving patterns. Of course they are. No government organization would turn its back on such a valuable storehouse of data.
It's getting ridiculous. Chrome came out in 2008, and the development version is already up to 12. At this rate, Chrome will be at version 22.0 in the next two years. This is the same kind of stupid marketing reasoning that brought us the "Xbox 360." There's no reason Firefox 5 couldn't just be called 4.1.
This is off-topic; feel free to moderate me as such. What's with all the Overrated/Underrated moderation happening lately? Your post is currently just +3, without a moderation adjective. Did everyone simultaneously realize that Overrated/Underrated isn't subject to meta-moderation and decided to exploit the system?
That kind of Microsoft-like model hurts third-party development and confuses consumers. Google should be focused on making one thing that is the best, not hanging back to see which one just happens to work out.
Slashdot Mirror
No location-specific body damage, auto-regenerating health, a cover system...yeah, I'll pass.
I was going to say the same thing. I don't understand Google's position here. They bundle Flash within Chrome, so if the hack goes through Flash to exploit Chrome, it is a Chrome issue. Then again, this is the same company that claims it dropped H.264 in the spirit of openness yet bundles Flash and supports MP3 and AAC playback.
This is complete bullshit. If reputation is more important to Google than openness, they shouldn't call themselves an advocate of openness, and neither should their supporters. It's not supposed to matter what other people choose to do with the code. That was supposed to be the "freedom" aspect of open source.
Your post is about things that occurred over 10 years ago, which doesn't refute the point about actually needing a bad deed to complain about. Companies buy other companies all the time, including Slashdot's favorite company, Google.
I like how when Microsoft buys something, people on Slashdot call for antitrust scrutiny, but Google buying everything up gets a pass.
The exploit is due to a bug in Chrome. ASLR and DEP aren't catch-all protection mechanisms; they're just a default layer of defense against bad code. I realize this is a vehemently pro-Google site that attempts to deflect any blame toward default scapegoats like Microsoft, but your position is just not accurate in this case.
The stupidity of your post isn't the worst part. It's the fact that, as of this writing, you're modded Insightful.
One wonders how long before Google's supporters finally figure this out. Android, Chrome...it all has a purpose.
You're actually comparing leaving a WiFi router open to the bloody, fatal sacrifices people made in the past for actual freedom? This community has become totally ridiculous.
Anyone notice that when Democrats say crazy things, it's never mentioned in the article that they're Democrats?
It has to do with the ecosystem built on the OS; in other words, the lack of strict quality control.
I realize this is vehemently pro-Google territory, but it should be noted that Google won't even implement the "Do Not Track" feature in Chrome, and they were caught scanning and archiving personal WiFi data, which they didn't admit to until the German government threatened an audit. They have a history of disregard for user privacy. Let's not pretend they're some benevolent entity looking out for the user.
What? Google are the ones suing an IT department for choosing their competitors!
Google's reluctance more likely has to due with the fact that, as an online advertiser, their core business relies on tracking user data for context-sensitive ad placement.
If you can't think of what more someone could want for privacy, then you haven't done any research. "Incognito Mode" is about client-side privacy, like cookies and browsing history. "Do Not Track" allows users to declare that their activities and other information shouldn't be tracked by online services. It requires the participation of advertisers and other vendors, and though none are compliant yet (and it's very telling that Google is non-commital), it's a step in the right direction.
After experiences like that, how can some people continue to advocate for "net neutrality" and increased government control of the internet? The potential for abuse and corruption seems so blindingly obvious. A private organization that accessed your Gmail account and located you by phone could be punished for violating privacy laws, but the government is free to sidestep such limitations all the time.
I think anti-piracy laws are only "controversial" on Slashdot, which has become a piracy advocate over the years, particularly for PirateBay and the Pirate Party. This is interesting because Slashdot also supports a copyright license called the GPL that depends on copyright law. This contradiction rarely seems to occur to most readers.
You mean like Google already does for its advertisers? In fact, one of the related links in the article is a story about Google titled Google Agonizes on Privacy as Ad World Vaults Ahead, discussing their plans for utilizing their vast archive of valuable user data. The battle for online privacy was lost long ago.
How would a government-controlled internet equate to a free and open one? That's a contradiction. Government control is not more free and open than private control; it's less so, because corporations are run by normal citizens who are subject to the law while the government is often above the law. The Slashdot mentality of portraying corporations as faceless monsters is stupid.
"Net neutrality" would mean politicians and lobbyists would have influence over network traffic. RIAA goons could influence political bureaucrats to "regulate" torrent traffic in the name of preventing economic terrorism. There are so many reasons why a government-controlled internet is one of the worst things in the world.
As for web access being a human right--give me a break. The web is a technological luxury, a privilege. You might as well argue that television, phones, automobiles, and laptops are also human rights. After all, the difference in the lives of someone who owns a car and someone who doesn't is enormous, right? Yet just because a lot of people use something doesn't make it a human right that must be funded and protected through taxes.
Paying for an IP address on an ISP's private network is just a convenient commercial service you pay for. You won't die if you don't have internet access. You might be bored, but boredom isn't something that requires government regulation. We've already got the government up our asses in so many ways, from tapping your phones without warrants to requiring ISPs to retain information on you. You really want the government directly regulating internet traffic too? Talk about something ripe with the potential for abuse and corruption.
To summarize--net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, and web access being a "human right" is total bullshit. It's no more a human right than cars, TVs, and newspapers.
Then perhaps it shouldn't be another damn Modern Warfare game. How about--gasp--a brand new game. I get that not making sequels each year requires creativity and risk, but think of the reward.
I always thought Google's lawsuit was dumb. Government agencies are free to choose Microsoft software if their sysadmins wish to use Microsoft software. Google's response was to criticize that software and tout their own. However, the government is a customer too and is free to choose a product that happens to be in the unique position of having competitors who think their products are better.
Accusations of government favoritism from Google are particularly ironic considering the numerous ties they have to the Obama administration. That there wasn't actually a FISMA certification to begin for Google Apps for Government--the certification was for Google Apps Premier, so Google has quietly filed again for the correct software--just caps the silliness of the whole thing.
Here's the relevant text in the court documents:
Microsoft's extensions were executed within the Kerberos specification and documented in RFCs 3244 and 4757.
It's hard to argue against the impact on crime that the cameras have, but it would be naive to assume they're not being used to gauge general driving patterns. Of course they are. No government organization would turn its back on such a valuable storehouse of data.
It's getting ridiculous. Chrome came out in 2008, and the development version is already up to 12. At this rate, Chrome will be at version 22.0 in the next two years. This is the same kind of stupid marketing reasoning that brought us the "Xbox 360." There's no reason Firefox 5 couldn't just be called 4.1.
This is off-topic; feel free to moderate me as such. What's with all the Overrated/Underrated moderation happening lately? Your post is currently just +3, without a moderation adjective. Did everyone simultaneously realize that Overrated/Underrated isn't subject to meta-moderation and decided to exploit the system?
That kind of Microsoft-like model hurts third-party development and confuses consumers. Google should be focused on making one thing that is the best, not hanging back to see which one just happens to work out.