I don't think the USA is in any position to call Google evil for this.
The U.S. as a nation isn't. U.S. citizens who are speaking out on the very issues you mention above, however, are.
Get your own house in order first.
I'm working on it, I'm working on it;)
I suspect if you look at the posts from people who are upset with Google, you would find that they are equally upset with U.S. telecoms who are essentially doing the same thing here in the U.S. I know I am, at least.
Just because my own country seems to have screwed up in recent history doesn't mean I shouldn't (also) be upset when it happens elsewhere. It all pisses me off.
What you say has some truth to it, but to even obtain the license to operate, service providers have signed agreement to act within a growing number of laws...The point is that by law, in the US service providers are bound under certain conditions to give up private information on their users. With an NSL, it apparently only takes a bad attitude by a federal agent to get the information.
No, what he (?) said is exactly the truth. Just because something is in the law doesn't mean it is moral or just. History has many, many examples of this. While I would probably agree to provide information in the case of CALEA or Patriot Act (what a freaking misnomer, but I digress), I would be much less likely to comply with an NSL because I am strongly opposed to search without due process of law; your example of "a bad attitude by a federal agent" is a perfect example of why NSLs should be struck down as unConstitutional.
Obstruction of the courts or law enforcement is generally frowned upon quite heavily, and causes you problems elsewhere.
No one ever said being moral was easy;) In fact, quite often it is exactly the opposite. This is why I have so much respect for people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi. These are the kind of people I want to emulate because they faced oppression and suffered for their beliefs. That is the mark of a hero, of a very noble character. I can only hope that in such situations I would behave half as well.
Did Google know why they were being asked to reveal the IP address of this user? Did Google have a reasonable expectation of the outcome of revealing the IP address? Did an employee at Google make a mistake in revealing the IP address (i.e. did someone violate corporate policy?
That, to me, is the crux of this story. If an employee revealed this information in contradiction to Google's company policies, then it is unfair to judge Google by this action. However, if an employee turned in this person 1) in compliance with Google's policies, 2) with a reasonable expectation of what this person's charges were, and 3) with a reasonable expectation of what would happen to this person as a result of these charges, then Google deserves to be raked over the coals.
If you are going to claim to hold yourself to a higher standard, then you had better make sure you do, in fact, hold yourself to a higher standard. Whether or not a slogan is a legally binding contract is irrelevant.
And would all of you money-grubbers get off of the "you are responsible to your shareholders" crap? Pursuit of the almighty dollar (or Euro or, as in this case, rupee) is not the be-all, end-all, nor is short-sighted gain always the best investment strategy. C'mon --/. is full of IT geeks. Have any of you ever heard of "the Greedy Algorithm" where following the next hop with the least immediate cost sometimes leads to a more expensive route between nodes? Investment works the same way; investing in an immediate payoff that results in bad karma (figuratively speaking) may hurt you more in the long run than making the right moral choice that costs you a little more right now.
A moral person (and at it's core, Google is simply a group of individual people working for a common cause) must refuse to cooperate with authorities when asked to do something unjust. "I was just following orders," is not and should not be justification for doing something immoral. Ever.
If this guy takes home a gold...it wouldn't surprise me if elite athletes start getting into "accidents" and having these put on them.
I don't think it is likely to become an issue. From the summary: "He... must improve on his time by 1.01 seconds to meet the Olympic qualification standard."
So if I understand correctly, he has to go 1.01 seconds faster than the best he has already done to meet the minimum standard that other Olympic sprinters need to meet in order to race at the Olympics.
Not to knock him -- it's very cool to overcome a disability and compete at the Olympics -- but it doesn't sound like he will be a top contender in the races; it sounds more like he just wants to participate in the Olympic races. In any case, I wish him the best!
I'm [sic] also think it is morally wrong to let them enjoy ad-income.
Great thesis. Now support it.
To put my money where my mouth is, I will attempt to support the opposing view (disclaimer: yes, I run Google AdSense on my web pages). Web pages such as the one in TFA are information that you, at your option, may find useful. Generating the content, and acquiring the bandwidth to provide it to you, costs money -- sometimes just a little bit (as in my case), and sometimes a lot (as, I suspect, in the case of TFA above -- destroying laptops in an abuse test can't be cheap). The content provider is providing that information to you completely free (as in beer). How then, if you do not charge for access to the content, do you pay for the bandwidth, hardware and, well, content required to provide interesting, relevant content? One way is to serve ads on the web page. Provided that the ads aren't the annoying, overly garish, flash-based crap that seriously detracts from the host web page, I don't believe this is too much to ask. As I said above, I put Google AdSense on my web pages because I don't think a simple text-based ad on the border of a web page is too intrusive. While other web hosts might disagree, I don't really give a rip if you want to run ad blockers, NoScript or edit your host files to block ads on my server. My web sites are primarily a hobby; I would just like to generate a little extra income to help offset the costs of bandwidth and servers. FWIW, I am a long way from breaking even on costs. My sites are pretty low volume (and ironically OTA right now; gotta call my upstream and find out what's going on...sigh).
And if they can't exist without the money from ads, well, they are free to remove their website.
On the flip side, if you are so morally opposed to ads on a web page, you are free to not visit my web sites;)
A "drivable airplane" makes sense.
I'm not entirely sure I agree (and yes, I am a pilot). In town, the drag of a car isn't a real big issue; at speeds of less than 30MPH, wind resistance is pretty minimal. At highway speeds of ~60MPH you've quadrupled the drag, and at typical general aviation aircraft speeds of 120MPH, you have 16 times more drag for a given shape and area than at commuter speeds. Consequently, a six foot wide car in town doesn't matter; at flight speeds, the drag of a six foot wide vehicle is pretty significant. That's why the Cessna 152 (a small trainer) is only something like 39 inches wide -- the narrower the fuselage, the less drag. A Cessna 172, a step up from the 152, is only about three inches wider than a 152, and most light single engine airplanes don't get *much* wider than that (I don't recall off-hand how wide a Cessna 206 or 207 -- the biggest single-engine piston airplanes Cessna makes -- are).
What does this have to do with how much sense a drivable airplane makes? Well, the drawings of Terrafugia's design show a vehicle with a cross-section much like a car. It's rather wide, presumably for road stability and passenger comfort. Unfortunately, this makes a poor aircraft design because of the much greater speeds at which even a light sport airplane flies. Terrafugia is claiming some pretty impressive fuel economy numbers for their car, but I'm skeptical. I own a two-place tandem airplane (http://www.gecko-ak.org/N600LW/); it's about as skinny as an airplane can get, meaning its flat-plate area is pretty minimal, and therefore it's drag should be pretty minimal as well. I burn about 4.5 gallons per hour at 60 MPH. That works out to 13 miles per gallon -- better than my Nissan Frontier, but not by much. I sincerely doubt Terrafugia will get 26-27 mpg, as they claim, in a wider vehicle, at twice the speed of my airplane.
Not to side with the RIAA and similar, but wouldn't you figure, if they have the power to use a copyright of a given item to sue you, that they also have the legal right to "distribute" said copyrighted material?
In which case, if you download the music from them (the RIAA), then it would seem (IANAL, etc.) that they couldn't possibly charge you with copyright infringement since they, the copyright holder, offered the MP3 for download. Or am I missing something?
Meh. I'm going to spend those four to eight hours next Saturday, regardless. If I enjoy brewing (and drinking) beer, then I might as well spend those four to eight hours brewing (and drinking) beer, rather than sitting on my butt in front of the tube, right?
Having just gotten lost on the way to the airport in Austin, Texas after printing out instructions from Google maps, let me tell you: they can be very, very, very wrong...
You make a very good point, but I think you might be overlooking one very important issue.
If the truant won't stay in school, what makes you think (s)he is actually going to show up at work? You haven't solved anything; you've just sidestepped the issue of the truant's, well, truancy.
I hate to break it to you, but it is a person's right to grow up and be worthless.
Agreed. But, unless I am mistaken, it is a legal requirement that kids attend school until either graduation or until they reach an age where they are considered old enough to take responsibility for their actions. Don't like that? Then work to have the law repealed. Until then, the school districts are legally obligated to do their best to ensure that students actually attend school. This method is a bit extreme, but if you read the whole article, you'll realize it's not nearly as extreme as the summary makes it sound.
Wait, let me guess...you didn't RTFA, did you? (I know, I know, this is/., we don't do that kind of thing here).
The article states that this is for the top 10%, IIRC, of truants who were faced either with this monitoring program or with juvenile detention, not for "...all the students..." That doesn't make it great, but it certainly makes it better than the summary sounds. It's not very much unlike the house arrest or probation programs where the detainee is allowed a fair amount of freedom, but must wear an anklet to prevent them from running away.
I'm sure outlawing GPS jammers will prove as effective as outlawing guns and heroin has.
Maybe, but if everyone is wearing a transmitter that calls home every 15 (5? 1?)minutes and suddenly yours stops -- but works fine when the nice, friendly "big buddies" with guns and badges take you in to have the transmitter repaired, what do you think will happen next?
"I don't know, officer -- it just doesn't seem to work in the field."
"Riiiiight. Tell it to da' judge."
Is there any oversight to ensure that what the president is censoring is actually national security related and not just national embarrassment related?
Hey, I know -- we could set up a court to monitor this. Before the President can authorize a gag order, the court has to approve it first. They could be on-call 24x7 so that the approvals can always be done as soon as the President discovers the leak. Or wait, you could even set it up so that the President can issue the order, as long as the court approves the order within 48 hours, so that even if the President can't contact someone in the court, (s)he can still take the necessary actions.
Yeah, that would work. It just needs some kind of name...maybe something like Foreign Internet Spying Act. Yeah, FISA...that would be great! This FISA court would allow the President to do exactly what he needed in the name of National Security while protecting freedom and civil liberties at home!
Slashdot Mirror
Not entirely. It reminded me to update my root zone file on my DNS servers
The U.S. as a nation isn't. U.S. citizens who are speaking out on the very issues you mention above, however, are.
Get your own house in order first.
I'm working on it, I'm working on it
I suspect if you look at the posts from people who are upset with Google, you would find that they are equally upset with U.S. telecoms who are essentially doing the same thing here in the U.S. I know I am, at least.
Just because my own country seems to have screwed up in recent history doesn't mean I shouldn't (also) be upset when it happens elsewhere. It all pisses me off.
No, what he (?) said is exactly the truth. Just because something is in the law doesn't mean it is moral or just. History has many, many examples of this. While I would probably agree to provide information in the case of CALEA or Patriot Act (what a freaking misnomer, but I digress), I would be much less likely to comply with an NSL because I am strongly opposed to search without due process of law; your example of "a bad attitude by a federal agent" is a perfect example of why NSLs should be struck down as unConstitutional.
Obstruction of the courts or law enforcement is generally frowned upon quite heavily, and causes you problems elsewhere.
No one ever said being moral was easy
VERY well said -- I wish I had mod points right now. This may be the most insightful post in this entire thread.
That, to me, is the crux of this story. If an employee revealed this information in contradiction to Google's company policies, then it is unfair to judge Google by this action. However, if an employee turned in this person 1) in compliance with Google's policies, 2) with a reasonable expectation of what this person's charges were, and 3) with a reasonable expectation of what would happen to this person as a result of these charges, then Google deserves to be raked over the coals.
Nack.
/. is full of IT geeks. Have any of you ever heard of "the Greedy Algorithm" where following the next hop with the least immediate cost sometimes leads to a more expensive route between nodes? Investment works the same way; investing in an immediate payoff that results in bad karma (figuratively speaking) may hurt you more in the long run than making the right moral choice that costs you a little more right now.
If you are going to claim to hold yourself to a higher standard, then you had better make sure you do, in fact, hold yourself to a higher standard. Whether or not a slogan is a legally binding contract is irrelevant.
And would all of you money-grubbers get off of the "you are responsible to your shareholders" crap? Pursuit of the almighty dollar (or Euro or, as in this case, rupee) is not the be-all, end-all, nor is short-sighted gain always the best investment strategy. C'mon --
I disagree.
A moral person (and at it's core, Google is simply a group of individual people working for a common cause) must refuse to cooperate with authorities when asked to do something unjust. "I was just following orders," is not and should not be justification for doing something immoral. Ever.
Even if you can't quit cold turkey, you can at least work to minimize the number of companies in repressive countries with which you do business.
Whether or not that was the law where this person lives, that doesn't make it right for Google to have cooperated in this case.
I don't think it is likely to become an issue. From the summary: "He
So if I understand correctly, he has to go 1.01 seconds faster than the best he has already done to meet the minimum standard that other Olympic sprinters need to meet in order to race at the Olympics.
Not to knock him -- it's very cool to overcome a disability and compete at the Olympics -- but it doesn't sound like he will be a top contender in the races; it sounds more like he just wants to participate in the Olympic races. In any case, I wish him the best!
VERY good point...
Too bad FP doesn't make laptops. Maybe they would be better suited for some of the people I work with than the Dells we currently buy <grin>
Great thesis. Now support it.
To put my money where my mouth is, I will attempt to support the opposing view (disclaimer: yes, I run Google AdSense on my web pages). Web pages such as the one in TFA are information that you, at your option, may find useful. Generating the content, and acquiring the bandwidth to provide it to you, costs money -- sometimes just a little bit (as in my case), and sometimes a lot (as, I suspect, in the case of TFA above -- destroying laptops in an abuse test can't be cheap). The content provider is providing that information to you completely free (as in beer). How then, if you do not charge for access to the content, do you pay for the bandwidth, hardware and, well, content required to provide interesting, relevant content? One way is to serve ads on the web page. Provided that the ads aren't the annoying, overly garish, flash-based crap that seriously detracts from the host web page, I don't believe this is too much to ask. As I said above, I put Google AdSense on my web pages because I don't think a simple text-based ad on the border of a web page is too intrusive. While other web hosts might disagree, I don't really give a rip if you want to run ad blockers, NoScript or edit your host files to block ads on my server. My web sites are primarily a hobby; I would just like to generate a little extra income to help offset the costs of bandwidth and servers. FWIW, I am a long way from breaking even on costs. My sites are pretty low volume (and ironically OTA right now; gotta call my upstream and find out what's going on...sigh).
And if they can't exist without the money from ads, well, they are free to remove their website.
On the flip side, if you are so morally opposed to ads on a web page, you are free to not visit my web sites
lol, been there, done that :)
There's a compromise between interior space and efficiency in any airplane, but the Terrafugia design seems to take the opposite extreme from the 152.
I'm not entirely sure I agree (and yes, I am a pilot). In town, the drag of a car isn't a real big issue; at speeds of less than 30MPH, wind resistance is pretty minimal. At highway speeds of ~60MPH you've quadrupled the drag, and at typical general aviation aircraft speeds of 120MPH, you have 16 times more drag for a given shape and area than at commuter speeds. Consequently, a six foot wide car in town doesn't matter; at flight speeds, the drag of a six foot wide vehicle is pretty significant. That's why the Cessna 152 (a small trainer) is only something like 39 inches wide -- the narrower the fuselage, the less drag. A Cessna 172, a step up from the 152, is only about three inches wider than a 152, and most light single engine airplanes don't get *much* wider than that (I don't recall off-hand how wide a Cessna 206 or 207 -- the biggest single-engine piston airplanes Cessna makes -- are).
What does this have to do with how much sense a drivable airplane makes? Well, the drawings of Terrafugia's design show a vehicle with a cross-section much like a car. It's rather wide, presumably for road stability and passenger comfort. Unfortunately, this makes a poor aircraft design because of the much greater speeds at which even a light sport airplane flies. Terrafugia is claiming some pretty impressive fuel economy numbers for their car, but I'm skeptical. I own a two-place tandem airplane (http://www.gecko-ak.org/N600LW/); it's about as skinny as an airplane can get, meaning its flat-plate area is pretty minimal, and therefore it's drag should be pretty minimal as well. I burn about 4.5 gallons per hour at 60 MPH. That works out to 13 miles per gallon -- better than my Nissan Frontier, but not by much. I sincerely doubt Terrafugia will get 26-27 mpg, as they claim, in a wider vehicle, at twice the speed of my airplane.
*#$%!#$!!!!
Why can't a major telco just sell a friggin' PIPE?!?!?!
In which case, if you download the music from them (the RIAA), then it would seem (IANAL, etc.) that they couldn't possibly charge you with copyright infringement since they, the copyright holder, offered the MP3 for download. Or am I missing something?
Meh. I'm going to spend those four to eight hours next Saturday, regardless. If I enjoy brewing (and drinking) beer, then I might as well spend those four to eight hours brewing (and drinking) beer, rather than sitting on my butt in front of the tube, right?
Having just gotten lost on the way to the airport in Austin, Texas after printing out instructions from Google maps, let me tell you: they can be very, very, very wrong...
You make a very good point, but I think you might be overlooking one very important issue.
If the truant won't stay in school, what makes you think (s)he is actually going to show up at work? You haven't solved anything; you've just sidestepped the issue of the truant's, well, truancy.
Agreed. But, unless I am mistaken, it is a legal requirement that kids attend school until either graduation or until they reach an age where they are considered old enough to take responsibility for their actions. Don't like that? Then work to have the law repealed. Until then, the school districts are legally obligated to do their best to ensure that students actually attend school. This method is a bit extreme, but if you read the whole article, you'll realize it's not nearly as extreme as the summary makes it sound.
Wait, let me guess...you didn't RTFA, did you? (I know, I know, this is /., we don't do that kind of thing here).
The article states that this is for the top 10%, IIRC, of truants who were faced either with this monitoring program or with juvenile detention, not for "...all the students..." That doesn't make it great, but it certainly makes it better than the summary sounds. It's not very much unlike the house arrest or probation programs where the detainee is allowed a fair amount of freedom, but must wear an anklet to prevent them from running away.
Maybe, but if everyone is wearing a transmitter that calls home every 15 (5? 1?)minutes and suddenly yours stops -- but works fine when the nice, friendly "big buddies" with guns and badges take you in to have the transmitter repaired, what do you think will happen next?
"I don't know, officer -- it just doesn't seem to work in the field."
"Riiiiight. Tell it to da' judge."
...Customs http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/24/2028215 has them?
Hey, I know -- we could set up a court to monitor this. Before the President can authorize a gag order, the court has to approve it first. They could be on-call 24x7 so that the approvals can always be done as soon as the President discovers the leak. Or wait, you could even set it up so that the President can issue the order, as long as the court approves the order within 48 hours, so that even if the President can't contact someone in the court, (s)he can still take the necessary actions.
Yeah, that would work. It just needs some kind of name...maybe something like Foreign Internet Spying Act. Yeah, FISA...that would be great! This FISA court would allow the President to do exactly what he needed in the name of National Security while protecting freedom and civil liberties at home!