Too true. It isn't your responsibility to secure others' networks, but that isn't the issue. The issue is, if you can't secure the process totally, it isn't secure. So your users, although you have done your job, are still exposed later in the process.
Of course, I have no ready alternatives to offer up. The tech community is pretty good at finding holes in any system.:)
Everytime I see a post about how Web 2.0 is going to flop primarily because of the bad architecture of AJAX, I think we might be missing the underlying issue.
What all these AJAX apps are showing us, is that people aren't willing to be tied to a particular computer, when they can access information from anywhere. What people want, and AJAX apps are providing, until a better, distributable, and multiplatform alternative arrives, is access anywhere anytime. AJAX is helping bridge the gap between the current architecture of the web, and consumers' needs.
I don't doubt that AJAX will prove bulky and ultimately untenable, but for now it serves a function.
For me, I like the idea of AJAX apps. I'm willing to suffer the glitches and less functionality as long as I have anywhere access. What I'd really like to see is a desktop app that is tied to a web-based app. Then I could use a more powerful tool, like OO, on my computer and save directly to an ftp account, so if I need to make a change on the fly from somewhere else, I can use a less functional synchronized web app.
I don't completely disagree in this case, but in theory, there is nothing wrong with one government going to another to plead their case. Historically, governments will err on the side of their own interests. In fact, I would argue that is one fundamental purpose of a government.
I think we all tend to hit pretty hard on the U.S. because of the relative power they bring to bear, but we wouldn't have an issue with say, Italy, weighing in to ask the U.S. to be fair to one of its companies.
Before I get flamed, remember, my argument is about the theory of a government's role in international business, not that Microsoft is right in this instance.
Wow...Now I'm just confused. Did I make something up,did you, or is this some kind of weird trip?
You didn't say, "This is unconstitutional." But the mention of the Bill of Rights somewhat implies it, as in; "They can do it in Israel because they don't have a bill of rights. But the government can't do it here because we do." An implied argument can be even more dangerous than an explicit one. Do you get what I'm implying?
I accept that you didn't intend to make an unconstitutional argument, but I was worried that would be the road people would go down after your post.
Let's be careful that we don't overstate this issue. Saying unmanned reconnaisance is unconstitutional is not accurate. There is no difference constitutionally between manned aircraft and unmanned.
The angst here is against the Bush administration's policies, not unmanned drones.
Arguing the wrong point weakens the real discussion.
This is Starks declaration. He's the expert the government hired. His declaration seems a little 'stark' (hehe) on proving he needs this information. Remember, it's the government's burden to show they need these documents.
The point isn't what can the government get from it, it's does the government has the right to demand it from a company. In their brief Google makes a strong case that, no, they don't.
We need to be very careful about this kind of thing. The government is trying very hard to define our online rights differently than any other rights. This subpoena tramples several rights companies have, and the government hasn't even made a compelling case, and it is their burden to do so, as to why they need the data.
If we aren't vigilant about these kinds of issues, we will find our privacy compromised greatly in the growing online environment.
I don't think the parent post was saying he doesn't approve of companies not promoting "democratic ideals," but is irritated by people acting like Google is doing something horrible, when our own government isn't taking a stand, beside a little grandstanding.
While your article you reference is interesting, it seems hypocritical to me that Congress will attack these companies while not taking a real stand on China. Most Favored Status is lining the communist regime's pockets just a little.
I think we are on the same page. I agree about the need for certain regulations, but Congress is more interested in grandstanding I think, because I haven't seen them make reference to any laws being broken.
You also raise a good point about Yahoo!. For those saying Google is just out to make a buck, why then haven't they offered GMail and other services that are turning out to be huge cash cows for them? They aren't offering these, I believe, because they don't want to be exposed to the situation, MS and Yahoo! have found themselves in.
Personally I would love to see our companies espouse our cultural values throughout the world, but I think there are some issues with this idea of holding a company accountable to uphold "American Ideals."
Private industry is made up of "the people of this country." So in actuality one should not distiguish the two.
Isn't it then fair to say that the government shouldn't tell "people" how to manage their business? If Google were breaking the law, then you would have a valid point, but I don't know of any law they are breaking. Congress is trying to mandate that companies uphold the "ideals" of democracy. I wish companies would, but I don't think they should be forced to by the government.
I don't want the government telling me how to view China. I'm personally appauld by China's actions, but that doesn't mean they should dictate that others should agree with me. If you don't like what Google is doing, don't use their services.
The parent post is saying the government is trying to make companies follow policies they themselves don't follow. The defense of "favored" status Congress has given time and again is that to not do business with China at all would further alienate the Chinese, but now they are condemning Google for taking the same position.
My guess is they are looking for more funding to miniaturize further. They only need a prototype to show potential partners the potential. The technology is such that to get it to work at that size, means it can easily get smaller.
But seriously, as we look to have more personal information available to us from the net, we have to compromise our privacy some. I applaud Google for deleting the material quickly; I would like a more detailed accounting of the storage process though.
At the end of the day, if people are worried about this, don't enable the data sharing. Google has it set to off by default.
It's not only about creativity. You need someone who always keeps the big picture in mind. I've worked on projects where those involved get caught up in one part of the application, and get consumed by it to the detriment of the whole.
I think though that this shouldn't be seen as a condemnation of OSS, but rather as a reminder to have a clear direction and follow it. Of course, that should be a given in any project, albeit rarely a reality.
Very true. It seems that there are a lot of folks out there, in both political parties, who are confusing safety and freedom. The irony seems apparent to me. Freedom, by its very nature, compromises much of our security.
Finding a balance between the two is important, and the politically expedient simplification of the two into one will never help us truly balance these two important principles.
Remember, most people don't use logic centers in the brain when making decisions about politics, but rather areas usually reserved for emotions. Trying to argue politics with facts is tragically ineffective. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/
In my experience, only sustained and ongoing dialogue can get people to move back to a logical process to make decisions. Of course, our modern mass media/24 hour news cycle is not conducive to sustained dialogue.
In my opinion, Google is trying to do something very difficult to do, succeed in business while doing as little evil as can be expected.
First, evil is a difficult thing to define. Is Google doing evil by providing an alternative to Chinese state run searches? Maybe. I think it's fair to claim Google should not deal with an oppressive government at all, but to use the water example, if Poland Spring knew that if they didn't provide water with a little lead in it, the Chinese population would get state sanctioned water with cyanide in it, maybe they would conclude they were doing less evil.
I think we need to temper our idealism. I would love for all companies working in China to say, "We're not dealing with an oppressive government." But the reality is that isn't going to happen. Sure Google is out for a buck, but they are trying to do so with the least negative impact they can.
One of the main issues it seems that software companies have to deal with is a desire to provide the most beneficial features for most of their users.
/. users have to remember that most of us are exceptions. Most users don't care whether companies keep relatively innocous information about their habits or preferences. While I don't share that view, companies are compelled to offer these services.
Any one who deals with customer service will agree that giving these people the "option" to turn one of these services on wouldn't work. They simply want it to work.
I don't agree with the practice of keeping this kind of information, but we need to keep in mind the realistic pressures on companies if we expect to find a workable solution.
I agree with you, specifically with some of the details coming out about wire taps. What's difficult though, is the politics being played along with some of these sensitive issues.
Too many people are jumping on the "Nobody Knew" bandwagon, because they didn't know. In most cases, there are oversight committees that do know about them.
If you are worried about those issues, email your representatives and ask them for more information.
http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind/
Keeping a secret military installment from the general public should fall under the scope of a necessary secret. It's hard to stay ahead of other nations militarily if we have specials on the History channel about all our newest and greatest.
The balancing act here is to be careful not to blindly trust the government (That's why we have oversight committees in Congress.)while not allowing paranoia to take over.
The only two valid answers to the question, "Is there a conspiracy?" are "I don't know" and "Yes"
Slashdot Mirror
Too true. It isn't your responsibility to secure others' networks, but that isn't the issue. The issue is, if you can't secure the process totally, it isn't secure. So your users, although you have done your job, are still exposed later in the process.
Of course, I have no ready alternatives to offer up. The tech community is pretty good at finding holes in any system. :)
Everytime I see a post about how Web 2.0 is going to flop primarily because of the bad architecture of AJAX, I think we might be missing the underlying issue.
What all these AJAX apps are showing us, is that people aren't willing to be tied to a particular computer, when they can access information from anywhere. What people want, and AJAX apps are providing, until a better, distributable, and multiplatform alternative arrives, is access anywhere anytime. AJAX is helping bridge the gap between the current architecture of the web, and consumers' needs.
I don't doubt that AJAX will prove bulky and ultimately untenable, but for now it serves a function.
For me, I like the idea of AJAX apps. I'm willing to suffer the glitches and less functionality as long as I have anywhere access. What I'd really like to see is a desktop app that is tied to a web-based app. Then I could use a more powerful tool, like OO, on my computer and save directly to an ftp account, so if I need to make a change on the fly from somewhere else, I can use a less functional synchronized web app.
My two cents anyway.
Everybody does stupid things, but to be reminded about them every single day must be hell.
It's not hell; it's marriage.
(Try to imagine this being read aloud to you through a megaphone.)
It seems more appropriate to have this coming from a picture of a nice fellow on the wall of everyone's living rooms that has cameras for eyes.
Doubleplus ungood.
I don't completely disagree in this case, but in theory, there is nothing wrong with one government going to another to plead their case. Historically, governments will err on the side of their own interests. In fact, I would argue that is one fundamental purpose of a government.
I think we all tend to hit pretty hard on the U.S. because of the relative power they bring to bear, but we wouldn't have an issue with say, Italy, weighing in to ask the U.S. to be fair to one of its companies.
Before I get flamed, remember, my argument is about the theory of a government's role in international business, not that Microsoft is right in this instance.
Wow...Now I'm just confused. Did I make something up,did you, or is this some kind of weird trip?
You didn't say, "This is unconstitutional." But the mention of the Bill of Rights somewhat implies it, as in; "They can do it in Israel because they don't have a bill of rights. But the government can't do it here because we do." An implied argument can be even more dangerous than an explicit one. Do you get what I'm implying?
I accept that you didn't intend to make an unconstitutional argument, but I was worried that would be the road people would go down after your post.
Let's be careful that we don't overstate this issue. Saying unmanned reconnaisance is unconstitutional is not accurate. There is no difference constitutionally between manned aircraft and unmanned.
The angst here is against the Bush administration's policies, not unmanned drones.
Arguing the wrong point weakens the real discussion.
Yeah, all that's true, but you didn't mention the most important thing...his mom was way hot.
This is Starks declaration. He's the expert the government hired. His declaration seems a little 'stark' (hehe) on proving he needs this information. Remember, it's the government's burden to show they need these documents.
The point isn't what can the government get from it, it's does the government has the right to demand it from a company. In their brief Google makes a strong case that, no, they don't.
We need to be very careful about this kind of thing. The government is trying very hard to define our online rights differently than any other rights. This subpoena tramples several rights companies have, and the government hasn't even made a compelling case, and it is their burden to do so, as to why they need the data.
If we aren't vigilant about these kinds of issues, we will find our privacy compromised greatly in the growing online environment.
I don't think the parent post was saying he doesn't approve of companies not promoting "democratic ideals," but is irritated by people acting like Google is doing something horrible, when our own government isn't taking a stand, beside a little grandstanding.
While your article you reference is interesting, it seems hypocritical to me that Congress will attack these companies while not taking a real stand on China. Most Favored Status is lining the communist regime's pockets just a little.
I think we are on the same page. I agree about the need for certain regulations, but Congress is more interested in grandstanding I think, because I haven't seen them make reference to any laws being broken.
You also raise a good point about Yahoo!. For those saying Google is just out to make a buck, why then haven't they offered GMail and other services that are turning out to be huge cash cows for them? They aren't offering these, I believe, because they don't want to be exposed to the situation, MS and Yahoo! have found themselves in.
Personally I would love to see our companies espouse our cultural values throughout the world, but I think there are some issues with this idea of holding a company accountable to uphold "American Ideals."
Private industry is made up of "the people of this country." So in actuality one should not distiguish the two.
Isn't it then fair to say that the government shouldn't tell "people" how to manage their business? If Google were breaking the law, then you would have a valid point, but I don't know of any law they are breaking. Congress is trying to mandate that companies uphold the "ideals" of democracy. I wish companies would, but I don't think they should be forced to by the government.
I don't want the government telling me how to view China. I'm personally appauld by China's actions, but that doesn't mean they should dictate that others should agree with me. If you don't like what Google is doing, don't use their services.
The parent post is saying the government is trying to make companies follow policies they themselves don't follow. The defense of "favored" status Congress has given time and again is that to not do business with China at all would further alienate the Chinese, but now they are condemning Google for taking the same position.
My guess is they are looking for more funding to miniaturize further. They only need a prototype to show potential partners the potential. The technology is such that to get it to work at that size, means it can easily get smaller.
Unless you don't return your books...Then they'll keep it for fifty years. http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1718538.html? menu=
But seriously, as we look to have more personal information available to us from the net, we have to compromise our privacy some. I applaud Google for deleting the material quickly; I would like a more detailed accounting of the storage process though.
At the end of the day, if people are worried about this, don't enable the data sharing. Google has it set to off by default.
It's not only about creativity. You need someone who always keeps the big picture in mind. I've worked on projects where those involved get caught up in one part of the application, and get consumed by it to the detriment of the whole.
I think though that this shouldn't be seen as a condemnation of OSS, but rather as a reminder to have a clear direction and follow it. Of course, that should be a given in any project, albeit rarely a reality.
Very true. It seems that there are a lot of folks out there, in both political parties, who are confusing safety and freedom. The irony seems apparent to me. Freedom, by its very nature, compromises much of our security.
Finding a balance between the two is important, and the politically expedient simplification of the two into one will never help us truly balance these two important principles.
Remember, most people don't use logic centers in the brain when making decisions about politics, but rather areas usually reserved for emotions. Trying to argue politics with facts is tragically ineffective. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11009379/
In my experience, only sustained and ongoing dialogue can get people to move back to a logical process to make decisions. Of course, our modern mass media/24 hour news cycle is not conducive to sustained dialogue.
I know it doesn't have quite as nice of a ring to it as, "Do no evil." But maybe it is more accurate.
It seems that many of us keep missing something.
In my opinion, Google is trying to do something very difficult to do, succeed in business while doing as little evil as can be expected.
First, evil is a difficult thing to define. Is Google doing evil by providing an alternative to Chinese state run searches? Maybe. I think it's fair to claim Google should not deal with an oppressive government at all, but to use the water example, if Poland Spring knew that if they didn't provide water with a little lead in it, the Chinese population would get state sanctioned water with cyanide in it, maybe they would conclude they were doing less evil.
I think we need to temper our idealism. I would love for all companies working in China to say, "We're not dealing with an oppressive government." But the reality is that isn't going to happen. Sure Google is out for a buck, but they are trying to do so with the least negative impact they can.
One of the main issues it seems that software companies have to deal with is a desire to provide the most beneficial features for most of their users.
/. users have to remember that most of us are exceptions. Most users don't care whether companies keep relatively innocous information about their habits or preferences. While I don't share that view, companies are compelled to offer these services.
Any one who deals with customer service will agree that giving these people the "option" to turn one of these services on wouldn't work. They simply want it to work.
I don't agree with the practice of keeping this kind of information, but we need to keep in mind the realistic pressures on companies if we expect to find a workable solution.
I agree with you, specifically with some of the details coming out about wire taps. What's difficult though, is the politics being played along with some of these sensitive issues. Too many people are jumping on the "Nobody Knew" bandwagon, because they didn't know. In most cases, there are oversight committees that do know about them. If you are worried about those issues, email your representatives and ask them for more information. http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind/
Keeping a secret military installment from the general public should fall under the scope of a necessary secret. It's hard to stay ahead of other nations militarily if we have specials on the History channel about all our newest and greatest.
The balancing act here is to be careful not to blindly trust the government (That's why we have oversight committees in Congress.)while not allowing paranoia to take over.
The only two valid answers to the question, "Is there a conspiracy?" are "I don't know" and "Yes"