Fedora didn't ship with KDE 4.0, but with 4.0.3, which was a big improvement on the road to 4.1, which came 3-1/2 months later.
As for Kubuntu, I wouldn't know - every machine I've ever had to fix that was contaminated with *buntu ended up getting wiped. I've never understood what people see in Ubuntu/Kubuntu.
The problem, however, will be the increasing backlash Google is seeing from the general public over how much data the company already controls on their online habits." Buzz is being rolled out over the next few days so some people will see a Buzz folder in their gmail, but most won't yet (this Twitter post explains how Safari users can get an early glimpse). A blog posting up at O'Reilly Answers points out some of the distinguishing characteristics of Google Buzz -- one interesting one being its ability to post an update either pubilcly or privately, at the user's option.
And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe. Even if you mark it private, you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.
When it was released, they made it clear it was a.0 release, totally experimental, that it would probably eat your data if it worked at all, and that it was only to give people something to look at and to collect feedback, and that they should stay with the 3x series at that point. They explained what their numbering convention was. What's to complain? Anyone who claims that KDE 4.0 unexpectedly "bit" them is quite simply a liar. Here's why...
You couldn't download it from them without seeing the warnings. You couldn't install it from a distro without seeing the same warnings. They made it clear it wasn't even "alpha" quality, it was just a snapshot to show the new direction they were taking, because people were asking to see it.
I stuck it on my machine, found it worked exactly as promised (totally, totally useless - but I had been warned before installing it), logged out and logged back in to 3x. Later on, 4.1 was rough around the edges (and not just around the edges), 4.2 was VERY usable, 4.3 works pretty much without a hitch (just remove mono-base), and I expect 4.4 to be even better.
They make a good product, but people still choose to complain about how they "got bitten" by 4.0. I don't believe it for a second. NOBODY could have installed it and expected it to be usable after all the warnings.
It might not be your cup of tea, but please don't fault the devs when stupid people don't listen to every warning that was thrown in front of them, and don't believe people who never actually tried installing it, but find that perpetrating the lies furthers their particular agenda.
No, that wouldn't have worked, that would have implied it was a continuation of the 3x series.
You know, they told everyone DO NOT RUN THIS UNLESS YOU'RE PREPARED TO LOSE ALL YOUR DATA. If people are too retarded to take the hint, that's their problem. Or when Windows 95 came out, did you say you'll wait for the Windows 1.0 release?
There was NO confusion over who their audience was. They explained that the 4 was to indicate that it was a new fork, and the zero was because you can't get lower than a zero. BTW, in the old days, there was no such thing as alpha, beta, and rc1, rc2, whatever. It was "here's branch # such and such" This whole whining about numbers and naming game is BS, and you know it.
Anyone who downloaded this got the warning before they downloaded. Anyone who got it with a distro got the warning before they installed it. Anyone who complains now is a f*cking retard who should just stick their tongue in a light bulb socket and end it.
No, because you have the opportunity to quash any subpoena. There are also more restrictions on the issuing of subpoenas than there are on search warrants.
There is no other "equivalent mechanism" to a warrant.
Really. There's no such thing as a subpoena
Nope, Subpoenas are not an equivalent mechanism to a search warrant. They are an order for you to appear in court, with perhaps additionally an order to bring certain evidence with you. You have the ability to quash a subpoena between the time you are served and the time of the appearance, as there is a minimum statutory delay specified by law between the serving of the subpoena and the court appearance.
And no, we're not just talking about governments here. Private individuals only need to send a copy of a lawsuit to google to give google the "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get an "enforceable court order" for google to roll over on you. Read the TOS and realize that google is a business that doesn't give two shits about your rights if it's simpler (and thus cheaper) for them to roll over on you. Their whole business model is predicated on sharing your data with other for $$$.
Under what conditions, other than a warrant, should anyone turn over server logs?
The phrase "enforceable government request" may very well mean a warrant or any equivalent legal mechanism. In which case, your concern (or at least this point) is moot.
There is no other "equivalent mechanism" to a warrant.
A warrant is a legal document, signed by a judge, that says that the action prescribed is warranted - sanctioned by the court. You have the name of the requesting party, judge as well as the court, the desired action, it's scope and limitations, etc. Whether the warrant is for a search of the logs or a seizure of the logs, you have protections that you give up when you allow a warrantless search. Even the supreme court agrees.
I'm not the only one saying google's privacy policy is one-sided... and google now has a history of caving in to government requests, whether it's from the Pentagon of the Chinese.
They can solve all the PATRIOT ACT concerns by moving the rest of their servers (the majority are already outside the US) to countries that have more user-friendly data retention laws.
Of course the likelihood of that happening is nil, which means that the other alternative is for people to take matters into their own hands, and use anonymizing proxies or other search engines. Users need to adopt the same tacktics that unions did, target one search engine for a boycott until it gets to the point where the search engine starts to feel the pinch, and then starts lobbying the government to change PATRIOT. That law HAS to go.
BTW - Microsoft did exactly this - made a credible threat to pack up its bags and move everything except a few sales offices out of the US - to get Bush to stop the DoJ from doing the break-up into 3 or more units.
That sounds more like your own interpretation of a strict reading than what a lawyer would say. Let me know if you're a lawyer
I have over hundreds of hours under my belt in court cases, pro se, civil and criminal. I always win. That should tell you two things - (1) most experienced lawyers are crap, (2) maybe you should look at it as you would if you were google.
Google's privacy policy certainly looks like it's been drafted by a lawyer or two. Yours looks like it's been drafted by an activist. That's not to say yours isn't effective or suitable. But I'm not entirely sure if it's better.
... and yet mine is not only clearer - the inclusion of the "long-arm" statute will telegraph to any lawyer that they're dealing with someone who knows their rights, and they had better not go on a fishing expedition or try coercion. The people that post there do so knowing that they enjoy more protection for their personal data under Canadian law than they have under either American law or practice.
Of the variations, some note a warrant as an example of an enforceable government request.
... only some. The ones that don't - they leave the door open to a much wider interpretation by choice. Google could have included the warrant as a requirement, but they didn't. Ask yourself why not... it's only a few words, and it clarifies the situation. "Get a warrant" would mean that a lot of capricious requests would just go away, so it's also a time-saver in the long run. So why would google want to cozy up to law enforcement? Simple - they can bill for it. Google is not a charity, they're an ad business, and they sell data. In this case, their cooperation with the police is part of their trying to build goodwill for their next step - charging for "pro-active" screening of user data, not just for advertisers, but for governments.
Fetching a copy of Google's privacy policy to make the argument in Ma href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1539250&cid=31043540">this thread was kind of weird - I stopped using Google at the beginning of the year because of their privacy policy and their CEO's comments about privacy.
BTW - are you sure you're getting a random IP address every time? I get the same IP for months on end, even after prolonged power failures, so I know it's not the modem keeping track of it... then again, I'm on cable.
I agree that this puts a lot of faith in the officers of Google to require proof of an enforceable request. Like you noted, "good faith" has a lot of wiggle room. I'd be much happier if "subpoena" and "court order" was listed specifically in the policy. However, it also strikes me as being a very liberal interpretation to claim that Google feels that the mere possibility of a subpoena is justification.
... but that's what a strict reading (and what a lawyer would say) says - that if it's possible for the request to be enforced (such as by the cops saying "we can get a warrant if we have to"), that's all that's needed.
Remember, this was written by Google's lawyers to protect Google from YOU; it will always be interpreted in Google's favour, not yours.
Here's a better privacy policy with respect to sharing data. It's simple and straightforward, and says quite clearly - how hard is it for Google to say "get a search warrant"? Google stopped the "don't be evil" mantra long ago.
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
We have your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
We provide such information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses or persons for the purpose of processing personal information on our behalf. We require that these parties agree to process such information based on our instructions and in compliance with this Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or permitted by law.
What this means is that google only needs to believe that the government has to make a request that they "could" enforce if they had to.
No warrant required - they just have to believe that the government could get one if they needed to.
Also, google just has to have a "good faith belief" that a request is necessary to satisfy any legal process - which also includes the **AA requesting records of your searches, google docs, etc., if they're suing you. Again, no warrant, etc., so no chance for you to quash it in court.
"good-faith" - that's nice. Would you let cops search your house on a "good-faith belief", or would you demand to see the warrant first, like the law says is your inalienable right?
So you're going to pay someone to maintain a fork of the kernel, when the only reason it's forked is that google doesn't want to maintain compatibility, because THEY have enough people to maintain a fork, but most businesses don't - and would rather put the resources elsewhere?
No - RAID 1. RAID 1 keeps identical copies of your data on 2 drives, so whichever one is ready, you can read from... and if one drive dies, you haven't lost anything. RAID0 isn't RAID - the "R" stands for "redundant", and there's no redundancy built in in "RAID0".. Read a chunk from one drive, then another from the other, then whatever. Since they have the same file layout, the overhead of "keeping track" of where the data is is pretty low.
Actually, the interstellar transport system is like a box of chocolates... you never know where you're going to end up. It was prototyped from an airport luggage handling system - more specifically, Denver.
Nobody's ever complained. Then again, nobody's ever come back.
Slashdot Mirror
Fedora didn't ship with KDE 4.0, but with 4.0.3, which was a big improvement on the road to 4.1, which came 3-1/2 months later.
As for Kubuntu, I wouldn't know - every machine I've ever had to fix that was contaminated with *buntu ended up getting wiped. I've never understood what people see in Ubuntu/Kubuntu.
And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe. Even if you mark it private, you've still shared it with someone who believes that you have no right to privacy, and that if - as their CEO puts it - you don't want someone to know about you doing something, don't do it.
You couldn't download it from them without seeing the warnings. You couldn't install it from a distro without seeing the same warnings. They made it clear it wasn't even "alpha" quality, it was just a snapshot to show the new direction they were taking, because people were asking to see it.
I stuck it on my machine, found it worked exactly as promised (totally, totally useless - but I had been warned before installing it), logged out and logged back in to 3x. Later on, 4.1 was rough around the edges (and not just around the edges), 4.2 was VERY usable, 4.3 works pretty much without a hitch (just remove mono-base), and I expect 4.4 to be even better.
They make a good product, but people still choose to complain about how they "got bitten" by 4.0. I don't believe it for a second. NOBODY could have installed it and expected it to be usable after all the warnings.
It might not be your cup of tea, but please don't fault the devs when stupid people don't listen to every warning that was thrown in front of them, and don't believe people who never actually tried installing it, but find that perpetrating the lies furthers their particular agenda.
You know, they told everyone DO NOT RUN THIS UNLESS YOU'RE PREPARED TO LOSE ALL YOUR DATA. If people are too retarded to take the hint, that's their problem. Or when Windows 95 came out, did you say you'll wait for the Windows 1.0 release?
There was NO confusion over who their audience was. They explained that the 4 was to indicate that it was a new fork, and the zero was because you can't get lower than a zero. BTW, in the old days, there was no such thing as alpha, beta, and rc1, rc2, whatever. It was "here's branch # such and such" This whole whining about numbers and naming game is BS, and you know it.
Anyone who downloaded this got the warning before they downloaded. Anyone who got it with a distro got the warning before they installed it. Anyone who complains now is a f*cking retard who should just stick their tongue in a light bulb socket and end it.
All the distros did the same thing. Nice big warnings not to use this except to get a preview of what was coming down the pike.
They hire statisticians to argue that the errors average out ...
No, because you have the opportunity to quash any subpoena. There are also more restrictions on the issuing of subpoenas than there are on search warrants.
Nope, Subpoenas are not an equivalent mechanism to a search warrant. They are an order for you to appear in court, with perhaps additionally an order to bring certain evidence with you. You have the ability to quash a subpoena between the time you are served and the time of the appearance, as there is a minimum statutory delay specified by law between the serving of the subpoena and the court appearance.
And no, we're not just talking about governments here. Private individuals only need to send a copy of a lawsuit to google to give google the "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get an "enforceable court order" for google to roll over on you. Read the TOS and realize that google is a business that doesn't give two shits about your rights if it's simpler (and thus cheaper) for them to roll over on you. Their whole business model is predicated on sharing your data with other for $$$.
Under what conditions, other than a warrant, should anyone turn over server logs?
There is no other "equivalent mechanism" to a warrant.
A warrant is a legal document, signed by a judge, that says that the action prescribed is warranted - sanctioned by the court. You have the name of the requesting party, judge as well as the court, the desired action, it's scope and limitations, etc. Whether the warrant is for a search of the logs or a seizure of the logs, you have protections that you give up when you allow a warrantless search. Even the supreme court agrees.
But don't take my word for it - A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney, and a cpp both tell you why you should never voluntarily cooperate the police.
I'm not the only one saying google's privacy policy is one-sided ... and google now has a history of caving in to government requests, whether it's from the Pentagon of the Chinese.
They can solve all the PATRIOT ACT concerns by moving the rest of their servers (the majority are already outside the US) to countries that have more user-friendly data retention laws.
Of course the likelihood of that happening is nil, which means that the other alternative is for people to take matters into their own hands, and use anonymizing proxies or other search engines. Users need to adopt the same tacktics that unions did, target one search engine for a boycott until it gets to the point where the search engine starts to feel the pinch, and then starts lobbying the government to change PATRIOT. That law HAS to go.
BTW - Microsoft did exactly this - made a credible threat to pack up its bags and move everything except a few sales offices out of the US - to get Bush to stop the DoJ from doing the break-up into 3 or more units.
\ Heck, they're still making the same threats.
I have over hundreds of hours under my belt in court cases, pro se, civil and criminal. I always win. That should tell you two things - (1) most experienced lawyers are crap, (2) maybe you should look at it as you would if you were google.
Or just stop doing business with Google ...
Fetching a copy of Google's privacy policy to make the argument in Ma href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1539250&cid=31043540">this thread was kind of weird - I stopped using Google at the beginning of the year because of their privacy policy and their CEO's comments about privacy.
BTW - are you sure you're getting a random IP address every time? I get the same IP for months on end, even after prolonged power failures, so I know it's not the modem keeping track of it ... then again, I'm on cable.
Remember, this was written by Google's lawyers to protect Google from YOU; it will always be interpreted in Google's favour, not yours.
Here's a better privacy policy with respect to sharing data. It's simple and straightforward, and says quite clearly - how hard is it for Google to say "get a search warrant"? Google stopped the "don't be evil" mantra long ago.
Try reading Google's Privacy Policy.
Information sharing
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
What this means is that google only needs to believe that the government has to make a request that they "could" enforce if they had to.
No warrant required - they just have to believe that the government could get one if they needed to.
Also, google just has to have a "good faith belief" that a request is necessary to satisfy any legal process - which also includes the **AA requesting records of your searches, google docs, etc., if they're suing you. Again, no warrant, etc., so no chance for you to quash it in court.
"good-faith" - that's nice. Would you let cops search your house on a "good-faith belief", or would you demand to see the warrant first, like the law says is your inalienable right?
that's okay - DARPA will insert a kill switch into the next generation of memes.
Why? They haven't arrested Santa Claus, and we KNOW how perverted he is
What more evidence do you need?
Wrong about google. Google has said that they don't need a subpoena, just a belief that the cops *could* get a subpoena, and they'll roll over on you.
And google has a LOT of data on you.
Justice Cowdroy, Neil.
So you're going to pay someone to maintain a fork of the kernel, when the only reason it's forked is that google doesn't want to maintain compatibility, because THEY have enough people to maintain a fork, but most businesses don't - and would rather put the resources elsewhere?
No - RAID 1. RAID 1 keeps identical copies of your data on 2 drives, so whichever one is ready, you can read from ... and if one drive dies, you haven't lost anything. RAID0 isn't RAID - the "R" stands for "redundant", and there's no redundancy built in in "RAID0".. Read a chunk from one drive, then another from the other, then whatever. Since they have the same file layout, the overhead of "keeping track" of where the data is is pretty low.
What do you expect from a planet full of beings so low in self-esteem that they named their planet after dirt.
Please RTFA, Only against google's forked codebase. You can't use a generic kernel in your phone.
Actually, the interstellar transport system is like a box of chocolates ... you never know where you're going to end up. It was prototyped from an airport luggage handling system - more specifically, Denver.
Nobody's ever complained. Then again, nobody's ever come back.
You can use Android, but you're now dependent on Google for maintenance, bug-fixes, and trusting that they don't include any evil bits.
You'd be better off just buying a second drive and doing a RAID 1.