Re:Can we trust google with our "secrets"?
on
Can We Trust Google?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The internet is a public network, and the data is not encrypted as it travels over 20 or so computers on its way from your computer to google and back. That request you made for donkey porn is most definitely public knowledge unless you took measures to protect your privacy.
You have a pretty funny definition of "public knowledge". Privacy is based on an "expectation of privacy". Even though the data isn't encrypted, the routers those packets travel on is certainly NOT open to monitoring by just anyone. There still are easdropping laws in this country that would protect against someone listening in on those requests.
10 years ago essentially all cell phone traffic was in analog form and could be intercepted by anyone that had a cheap scanner. But yet cell phone calls weren't considered "public knowledge" and are/were still protected by privacy laws. It's all based on "expectation of privacy" not the ability to intercept communications (though one could argue expectations are partially based on interception ability).
Well, if you really did make that post without the disclaimer there's really no hint of sarcasm in your post. If you're making a snide comment it's really your job to convey that. If someone takes it the wrong way and you didn't make some kind of effort to convey tone, that's really your fault in not communicating properly.
Sure, I think you're right. I just think there's a lot of potential for this kind of nonsense to take place with any company. MSN, yahoo, hotbot all are search engines too. I'm sure the book buying history of the entire US (Amazon) is of interest to the government.
The big one is of course salary, I know a lot of people who are really secretive about this one. Why? Who cares - it's really only interesting if your raking it in
Imagine your next Job interview: "Well Mr. PinkyDead I see that at your last job you were making only 40,000 a year, but yet your salary requirements for this job is 60,000. We don't feel we need to pay you much more than your last job, so we're offering 45,000. Take it or leave it."
You may not care if your next door neighboor knows how much you make, but there's a hell of a lot of people and entities I don't want to have that information.
Third, opinions. Everyone thinks that their opinions are unique. Bad news folks they're not, you share them with millions of others - no one cares
Fourth, shopping habits. So what if the local supermarket knows I buy bread, cheese and eggs. And if they use that information to sell me stuff I want - well all the better.
And should both of these be recorded in databases, and sold to just anyone who wants them? I sure as hell don't want some company data mining my book buying history and trying to figure out if I'm a good credit risk. Or the US government does some idiotic high error rate data mining and identifies me as a potential terrorist because I bought "George Bush is a big dumb moron" and humus at the grocery store. Or maybe keyword searches in your email. "Sir, we found 1000 instances of the word breast and pussy in your email, we think you're a serious pervert and sex offender. We've gotten a warrant to search your house based on this information."
More importantly, though, I do not trust the U.S. government, which has the power to peel open Google and scoop out anything and everything they have on record about the use of their services.
Well that's true of any US company, why is Google special? Yahoo has tons of peoples mail, Amazon has your entire book buying history. Is it just because Google is the biggest, and the fear is that the US government will target the biggest companies that have the most information, then data mine their records for "terrorist"? If that's your fear, maybe you should be putting all your information outside the country where the US government can't get at it. Then make sure you access the data using strong encryption.
What a terrible analogy. No one but Google hears your request, not everyone in the whole world. This is important because there's an expectation of privacy between you and Google (well, there WAS before all this NSA wiretapping came to light). I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of curent, or future privacy laws preventing Google from tying you to your requests, and selling that information. I'm fairly certain that the phone company is prevented from selling the records of who you call and when. (I could be wrong on that with all the telecom de-regulation).
This article is stupid gossip with almost no content. I don't really care who's dating who. I expected an honest article Google's business dealings, not something lifted from Star Magazine about how Brad is mad at Angelina.
Can't we just agree that Bush is a fascist, but nowhere near the level of Hitler? Is that the standard you have to live up to these days to be considered a terrible leader that's ruining your country? Personally I compare Bush to other Presidents that have damaged the country. He's in the running with Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Nixon doesn't even come close. I'll take 10 Nixons before I accept one George Bush.
That's why Creationism is gaining ground and your side is losing ground in public opinion.
Hahaha.. Right. I'll bet the geo-centrists said the same thing about 500 years ago, and look where they are now. In another 100 years you'll all look just as foolish as they do now (more so even since geo-centrism actually works, it just relies on unobserved and imaginary forces).
Anything that can be accomplished with religion can also be accomplished without religion
I don't disagree with that at all. My only point is that science doesn't destroy religion. Just because science fails at some things doesn't mean it's hopeless. It just means we need more research.
Well, I'd agree with that if you're trying to answer a scientific question. Not all questions are scientific though.
Well, at a certain point you have to start addressing the problem. I think we're at that point. It's like all the nutjobs who think the moon landing was faked. Sure, you ignore them when they're small in number and sound like schizophrenics. But at the point where there's a special on Fox that's "investigating" the claim, people need to start addressing the issue, else the reasonable people might start believing this crap.
Probably nothing else could turn as many people away from the whole idea of religion so much as a generation of frothing-at-the-mouth zealots fighting each other and anyone disagreeing with their inflexible, warped view of the world.
If only that were the case. You don't need to go much further than Saudi Arabia to find a country full of religious nuts all frothing-at-the-mouth. No, I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent extremists, but there's a lot of reasons to believe that the ones in Saudi Arabia are. Western countries weren't much different 1000 years ago during the crusades. I guess what I'm saying is that nut-job extremist religions don't automatically self destruct from being crazy. You give humanity far to much credit for that.
Pretty smart move for them but it will only slow the inevitable death of religion.
Well, I don't think it'll lead to the death of anything, except maybe some really bad view of the facts. Mostly this is because we don't live in a scientific culture, and very likely never will. To most people science is just a collection of facts, not a way of seperating truth from fiction. Even here on slashdot, the den of geekiness, there's a quite poor understanding of science.
But, even if we DID live in a culture of science I don't agree that science and religion are necessarily at odds. Judeo-Christian religions tend to put a lot of emphasis on explaining natural phenomenon. How was the universe created? What are those lights in the sky at night? Is it safe to eat that animal or not? What happens when I die? On those kind of questions they'll lose (and have lost) every single time. Religion clings to the same old ideas, and science actively tries to disprove itself and changes with new evidence. Where religions don't conflict with science (because science can't answer these questions) is the internal world of self. That includes morality, behaviour, etc. Science can't tell you if it's right or wrong to kill a guy for instance.
I'm not a christian, but I'm glad there's some active stance among religious people against the fundamentalists who seem to have taken over any kind of discussion of religion in this country. Is it just because we have a fundie president that these people seem so empowered? I'm sick of the American Taliban thinking and acting like they're the majority. They aren't, and they should start realizing that.
This from a guy named "killjoe". Do you want to murder people named joe? Is there something "cool" about advocating killing people named joe? Christ. I think sundays must be "extra stupid day" on slashdot.
Um, maybe because it really was a joke, and some of us readers actually got it, and you didn't?
Or maybe it wasn't a joke at all. There's no context for a joke here, it wasn't even funny. Assuming it was a joke is just plain wrong. PLUS you accused the other poster of calling names first (With your dummy paraphrase)
See.. that's the thing about a paraphrase, it's not supposed to actually be a quote. If you see it that way, then you're really missing the point.
I'm glad to see you're not making assumptions about people based on a heated exchange on slashdot. It's also interesting to see that you can't seem to understand that a sig isn't necessarily supposed to be taken literally (despite my original protest against ozmanwhatever). Why are you even getting into this exchange anyway? Are you just a troll looking for food, some kind of crusader, or just a cat person that's offended by being accused of being a little nutty?
The spelling errors are due in part that I type at 89 wpm.
Judging by the content you posted, maybe you should slow down a little and think about what you're typing. I find this comment of yours about "89 wpm" very insightfull into your general attitude toward writing. It's as if getting it out of your head is the most important thing, rather than actually trying to make a point. That's what editing, and reading what you've written are about. Have you read any of the top rated responses? Most people think your post was a fetid load of dingoes kidneys.
I don't even blame you for this article making it on slashdot, even though you submitted this horseshit. Taco is the one who posted it, and he's the one to blame for it appearing on slashdot.
I'm glad you're already aware of what I pointed out. You likely read one of my other posts in which I've pointed out such facts, and thus were already in the know.
Uhh.. I think he was trying to say that your entire post was blatantly obvious to anyone that has more than 3 brain cells. You entire post can be summed up with the statement "If we do things right, we won't have problems!" Uhh. duh. The comments about going into politics or religion are spot on. You don't need to be smart, or right to suceed in either field. You just need people to blindly follow you.
Wait a second, you expected interesting or meaninful *content* from a blog?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the blog. That's really irrelevent. I do expect something beyond the level of "m1kr0$0ft sUx0Rz t|-|3 b1G 0n3!!" from slashdot. Taco should know better than to post this utter drivel.
Riiight. Why is it every time someone says something completely idiotic, the defense is "dummy.. you thought I was serious? It was a joke!"? You sir, are a complete fool, and cries of "it was a joke.. haha" only make you look stupider.
Slashdot Mirror
The internet is a public network, and the data is not encrypted as it travels over 20 or so computers on its way from your computer to google and back. That request you made for donkey porn is most definitely public knowledge unless you took measures to protect your privacy.
You have a pretty funny definition of "public knowledge". Privacy is based on an "expectation of privacy". Even though the data isn't encrypted, the routers those packets travel on is certainly NOT open to monitoring by just anyone. There still are easdropping laws in this country that would protect against someone listening in on those requests.
10 years ago essentially all cell phone traffic was in analog form and could be intercepted by anyone that had a cheap scanner. But yet cell phone calls weren't considered "public knowledge" and are/were still protected by privacy laws. It's all based on "expectation of privacy" not the ability to intercept communications (though one could argue expectations are partially based on interception ability).
Well, if you really did make that post without the disclaimer there's really no hint of sarcasm in your post. If you're making a snide comment it's really your job to convey that. If someone takes it the wrong way and you didn't make some kind of effort to convey tone, that's really your fault in not communicating properly.
Sure, I think you're right. I just think there's a lot of potential for this kind of nonsense to take place with any company. MSN, yahoo, hotbot all are search engines too. I'm sure the book buying history of the entire US (Amazon) is of interest to the government.
The big one is of course salary, I know a lot of people who are really secretive about this one. Why? Who cares - it's really only interesting if your raking it in
Imagine your next Job interview: "Well Mr. PinkyDead I see that at your last job you were making only 40,000 a year, but yet your salary requirements for this job is 60,000. We don't feel we need to pay you much more than your last job, so we're offering 45,000. Take it or leave it."
You may not care if your next door neighboor knows how much you make, but there's a hell of a lot of people and entities I don't want to have that information.
Third, opinions. Everyone thinks that their opinions are unique. Bad news folks they're not, you share them with millions of others - no one cares
Fourth, shopping habits. So what if the local supermarket knows I buy bread, cheese and eggs. And if they use that information to sell me stuff I want - well all the better.
And should both of these be recorded in databases, and sold to just anyone who wants them? I sure as hell don't want some company data mining my book buying history and trying to figure out if I'm a good credit risk. Or the US government does some idiotic high error rate data mining and identifies me as a potential terrorist because I bought "George Bush is a big dumb moron" and humus at the grocery store. Or maybe keyword searches in your email. "Sir, we found 1000 instances of the word breast and pussy in your email, we think you're a serious pervert and sex offender. We've gotten a warrant to search your house based on this information."
More importantly, though, I do not trust the U.S. government, which has the power to peel open Google and scoop out anything and everything they have on record about the use of their services.
Well that's true of any US company, why is Google special? Yahoo has tons of peoples mail, Amazon has your entire book buying history. Is it just because Google is the biggest, and the fear is that the US government will target the biggest companies that have the most information, then data mine their records for "terrorist"? If that's your fear, maybe you should be putting all your information outside the country where the US government can't get at it. Then make sure you access the data using strong encryption.
What a terrible analogy. No one but Google hears your request, not everyone in the whole world. This is important because there's an expectation of privacy between you and Google (well, there WAS before all this NSA wiretapping came to light). I wouldn't even rule out the possibility of curent, or future privacy laws preventing Google from tying you to your requests, and selling that information. I'm fairly certain that the phone company is prevented from selling the records of who you call and when. (I could be wrong on that with all the telecom de-regulation).
My mistake. I missed the "read this article for free" on the Time website. I still think that the gossip column link ads nothing to the story.
This article is stupid gossip with almost no content. I don't really care who's dating who. I expected an honest article Google's business dealings, not something lifted from Star Magazine about how Brad is mad at Angelina.
Japan can't be the only culture where suicide doesn't have a social stigma attatched to it. How does the suicide rate compare to those cultures?
Either you're a troll, or you're one of the stupidest people I've ever encountered.
Can't we just agree that Bush is a fascist, but nowhere near the level of Hitler? Is that the standard you have to live up to these days to be considered a terrible leader that's ruining your country? Personally I compare Bush to other Presidents that have damaged the country. He's in the running with Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. Nixon doesn't even come close. I'll take 10 Nixons before I accept one George Bush.
That's why Creationism is gaining ground and your side is losing ground in public opinion.
Hahaha.. Right. I'll bet the geo-centrists said the same thing about 500 years ago, and look where they are now. In another 100 years you'll all look just as foolish as they do now (more so even since geo-centrism actually works, it just relies on unobserved and imaginary forces).
Anything that can be accomplished with religion can also be accomplished without religion
I don't disagree with that at all. My only point is that science doesn't destroy religion.
Just because science fails at some things doesn't mean it's hopeless. It just means we need more research.
Well, I'd agree with that if you're trying to answer a scientific question. Not all questions are scientific though.
Well, at a certain point you have to start addressing the problem. I think we're at that point. It's like all the nutjobs who think the moon landing was faked. Sure, you ignore them when they're small in number and sound like schizophrenics. But at the point where there's a special on Fox that's "investigating" the claim, people need to start addressing the issue, else the reasonable people might start believing this crap.
Probably nothing else could turn as many people away from the whole idea of religion so much as a generation of frothing-at-the-mouth zealots fighting each other and anyone disagreeing with their inflexible, warped view of the world.
If only that were the case. You don't need to go much further than Saudi Arabia to find a country full of religious nuts all frothing-at-the-mouth. No, I'm not saying that all Muslims are violent extremists, but there's a lot of reasons to believe that the ones in Saudi Arabia are. Western countries weren't much different 1000 years ago during the crusades. I guess what I'm saying is that nut-job extremist religions don't automatically self destruct from being crazy. You give humanity far to much credit for that.
Pretty smart move for them but it will only slow the inevitable death of religion.
Well, I don't think it'll lead to the death of anything, except maybe some really bad view of the facts. Mostly this is because we don't live in a scientific culture, and very likely never will. To most people science is just a collection of facts, not a way of seperating truth from fiction. Even here on slashdot, the den of geekiness, there's a quite poor understanding of science.
But, even if we DID live in a culture of science I don't agree that science and religion are necessarily at odds. Judeo-Christian religions tend to put a lot of emphasis on explaining natural phenomenon. How was the universe created? What are those lights in the sky at night? Is it safe to eat that animal or not? What happens when I die? On those kind of questions they'll lose (and have lost) every single time. Religion clings to the same old ideas, and science actively tries to disprove itself and changes with new evidence. Where religions don't conflict with science (because science can't answer these questions) is the internal world of self. That includes morality, behaviour, etc. Science can't tell you if it's right or wrong to kill a guy for instance.
I'm not a christian, but I'm glad there's some active stance among religious people against the fundamentalists who seem to have taken over any kind of discussion of religion in this country. Is it just because we have a fundie president that these people seem so empowered? I'm sick of the American Taliban thinking and acting like they're the majority. They aren't, and they should start realizing that.
This from a guy named "killjoe". Do you want to murder people named joe? Is there something "cool" about advocating killing people named joe? Christ. I think sundays must be "extra stupid day" on slashdot.
Wow. It must be literalists day on slashdot.
Fair enough. I thought perhaps the bible belt extended into northern Virginia. Good to hear that I'm wrong.
Um, maybe because it really was a joke, and some of us readers actually got it, and you didn't?
Or maybe it wasn't a joke at all. There's no context for a joke here, it wasn't even funny. Assuming it was a joke is just plain wrong.
PLUS you accused the other poster of calling names first (With your dummy paraphrase)
See.. that's the thing about a paraphrase, it's not supposed to actually be a quote. If you see it that way, then you're really missing the point.
I'm glad to see you're not making assumptions about people based on a heated exchange on slashdot. It's also interesting to see that you can't seem to understand that a sig isn't necessarily supposed to be taken literally (despite my original protest against ozmanwhatever). Why are you even getting into this exchange anyway? Are you just a troll looking for food, some kind of crusader, or just a cat person that's offended by being accused of being a little nutty?
The spelling errors are due in part that I type at 89 wpm.
Judging by the content you posted, maybe you should slow down a little and think about what you're typing. I find this comment of yours about "89 wpm" very insightfull into your general attitude toward writing. It's as if getting it out of your head is the most important thing, rather than actually trying to make a point. That's what editing, and reading what you've written are about. Have you read any of the top rated responses? Most people think your post was a fetid load of dingoes kidneys.
I don't even blame you for this article making it on slashdot, even though you submitted this horseshit. Taco is the one who posted it, and he's the one to blame for it appearing on slashdot.
I'm glad you're already aware of what I pointed out. You likely read one of my other posts in which I've pointed out such facts, and thus were already in the know.
Uhh.. I think he was trying to say that your entire post was blatantly obvious to anyone that has more than 3 brain cells. You entire post can be summed up with the statement "If we do things right, we won't have problems!" Uhh. duh. The comments about going into politics or religion are spot on. You don't need to be smart, or right to suceed in either field. You just need people to blindly follow you.
Wait a second, you expected interesting or meaninful *content* from a blog?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the blog. That's really irrelevent. I do expect something beyond the level of "m1kr0$0ft sUx0Rz t|-|3 b1G 0n3!!" from slashdot. Taco should know better than to post this utter drivel.
Hiya pot, I'm kettle. Nice to meet ya...
Riiight. Why is it every time someone says something completely idiotic, the defense is "dummy.. you thought I was serious? It was a joke!"? You sir, are a complete fool, and cries of "it was a joke.. haha" only make you look stupider.