BREAKING: Google does something truly NON evil !!@!

[Cain]

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144221/Google_attack_part_of_widespread_spying_effort

Drummond said that the hackers never got into Gmail accounts via the Google hack, but they did manage to get some "account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line."

That's because they apparently were able to access a system used to help Google comply with search warrants by providing data on Google users, said a source familiar with the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak with the press. "Right before Christmas, it was, 'Holy s***, this malware is accessing the internal intercept [systems],'" he said.

That, in turn led to a Christmas Eve meeting led by Google co-founder Larry Page to assess the situation. Three weeks later, the company had decided that things were serious enough that it would risk walking away from the largest market of Internet users in the world.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Remember Kids "pseudonymous" does not equal "anonymous". Google collects data in a pseudonymous manner... not a completely anonymous manner.

The difference is simple, anonymous data has no 'reverse' path, you can't figure out the actual 'nym' behind the data. Pseudonymous on the other hand, means that your unique data is being held uniquely and the pseudonym can be tied/translated or correlated with the nym of a real person.

Did you really need to spell that out? Because,

HURRRRRRR
        \

Sorry... I'm used to running data security training :-/

[Requia ☣]

And if Google keeps that data around, at some point they will be subpoena'd for it, regardless of their intentions.

Already happened, USgov tried to get them to give up all their data 'to find child molesters' or some such nonsense, Google refused and appealed it.

really? and the appeal worked?

got a link or some more info on that, I'd love to read about it. Do you suppose the EFF has written about it?

I can't find any of the original news articles (which appear to have all moved) but here's Slashdot's coverage of them winning.

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/03/18/0833247.shtml

I should point out that have been much less successful about keeping things out of the hands of other governments.  But of the major search engines, Google was the only one who even tries to fight this (and all of them keep the same kind of records, Google isn't special in that).

[Reginald Ret]

Remember Kids "pseudonymous" does not equal "anonymous". Google collects data in a pseudonymous manner... not a completely anonymous manner.

The difference is simple, anonymous data has no 'reverse' path, you can't figure out the actual 'nym' behind the data. Pseudonymous on the other hand, means that your unique data is being held uniquely and the pseudonym can be tied/translated or correlated with the nym of a real person.

Did you really need to spell that out? Because,

HURRRRRRR
        \

Sorry... I'm used to running data security training :-/

i found the reminder to be useful.

[Captain Utopia]

So far, I have not seen Google behave abominably.

apart from their contempt for privacy and security. and the fact that it's nigh impossible to get into contact with them if something goes wrong.
and much more: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=google%20site%3Aha.ckers.org that's not just exploits, but a lot of security model errors that they just will not fix. this guy has spoken with MS and Mozilla on conventions about their security policies, parts of which advice they took and adapted. Google, on the other hand, is an impregnable wall, impossible to get a hold of, or even a message across to.

Yes - they are definitely not perfect.  Customer service in particular seems to be an issue they don't prioritise - e.g. the Nexus One as a recent example.

They have embraced Open Source and Free Software

not more than your other average searchengine (Yahoo, YDN, YUI etc) or browser (Mozilla, Opera Unite). I know some of their OSS projects, but there's loads of stuff they aren't releasing. Their hacked version of Linux that their server farms are running on?

Last I heard, Google provided 75% of Mozillas revenue. I'm happy to run the numbers on this, because I don't know of any comparable entity which creates/hosts/supports Open Source and Free Software anywhere near as much as Google.

Also, their web applications (GMail, calendar, docs ..) aren't exactly "open" or anything, in fact the javascript is purposefully obfuscated and this makes it pretty hard to write extensions for it or to automate tasks which means you are locked in, in a way, to the functionality and user interfaces they are willing to provide.

I know for a fact that GWT purposefully obfuscates code for web-applications.  The purpose is to compile the javascript (into separate payloads for each supported browser) so that it is a relatively tiny download, and also to ensure that it runs as quickly as possible - standard compiler stuff.

The API's they provide to create new functionality I've always found to be simple, complete, and quite beautifully designed.

Google can give out ALL of their code and it will simply make the code better (cause all those geeks love to find and fix bugs like 'counting coo')... but they have Infrastructure, and Presence and Big Pipes and ALL that stuff that a up and coming nobody wouldn't have access to. Because they're Google and their Internet footprint looks like The Sasquatch Barn Dance Floor, they don't need to control us through hardware or through the code... they can offer us something that no one else can Virtual Space to Spare.

except they don't give out their code. not at all, not by a small fraction. don't get distracted by the few cookies they tossed your way.

if they gave away their server farm code, other people could build them too the hardware they use is pretty cheap after all.

I thought they were releasing more details on their server farm innovations.  I can look that up too if you like.  Given that the hard work they've put into that is precisely that which enables them to innovate and remain competitive - bandwidth and CPU cycles to give away - I don't think it's fair to criticise them for not giving away the whole farm.

I think the drugged out hippies running Google have Good Intentions.

Google hasn't been run by drugged out hippies for years now. That was when they were still a funky young startup, instead of a stock quoted billion dollar multinational corporation. Larry and Sergei might have had good intentions but they don't run the company anymore.

They were fundamentally involved (including overruling Eric Schmidt) in sending the "fuck you" to China.

You're saying that they can do that, but don't have any pull when it comes to anything smaller?!

[Triple Zero]

Also, their web applications (GMail, calendar, docs ..) aren't exactly "open" or anything, in fact the javascript is purposefully obfuscated and this makes it pretty hard to write extensions for it or to automate tasks which means you are locked in, in a way, to the functionality and user interfaces they are willing to provide.

I know for a fact that GWT purposefully obfuscates code for web-applications.  The purpose is to compile the javascript (into separate payloads for each supported browser) so that it is a relatively tiny download, and also to ensure that it runs as quickly as possible - standard compiler stuff.

Is GMail built on GWT?

Bah, why?

I'll be honest, I don't like GWT, especially not for web applications that are supposed to be publically accessible. It's great for Admin screens or intranet applications though. Because then you know the machine and configuration it will run on, and you have (some) access to the original code.

I thought they were releasing more details on their server farm innovations.  I can look that up too if you like.  Given that the hard work they've put into that is precisely that which enables them to innovate and remain competitive - bandwidth and CPU cycles to give away - I don't think it's fair to criticise them for not giving away the whole farm.

sure enough, I understand that. but it's also enough to criticize the notion of them being all "open" and shit.

I think the drugged out hippies running Google have Good Intentions.

Google hasn't been run by drugged out hippies for years now. That was when they were still a funky young startup, instead of a stock quoted billion dollar multinational corporation. Larry and Sergei might have had good intentions but they don't run the company anymore.

They were fundamentally involved (including overruling Eric Schmidt) in sending the "fuck you" to China.

You're saying that they can do that, but don't have any pull when it comes to anything smaller?!

Really? I thought at least one of the two hardly had anything to do with the corporation anymore, at all.

[Captain Utopia]

Also, their web applications (GMail, calendar, docs ..) aren't exactly "open" or anything, in fact the javascript is purposefully obfuscated and this makes it pretty hard to write extensions for it or to automate tasks which means you are locked in, in a way, to the functionality and user interfaces they are willing to provide.

I know for a fact that GWT purposefully obfuscates code for web-applications.  The purpose is to compile the javascript (into separate payloads for each supported browser) so that it is a relatively tiny download, and also to ensure that it runs as quickly as possible - standard compiler stuff.

Is GMail built on GWT?

Bah, why?

I'll be honest, I don't like GWT, especially not for web applications that are supposed to be publically accessible. It's great for Admin screens or intranet applications though. Because then you know the machine and configuration it will run on, and you have (some) access to the original code.

Wave is built on GWT, I'm unsure about GMail. Newer components of it may be, but as it predates GWT, I'd expect it uses another javascript compilation technology.

During my career I've probably only spent a few weeks coding with raw Javascript, so as these things go, I'm still a total n00b. Because of this, I really really appreciate being able to write and debug using Java in Eclipse, and have it "just work" when I finally start testing it in different browsers.

But to be fair.. using Wave is more of a "spongy" experience than GMail.. but I don't know whether that's more of an indictment upon the idea of web applications and GWT or just the available server capacity -- the public beta runs noticably better than the development sandbox, and they have different servers.

I thought they were releasing more details on their server farm innovations.  I can look that up too if you like.  Given that the hard work they've put into that is precisely that which enables them to innovate and remain competitive - bandwidth and CPU cycles to give away - I don't think it's fair to criticise them for not giving away the whole farm.

sure enough, I understand that. but it's also enough to criticize the notion of them being all "open" and shit.

I'm just not sure how they could support F/OSS any more than they currently do, without giving up on the profit motive altogether.

Really? I thought at least one of the two hardly had anything to do with the corporation anymore, at all.

Hmm.. the tagline specifies Brin, whereas the article looks a little more ambiguous..

Co-Founder Brin Pushed for Strong Condemnation of China, While CEO Schmidt Argued to Stay

...

Google's very public response to what it called a "highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China" was crafted over a period of weeks, with heavy involvement from Google's co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.

[Cain]

Uh oh http://techdirt.com/articles/20100113/2252047738.shtml

After posting about Google's bold and certainly laudable decision to stop censoring content in China, someone reminded me that it was just a week or so ago that we were writing about how Google was cooperating with the Indian gov't to block "objectionable content." It's worth noting that China, as it has said in the past, is defending its censorship policy by claiming that it is necessary to protect people from objectionable content like pornography, fraud and rumors. So, if that's the case, is Google planning to stop censoring in India, too? Or what about Australia, which announced plans to censor the internet (yet again) last month?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Motherfucking AUSTRALIA???? WTF

[Requia ☣]

You haven't heard about the Austrailian net censor plans?

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

First!
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23735.0

Also, Australia sucks when it comes to computers and video games for some reason.

[Cain]

The Iranian Hacker Army took Baidu down this morning.  Coincidence?

[Triple Zero]

Most sensible reason for Google's action I've read so far:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144221/Google_attack_part_of_widespread_spying_effort

Apparently, China, sponsored by the Chinese government have been spying upon Fortune500 corporations using blackhat hacking techniques.

This has been going on for a while, but nobody dared to ring the bell because they want to remain in good graces with China.

So, Google is just saving their own skin. They get some credit for having the guts to stand up against China. But this move seems to have little to do with providing the Chinese with more free access to information.

[Cain]

China, sponsored by the Chinese government

[Captain Utopia]

I read through the article, but I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that Google is "saving their own skin" and more vulnerable to this sort of attack than Microsoft or Yahoo, or any other company in any industry which does business in China. It's hard to imagine Googles global business operations being affected even if China did manage to steal some trade secrets and insider knowledge.