I can't see any reason why they would gain sales from locking out part of their market, and they will almost certainly lose a few sales from the bad publicity this has caused.
well, yes, the internet is a great thing. btw, when was the last time you saw 'innit' in a dictionary? I think you mean "isn't it". Yes, that's right, the one with the apostrophe.
Your use of the phrase "out there for anyone to read" is a bit misleading, seeing as Google is not making the information publicly available.
Some applications which can put your data out there for people to read, if the user clicks the right buttons:
Email.
Slashdot.
Wikipedia.
Any other site that allows you to upload or post stuff.
And the telephone. Employees could use the telephone to tell people outside your company corporate data. OMG, you should ban the telephone too!
Google Desktop is no different to, or more evil than, any of these. You have to find and click a button to make it share data. The button describes clearly that it shares data.
It is actually less dangerous than most of the other technologies I've mentioned, because it is not giving your data to the public, it is storing it on Google's network where the general public will not be able to easily get access to it.
If they're trying to stop employees *deliberately* getting their data copied to other servers, they would need to block internet access altogether. On its own, banning Google Desktop would not help to stop people who actually want to send data to places.
There is a possibility that someone might not understand what they're doing, and accidentally enable this option, but similar possibilities exist with any Internet software, so there's no reason to single out Google Desktop specifically in this case.
I seriously believe that posting the name of a torrent site on Slashdot will not make it significantly easier for the *AA to find, or put it in more legal danger than it is already. You're basically being a paranoid dumbass.
If Google didn't censor stuff, wouldn't the chinese govt just block them?
Basically, google has a choice:
a) censor stuff, but still provide a usable search engine
b) be blocked altogether. (the chinese government has blocked google before, so this is not impossible)
He might have done something wrong
I don't know about the UK laws, but in Australia (or possibly only parts of it) it is technically illegal to take your hands off the steering wheel while driving, unless you're changing gears.
A small-world network does not have the clusters all being connected to a central office. Instead, there are a small proportion of links which semi-randomly connect clusters which would otherwise be far away from each other, so packets can get to distant locations. For example, someone in your local area might have a connection to another city, or internationally, so you could access geographically distant nodes through that connection. There might be some nodes which get more packets passing through them than others, but there is no tree-like structure to the network.
I know what i have just described would be impractical for Internet connection at the moment, but that's not the point. The point is that it is possible to have a network without a tree structure or central coordination, but still having everything be connected.
no, it doesn't. What you are describing is a centralised tree network, not a small-world network. A network such as the one described in the previous post would not have a 'central office' from which connections are distributed. It would instead have mostly local connections between neighbours, which is *completely different* to the current internet or phone system.
yes, i see your point. Probably assigning a static IP address to every server would be difficult. If the topology of the network changes a lot, it would be hard to keep static IPs. Dynamic DNS also has some disadvantages.
I suppose a redesigned DNS system would be necessary to cope with such a network.
The original poster says nothing about lack of centralised DNS. It would be possible to have a P2P routing infrastructure but still have a centralised DNS system.
What if I want to make my own rootkit? Will I have to register it with the DHS, and get them to audit it for security holes and check it for compatibility with their own rootkit?
And what about Linux rootkits? Will Linux rootkits be supported by the DHS? Or will they just be banned altogether? Surely the DHS can't be stuffed writing a Linux rootkit as well as a Windows rootkit.
Even scarier... what if Linux rootkits weren't regulated at all? Cyberterrorists could go on a rampage of linux rooting, and the government wouldn't be able to stop them, or more importantly, tax them.
Hmm... that's an idea, the DHS could implement a rootkit tax, to fund their own rootkit development, and better protect our fellow God-fearing American citizens from the cyberterrorists of the future.
The War on Terror is ending. The War on Rootkits is only just beginning...
Slashdot Mirror
I can't see any reason why they would gain sales from locking out part of their market, and they will almost certainly lose a few sales from the bad publicity this has caused.
well, yes, the internet is a great thing. btw, when was the last time you saw 'innit' in a dictionary? I think you mean "isn't it". Yes, that's right, the one with the apostrophe.
No, Gore must have been the Democan. The world would have to be pretty screwed up for a Republicrat to have invented the Internet.
Actually, it was "We Apologise for the Inconvenience."
Wording is very important in these matters of faith.
The Mark of the Beast:F XM:http://www.tecman.co.uk/TecManWebSite/Web/Multi mediaFiles/IMAGE001.GIF
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:EKiyosfBI5d
Some applications which can put your data out there for people to read, if the user clicks the right buttons:
Email.
Slashdot.
Wikipedia.
Any other site that allows you to upload or post stuff.
And the telephone. Employees could use the telephone to tell people outside your company corporate data. OMG, you should ban the telephone too!
Google Desktop is no different to, or more evil than, any of these. You have to find and click a button to make it share data. The button describes clearly that it shares data.
It is actually less dangerous than most of the other technologies I've mentioned, because it is not giving your data to the public, it is storing it on Google's network where the general public will not be able to easily get access to it.
If they're trying to stop employees *deliberately* getting their data copied to other servers, they would need to block internet access altogether. On its own, banning Google Desktop would not help to stop people who actually want to send data to places.
There is a possibility that someone might not understand what they're doing, and accidentally enable this option, but similar possibilities exist with any Internet software, so there's no reason to single out Google Desktop specifically in this case.
In soviet russia, exploits kill YOU! oops, i forgot to post anonymously
"Paying per byte" doesn't imply that it would be expensive, or that it would "kill broadband". It could be 0.000001 cents per byte, or less.
1: Comments supporting filesharing
2: Comments supporting the *AA
3: Pointless comments supporting neither
I really don't see anything wrong with that.
I seriously believe that posting the name of a torrent site on Slashdot will not make it significantly easier for the *AA to find, or put it in more legal danger than it is already. You're basically being a paranoid dumbass.
OMGWTFBBQ YOUR MOM!1!!1!!111!!!1one!!11eleventy-one!!!1!!111!11!1 1!1LOLOLOL0L)L0L
mod parent up
Basically, google has a choice:
a) censor stuff, but still provide a usable search engine
b) be blocked altogether. (the chinese government has blocked google before, so this is not impossible)
If I was Google, I know which one I'd choose.
Remember: The minimum requirements for XP were 64MB of RAM.
Just because it meets the requirements, doesn't mean it will actually be usable.
I don't see how a worldwide decentralized wireless network as you have described, would "fall apart one day," even if it was possible.
And not be evil.
Yay, space race 2!
Except this time the US isn't competing.
He might have done something wrong
I don't know about the UK laws, but in Australia (or possibly only parts of it) it is technically illegal to take your hands off the steering wheel while driving, unless you're changing gears.
I know what i have just described would be impractical for Internet connection at the moment, but that's not the point. The point is that it is possible to have a network without a tree structure or central coordination, but still having everything be connected.
no, it doesn't. What you are describing is a centralised tree network, not a small-world network. A network such as the one described in the previous post would not have a 'central office' from which connections are distributed. It would instead have mostly local connections between neighbours, which is *completely different* to the current internet or phone system.
yes, i see your point. Probably assigning a static IP address to every server would be difficult. If the topology of the network changes a lot, it would be hard to keep static IPs. Dynamic DNS also has some disadvantages.
I suppose a redesigned DNS system would be necessary to cope with such a network.
The original poster says nothing about lack of centralised DNS. It would be possible to have a P2P routing infrastructure but still have a centralised DNS system.
That's the point. Almost everyone has TV. In 20 years, there won't *be* any TV, except over the internet.
And what about Linux rootkits? Will Linux rootkits be supported by the DHS? Or will they just be banned altogether? Surely the DHS can't be stuffed writing a Linux rootkit as well as a Windows rootkit.
Even scarier... what if Linux rootkits weren't regulated at all? Cyberterrorists could go on a rampage of linux rooting, and the government wouldn't be able to stop them, or more importantly, tax them.
Hmm... that's an idea, the DHS could implement a rootkit tax, to fund their own rootkit development, and better protect our fellow God-fearing American citizens from the cyberterrorists of the future.
The War on Terror is ending. The War on Rootkits is only just beginning...