I, for one, am SHOCKED.
http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20100112/wait-google-i-thought-you-were-evil/
Quote from: Google tripping on happypills or somethingWe have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.
:?
pffffft.
china govt is just paying google to go away.
People think Google is evil? Fo realz?
I've been fascinated by this story since this morning. It seems clear google will pull out. Some people are saying 'yay moral stuff' while others are saying 'hey but it's still for profit cuz google doesn't have so so much business in china and the effect of a decrease of western consumer confidence would outweigh any actual or potential revenue google would get in china' and others are like like 'yeah google is doing the "right thing", but I'mma lose monies cos of this!'.
I just want to see what, if any, will be the backlash from the chinese if(probably when) google dumps china. Also it's cool that it's bringing to the forefront the issue of intertube censorship.
And it's all EVEN MORE interesting because I'm supposed to be studying!
Quote from: Hoopla on January 13, 2010, 02:07:45 PM
People think Google is evil? Fo realz?
Google wants to run your searches, email, your office apps, your browser, your messaging and your operating system. If Google Chrome really delivers, it would basically turn any computer into a 'dumb terminal' which connected to your personal data on the net... So you could effectively "log in" anywhere on a Google Chrome box and see your desktop, your apps, your DATA. If they pull it off, they would become the next 'Empire'... hopefully they would be an ethical and benevolent empire, but who knows? This is a good sign (or at least good PR).
The "Empire" progression in the world of computers and data is interesting:
First Empire (also known as the Old Kingdom of IBM) - IBM controlled your hardware, your software and your operating system. Businesses leased everything from IBM and IBM could copulate with the business as roughly as they desired.
Second Empire (also known as the Gates Dynasty or the Age of MS) - Microsoft wrote an OS that would run on any hardware within the open specification. This effectively breeched the walls of IBM, allowing the PC movements and the 8088 and the x86 architecture with MS DOS/Windows (later). IBM lost control of the hardware, by the early nineties they'd entirely lost the OS market with the exception of their Mainframe OS and OS400... both only usable in a business environment, but now relegated to a small percentage of the overall IT world. However, Microsoft quickly became an evil empire as they intentionally added code to break competitors products, buried the source code and used bundling and other antitrust techniques to gain more control of the business and personal computer environment.
Then we have the Great Revolution of the Free Software Foundation by the visionary/madman Richard Stallman. With is declaration of Independence (the GNU Public License) he upset the entire concept of empire and the Gates Dynasty has yet to really recover from the revolution. General Linus Torvald, Lt. Cmdr. Andrew 'Trig' Trigell and Capt. Jeremy allison reverse engineered the SMB protocol and further undermined the Empire's control.
Now, Google is rising as the next Age and it follows the trend:
IBM - Control Hardware, OS, Software (cause thats where the money was)
Microsoft - Control OS, Software on commodity hardware (cause that's where the money was).
Google - Control... Your Data (Cause that is, and always has been, where the money REALLY is).
So far, I have not seen Google behave abominably. They have embraced Open Source and Free Software, which means that they won't be able to lock us into Chrome OS, or only their officially supported Chrome browser plugins. However, in the early days of Microsoft, many people pointed to their embrace of open hardware standards as proof that they were Good (they won't lock you in, you don't have to lease through them, you can just buy a license!!!)... If Google is truly after the Data, then the source code doesn't matter.
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.
I hope this is a sign that Google will struggle to maintain an ethical position. The jury's still out, but thus far, Google is behaving pretty well IMO.
This does not seem to suggest that Google is less evil, or that this is a "good" act. They likely have their own reason for doing this, be it PR or that they can use the money they would otherwise sink in China for more profit somewhere else, or to better control the rest of our information.
Perhaps I should move to China where I might have privacy.
Either way, fuck Google.
Quote from: rygD on January 13, 2010, 03:51:33 PM
This does not seem to suggest that Google is less evil, or that this is a "good" act. They likely have their own reason for doing this, be it PR or that they can use the money they would otherwise sink in China for more profit somewhere else, or to better control the rest of our information.
Perhaps I should move to China where I might have privacy.
Either way, fuck Google.
Maybe, but the Chinese market is huge and they're currently the second most popular search engine. Not number 1, but beating out MS and Yahoo handsomely. Removing themselves from that market is definitely accepting a loss of revenue. I think 4th Q 2009 was very profitable for google.cn
Or, it could be a PR move calculated to foster trust here, so we'll give them our data unquestioningly.
I did ifnd it funny that it was the attempted hacking of dissident gmail accounts that led Google to this decision... perhaps they're just not willing to paint a target for Chineese hackers on their forehead?
I dunno.
Do you mean Chinese dissident hackers, Ratatosk?
The way I see it, no matter what Google do, hackers will come after them. The PRC regime has advanced cyber-capabilities, and the removal of Google from their country would act as a reminder that China is not as free or wonderful as it likes to pretend, something internet users would pick up on.
On the other hand, if they stay and allow themselves to be used by the government, then its quite likely Chinese emigree communities will step up their attacks on Google. Getting out of China isn't exactly hard, there are plenty enough people around the world with no love for the CCP.
As an entirely ethical move, it would be something.
Uneducated guesses, but China's search / censorship criteria probabaly do not dance well with Google. Certainly some underlying concern is involved, be it an attitude of "No search criteria before ours", concern over growing struggles for control, or a limit on feasibly running with the censorship / oversight the Chinese Gov't is demanding.
Quote from: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/07/01/100117064/Nevertheless, the Burning Man community is an unusually smart, well-knit, and well-heeled social network. Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google are regular attendees; they chose Eric Schmidt as their CEO because he was the only candidate for the job who had been a burner.
I think the drugged out hippies running Google have
Good Intentions. I think they've demonstrated enough intelligence, that if they truly did want to create a company which continually tries to adhere to "do no evil", and influences their industry to attempt the same, then they've got the best shot.
Yes, a good chunk of their business lies in their reputation. But so what? In the last few years I've seen Microsoft experimenting with open source, and unquestioningly submit to the GPL without taking the option to challenge it in court. This is a huge step in the right direction. I can't imagine how I would go about proving it, but I do expect at least some of this is to do with the success Google has had positioning itself as the anti-Microsoft.
Quote from: Cain on January 13, 2010, 04:01:34 PM
Do you mean Chinese dissident hackers, Ratatosk?
The way I see it, no matter what Google do, hackers will come after them. The PRC regime has advanced cyber-capabilities, and the removal of Google from their country would act as a reminder that China is not as free or wonderful as it likes to pretend, something internet users would pick up on.
On the other hand, if they stay and allow themselves to be used by the government, then its quite likely Chinese emigree communities will step up their attacks on Google. Getting out of China isn't exactly hard, there are plenty enough people around the world with no love for the CCP.
QuoteSecond, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
The guy on NPR seemed to be saying that his company believed that someone was attempting to hack the dissident/activist accounts... he did say that the 'didn't know' if the attacks came from the government itself... but I would guess that's a CYA.
However, from what I've heard of cybercrime in China, I dunno how you could usefully separate what is and isn't sanctioned by the government.
Oh, you meant the original attack. I thought you were talking about future attacks, if Google decided to withdraw or not.
China is only protecting its people from Badwrong™ thoughts.
Good thing we never do that.
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/07/01/100117064/Nevertheless, the Burning Man community is an unusually smart, well-knit, and well-heeled social network. Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google are regular attendees; they chose Eric Schmidt as their CEO because he was the only candidate for the job who had been a burner.
I think the drugged out hippies running Google have Good Intentions. I think they've demonstrated enough intelligence, that if they truly did want to create a company which continually tries to adhere to "do no evil", and influences their industry to attempt the same, then they've got the best shot.
Yes, a good chunk of their business lies in their reputation. But so what? In the last few years I've seen Microsoft experimenting with open source, and unquestioningly submit to the GPL without taking the option to challenge it in court. This is a huge step in the right direction. I can't imagine how I would go about proving it, but I do expect at least some of this is to do with the success Google has had positioning itself as the anti-Microsoft.
I think you're absolutely correct. I suspect, right at this moment, Google really are "on the level" as the saying goes. But for how long? Give them a couple of years, the retirement of some key people, a bit of an economic arse-up, leading directly to a shareholder-driven bid for new management and you has Evil Empire MkII. Only this one, like Rat rightly pointed out, has the DATA :eek: + :x + :horrormirth:
Fuck it, right now google have a couple of really nice api's out, and a bunch of cloud storage things in the pipeline that are just begging to be made use of. Some of the shit only works on chrome-browser, no doubt some of the new shit will only work on chrome OS, next thing you know - ANTITRUST but why desert teh sinking ship while it's still floating?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I made a shitload of money (an entire living for over of a decade) on the back of M$ - now that boat's sunk and I'm sailing the Jolly Google, probably for the next ten years.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:04:44 PM
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/07/01/100117064/Nevertheless, the Burning Man community is an unusually smart, well-knit, and well-heeled social network. Larry Page and Sergey Brin of Google are regular attendees; they chose Eric Schmidt as their CEO because he was the only candidate for the job who had been a burner.
I think the drugged out hippies running Google have Good Intentions. I think they've demonstrated enough intelligence, that if they truly did want to create a company which continually tries to adhere to "do no evil", and influences their industry to attempt the same, then they've got the best shot.
Yes, a good chunk of their business lies in their reputation. But so what? In the last few years I've seen Microsoft experimenting with open source, and unquestioningly submit to the GPL without taking the option to challenge it in court. This is a huge step in the right direction. I can't imagine how I would go about proving it, but I do expect at least some of this is to do with the success Google has had positioning itself as the anti-Microsoft.
I think you're absolutely correct. I suspect, right at this moment, Google really are "on the level" as the saying goes. But for how long? Give them a couple of years, the retirement of some key people, a bit of an economic arse-up, leading directly to a shareholder-driven bid for new management and you has Evil Empire MkII. Only this one, like Rat rightly pointed out, has the DATA :eek: + :x + :horrormirth:
Fuck it, right now google have a couple of really nice api's out, and a bunch of cloud storage things in the pipeline that are just begging to be made use of. Some of the shit only works on chrome-browser, no doubt some of the new shit will only work on chrome OS, next thing you know - ANTITRUST but why desert teh sinking ship while it's still floating?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I made a shitload of money (an entire living for over of a decade) on the back of M$ - now that boat's sunk and I'm sailing the Jolly Google, probably for the next ten years.
I don't think they'll lock us in via software... too much of their code base is open source and can be reimplemented by others... I don't think Google will have a vested interest in forcing you to use ONLY their interfaces... I think they'll be very happy just collecting all of your data, search habits etc.
It's not as much about deliberate lock-in on their part I'm talking about exactly. More what they did with M$ over including a free browser with their OS, back in the days when open source was imaginary, IP reigned supreme and competition was as cutthroat as competition is generally assumed to be. All I (honestly) think M$ were up to was trying to make their OS offer more features to the consumer and integrating a web browser was the next logical step. Of course they got slammed for it.
I should probably point out that, IMHO, many of the other antitrust allegations were perfectly reasonable.
ETA: That said I could imagine, several years of company evolution down the line, anything is possible.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:26:42 PM
It's not as much about deliberate lock-in on their part I'm talking about exactly. More what they did with M$ over including a free browser with their OS, back in the days when open source was imaginary, IP reigned supreme and competition was as cutthroat as competition is generally assumed to be. All I (honestly) think M$ were up to was trying to make their OS offer more features to the consumer and integrating a web browser was the next logical step. Of course they got slammed for it.
I should probably point out that, IMHO, many of the other antitrust allegations were perfectly reasonable.
ETA: That said I could imagine, several years of company evolution down the line, anything is possible.
Well, I am not as altruistic about Microsoft... as early as the MS-DOS vs DR-DOS days, Microsoft was adding code to intentionally break their Windows Manager app if it detected Dr Dos instead of Ms DOS. The Internet Explorer issue was also similar... in Windows 95 once they began embedding IE, they also had code which "broke" other browsers.
I don't think Google will go that way because its too obvious... if they go Evil, they won't need the lock-in or the 'bundling'... they just need all that data to end up in their control, whatever the Interface may be. There's not so much value in competing at that level anymore (esp if you have Open Source geeks willing to do dev work for free...)
Point. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.
Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:40:26 PM
Point. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.
Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?
Cause all that data can be scanned in some pseudonymous manner to create even more precise 'targets' for ad sales... The better you know your customer, the more money you can charge for the ads.
Then again, maybe they're really altruistic.
Gosh that's hard to write without the lulz face....
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:04:44 PM
Give them a couple of years, the retirement of some key people, a bit of an economic arse-up, leading directly to a shareholder-driven bid for new management and you has Evil Empire MkII. Only this one, like Rat rightly pointed out, has the DATA :eek: + :x + :horrormirth:
I agree - the potential for corruption is always there. Requiring eternal vigilance and all that. Although, in some ways because people expect MORE from Google, it likely has less freedom to frolic with evil than other corporations do.
Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically. Although we're not completely out of the PR routine of do-evil-but-spin-feel-good-shit phase, it's becoming increasingly difficult to maintain the thin lie in an age when tools like Blogger and YouTube and Wikileaks are available to anyone who gives a fuck, and cable-news who - for all their faults - now feed often from scandals which break first over the internet.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:04:44 PM
Some of the shit only works on chrome-browser, no doubt some of the new shit will only work on chrome OS, next thing you know - ANTITRUST but why desert teh sinking ship while it's still floating?
Isn't Chrome OS arm-based? I'd love to see Microsoft have to port IE to arm.. although it'd likely be simpler to use the arm port of wine ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 13, 2010, 06:53:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:40:26 PM
Point. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.
Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?
Cause all that data can be scanned in some pseudonymous manner to create even more precise 'targets' for ad sales... The better you know your customer, the more money you can charge for the ads.
Then again, maybe they're really altruistic.
Gosh that's hard to write without the lulz face....
This is the part I've never had a problem with. So Google can now say to a retailer, f'rinstance, we'll only advertise to people who are, statistically guaranteed to want to buy your product but we'll charge more than a newspaper who can't guarantee jack shit, beyond some vague demographics.
So everyone only sees ads that are of interest to them. And the companies get a better conversion rate, ship more units and continue to grow. Yes there is a privacy issue but not the kind of privacy issue I have a problem with exactly. I mean it's not as if the guvmint are snooping through my emails or shit, it's more impersonal, no one is actually spying on me in a way that freaks me out as of yet and, to be perfectly honest, I'd rather see only ads that were of interest to me than for Sky sports or Disneyland.
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 07:02:21 PM
Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.
Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 07:02:21 PM
Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.
Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."
Coors Beverage Company. Because they know which music is bad for you.
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 07:02:21 PM
Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.
PAGING P.T. BARNUM...
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 07:02:21 PM
Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.
Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."
I agree - the potential for corruption is always there. Requiring eternal vigilance and all that.
"Trust me. All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 07:08:37 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:04:39 PM
Quote from: FP on January 13, 2010, 07:02:21 PM
Still, to me it looks like the general trend for corporations is to act more ethically.
Right up until they start doing things "for your own good, because we know better."
I agree - the potential for corruption is always there. Requiring eternal vigilance and all that.
I'd settle for a little vigilance, now.
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:09:15 PM
"Trust me. All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."
They do that shit on purpose. :crankey:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2010, 07:10:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:09:15 PM
"Trust me. All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."
They do that shit on purpose. :crankey:
Because it drives the sale of alcohol through the roof.
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2010, 07:10:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:09:15 PM
"Trust me. All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."
They do that shit on purpose. :crankey:
Because it drives the sale of alcohol through the roof.
Yeah, I can't watch TV at all. If I was juiced to the gills on rum I probably could, but then they'd have to come and take me away.
The headlines alone would turn your stomach.
I don't really see this as a 'good' move for Google. Last I checked Google was the only engine that tells you if your results got filtered, and Google's translator was one of the best English to Chinese options (English sites aren't censored very often).
Those are minor victories, but they are still better than nothing.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 07:03:12 PM
This is the part I've never had a problem with. So Google can now say to a retailer, f'rinstance, we'll only advertise to people who are, statistically guaranteed to want to buy your product but we'll charge more than a newspaper who can't guarantee jack shit, beyond some vague demographics.
This is the part which gets me excited. Really. I fucking hate my local-mega-global cable company. I fucking hate Fox and ABC and CTV and NBC and ITV and to a much lesser extent the BBC and every other parasitic middle man that takes a slice of my dollar before it gets to the people who actually produce the content I'm supposedly paying for.
I ran the figures a few years back, and it was insane -- e.g online ads on The New York Times provided over 100x the coverage - impressions and page percentages than the paper edition. The cost of buying television adverting completely overshadows what you pay for piping 30 seconds of
the exact same advert before an online clip.
Basically - the advertising market seems completely irrational right now. But I think people are emotionally attached to the concept of newspapers and magazines and the CoTS hardware to stream content to the living room is still in its infancy and is alien to many people. In many cases (e.g. The New York Times) the people maintaining the disproportionate balance are the same players who benefit from maintaining the status quo. Why do you think Rupert Murdoch gets his pants in such a twist over Google?
But the balance will change and sooner or later it'll become common, rather than a rarity, for new content to be pool-financed and distributed first over the internet. Viewing figures will be accurate for the first time in history, and popular shows won't be axed by some nameless executive, rather just a lack of eyeballs and interest. The downside is that it'll become easier for bloggers to earn a living spouting drivel, but something will have to pick up the slack as Newscorp becomes a smoldering heap.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2010, 07:18:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 13, 2010, 07:10:08 PM
Quote from: LMNO on January 13, 2010, 07:09:15 PM
"Trust me. All the data we have on you clearly shows that you will like the new season of Dancing with the Stars featuring Tony Danza and Sheena Easton."
They do that shit on purpose. :crankey:
Because it drives the sale of alcohol through the roof.
Yeah, I can't watch TV at all. If I was juiced to the gills on rum I probably could, but then they'd have to come and take me away.
The headlines alone would turn your stomach.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 13, 2010, 07:25:39 PM
I don't really see this as a 'good' move for Google. Last I checked Google was the only engine that tells you if your results got filtered, and Google's translator was one of the best English to Chinese options (English sites aren't censored very often).
Those are minor victories, but they are still better than nothing.
The guy they interviewed on ... I guess it was BBC (before 9 AM it's NPR, after 9 it's BBC)... anyway, he basically said they went into China thinking that they would slowly relax controls but in the past years its actually gotten worse. His argument was basically that at this point they are demanding unfiltered results or they will leave.
Sure he's a PR shill, but it was a pretty good argument. There was some obvious "Stay on message" talking points stuff... I think he repeated the same lines a few times for different questions, but that's American business these days I guess.
As the majority of searches are still handled through the Chinese Search Engine "Baidu.com", maybe Google decided 2nd place +unethical behavior was not enough of a win.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 07:03:12 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 13, 2010, 06:53:08 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:40:26 PM
Point. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.
Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?
Cause all that data can be scanned in some pseudonymous manner to create even more precise 'targets' for ad sales... The better you know your customer, the more money you can charge for the ads.
Then again, maybe they're really altruistic.
Gosh that's hard to write without the lulz face....
This is the part I've never had a problem with. So Google can now say to a retailer, f'rinstance, we'll only advertise to people who are, statistically guaranteed to want to buy your product but we'll charge more than a newspaper who can't guarantee jack shit, beyond some vague demographics.
So everyone only sees ads that are of interest to them. And the companies get a better conversion rate, ship more units and continue to grow. Yes there is a privacy issue but not the kind of privacy issue I have a problem with exactly. I mean it's not as if the guvmint are snooping through my emails or shit, it's more impersonal, no one is actually spying on me in a way that freaks me out as of yet and, to be perfectly honest, I'd rather see only ads that were of interest to me than for Sky sports or Disneyland.
It's possible to de-anonymize that sort of data. So it's not inconceivable that at some point someone would be able to go through Customer #1134259 and figure out the topics of the emails he's been sending and receiving (Google loves to show me gaming ads while I'm emailing with my D&D group about meeeting times, for instance) and then connect that to a real name. And if Google keeps that data around, at some point they will be subpoena'd for it, regardless of their intentions.
Quote from: GA on January 13, 2010, 07:33:24 PM
It's possible to de-anonymize that sort of data. So it's not inconceivable that at some point someone would be able to go through Customer #1134259 and figure out the topics of the emails he's been sending and receiving (Google loves to show me gaming ads while I'm emailing with my D&D group about meeeting times, for instance) and then connect that to a real name. And if Google keeps that data around, at some point they will be subpoena'd for it, regardless of their intentions.
This won't be a problem when Google OpenDemocracy
TM, takes over the day-to-day operations of the World Government requesting the subpoena. :tinfoilhat:
Although, haven't Google already been subpoena'd for such information? IIRC, in one case (of how many?) they fought a little bit then caved to the unquestionable legality of the request. I dunno, it is a minor concern to me, but it does seem to be a problem to be better solved by having a better Government, than intentionally crippling a useful technology. But I'm a geek, so that is my bias.
QuoteAnd 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.
Google dismissed claims of altruism on that one though, said that they were concerned about the gov finding out Google's secrets.
Quote from: Hoopla on January 13, 2010, 02:07:45 PM
People think Google is evil? Fo realz?
mostly that Google's motto used to be simply "dont be evil".
except that they have violated that motto on numerous accounts, that it is now actually news when they take a public action that is outspokenly non-evil.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 03:18:40 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on January 13, 2010, 02:07:45 PM
People think Google is evil? Fo realz?
mostly that Google's motto used to be simply "dont be evil".
except that they have violated that motto on numerous accounts, that it is now actually news when they take a public action that is outspokenly non-evil.
Name one. Way I see it they done some things that may have been ill-advised or been faced with rock v's hard place choices like they were faced with moving into china. Nothing I would go as far as calling "evil"
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.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 13, 2010, 03:39:31 PM
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.
QuoteThey 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? 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.
QuoteGoogle 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.
and have you ever taken a look at the HTML code of your average Google SERP? I have no idea why it looks horrible like that, it doesnt even save space or anything (inline style definitions and font tags???).
Quote from: FPI 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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:04:44 PM
I think you're absolutely correct. I suspect, right at this moment, Google really are "on the level" as the saying goes. But for how long? Give them a couple of years, the retirement of some key people--
see previous post, this already happened a few years ago.
it just took a little time for the machine beast to wake up.
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 13, 2010, 06:18:31 PM
I don't think they'll lock us in via software... too much of their code base is open source and can be reimplemented by others...
what? where? which mythical opensource repository do you have access to?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2010, 06:40:26 PMPoint. The more I think about it the more I wonder just how much capacity for evil there actually is in a setup like Google. I guess they could sell datamining results to the highest bidder or bump search rankings but the risk to the company of being found out with their hands in the till like that have gotta move things to the realm of - just not worth it. You can't exactly advertise those kinds of services without incurring the wrath of the rest of the world so it'd have to be through shady subsidiary dealers still with the risk of being caught.
Why bother when you make so much moneybucks allready with the revolution in demographically targetted advertising that they have managed to pull off?
the evil is in that it doesn't care about the people using their services. it doesn't need to. Google's not a people, it's a corporation. like their google streetview lawyer said "you can't expect privacy in this day and age".
the other evil is in the fact that the data is simply
there. ready to be subpoena'd by the US Gov or whatever. ready to get hacked and leak everywhere. it's not in our hands, but in a nicely centralized database. well, the database is decentralized, but the data is centrally accessible.
it's the awesome power they wield, and the fact that there is no mechanism in place to stop that power from being abused horribly. especially since they went to the stock market. whether they intend to or not.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 13, 2010, 07:46:33 PM
QuoteAnd 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?
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 14, 2010, 03:31:01 PM
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
\
:mullet:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9144221/Google_attack_part_of_widespread_spying_effort
QuoteDrummond 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.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 14, 2010, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 14, 2010, 03:31:01 PM
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
\
:mullet:
Sorry... I'm used to running data security training :-/
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:39:45 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 13, 2010, 07:46:33 PM
QuoteAnd 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).
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 14, 2010, 09:17:10 PM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on January 14, 2010, 05:08:54 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 14, 2010, 03:31:01 PM
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
\
:mullet:
Sorry... I'm used to running data security training :-/
i found the reminder to be useful.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on January 13, 2010, 03:39:31 PM
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
QuoteThey 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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
QuoteGoogle 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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
Quote from: FPI 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?!
Quote from: FP on January 15, 2010, 04:51:27 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteQuote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PMQuote from: FPI 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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 15, 2010, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: FP on January 15, 2010, 04:51:27 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 14, 2010, 04:03:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 15, 2010, 01:43:36 PM
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 15, 2010, 01:43:36 PM
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..
Quote from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704675104575001281662251848.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
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.
Uh oh http://techdirt.com/articles/20100113/2252047738.shtml
QuoteAfter 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?
Motherfucking AUSTRALIA???? WTF :?
You haven't heard about the Austrailian net censor plans?
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.
The Iranian Hacker Army took Baidu down this morning. Coincidence?
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.
QuoteChina, sponsored by the Chinese government
:?
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.
Quote from: Cain on January 18, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
QuoteChina, sponsored by the Chinese government
:?
this made sense when I wrote it. honest. I think I meant chinese organisation / people sponsored by the chinese government.
Quote from: FP on January 18, 2010, 05:06:55 PMI 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.
they aren't more vulnerable. but Google already got data stolen. and doing this is a big fuck you to China, I guess, for just trying. I'm not really sure if it would even help against future attacks, but it's not helping anyone else or freedom of speech either. neither do I personally really care whether Google gets its data stolen or not. I suppose "just saving their own skin" is the wrong expression. it's just not as altruistic as they make it seem either. more like a political move disguised as "look at us being all ethical and shit".
I see it more as retaliation, Google gets hacked, probably by the Chinese government given the target data, and Google retaliates by not cooperating with them on the censorship thing.
Chine gets put in a bind, because either people get uncensored searches (even if they can't get to the page) or they ban an extremely popular website and risk making anti censor tech more popular as a result.
I'm betting this ends with Google agreeing to go back to normal after a few months, with an understanding that they do have an ability to hurt China now if there is another attack.
Google treats their China staff that will probably get fired to see "Avatar" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guiDpYrXVcpKZwM2doFAcq38NtyQ) :|
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 22, 2010, 11:31:27 AM
Google threatens their China staff that will probably get fired to see "Avatar" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guiDpYrXVcpKZwM2doFAcq38NtyQ) :|
How I first read this.
# maddening drumbeats pounding in my head ..
# and the beat goes on ..
# and the beat goes on ..Quote from: bruce schneier on CNNIn order to comply with government search warrants on user data, Google created a backdoor access system into Gmail accounts. This feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access.
Google's system isn't unique. Democratic governments around the world -- in Sweden, Canada and the UK, for example -- are rushing to pass laws giving their police new powers of Internet surveillance, in many cases requiring communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html
So Google are evil because they are not a comicbook-style hero of corporations, taking justice into their own hands, circumventing local and international laws, pursuing their own righteous vigilante agenda?
None of my friends concerned about the principles of internet privacy use Google, for the very reason that any data a corporation holds can always be subpoena'd, despite (or perhaps because) of the fact they have nothing to hide.
Is that a reply to the previous post, or ... :? It's not really making sense to me.
Wait no I get it now, for some reason you think the previous post was attacking google, and for some reason that really eludes me you feel it is necessary to defend it.
But that was not the case, this is a negative thing about the US government, forcing Google to build a backdoor enabling China to hack into the accounts of free speech activists.
I mean, sure, Google is not clean in this, for simply complying with it, but in the first place it's the fault of the US government.
(http://imgur.com/BAWBp.jpg)
:lulz:
Firefox says fuck Google, use Bing.
AS IF!!!!1!!!1 Tards. Fuck Firefox use Opera. :lulz:
I refuse to use a browser that's named after a shit form of music :argh!:
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2010, 06:51:43 PM
(http://imgur.com/BAWBp.jpg)
:lulz:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 24, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
Is that a reply to the previous post, or ... :? It's not really making sense to me.
Wait no I get it now, for some reason you think the previous post was attacking google, and for some reason that really eludes me you feel it is necessary to defend it.
You've stated a strong dislike of Google in the past, and tend to interpret events against their favour. So yeah, in the absence of a specific commentary to the contrary, I assumed this was more of the same. My bad.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 24, 2010, 06:46:30 PM
But that was not the case, this is a negative thing about the US government, forcing Google to build a backdoor enabling China to hack into the accounts of free speech activists.
I mean, sure, Google is not clean in this, for simply complying with it, but in the first place it's the fault of the US government.
I agree completely.
so this had nothing to do with google dropping to the 3rd place in Chinese market? :fnord:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/25/bill-gates-web-censorship-china
QuoteMicrosoft founder plays down Beijing's attempts to stifle dissent on the internet as 'very limited'
After pouring billions of dollars into the global fight against malaria and rebranding Microsoft in a more cuddly, human way, Bill Gates had just about shaken off accusations that he represented all that was unappealing about aggressive American capitalism.
But today his reinvention suffered something of a setback when he played down China's attempts to stifle dissent on the internet as "very limited".
Less than two weeks after Google said it planned to uncensor its Chinese search engine in protest at attempts to break into the email accounts of human rights activists, Gates criticised his rival's decision and insisted that agreeing to Beijing's demands was just part of doing business in the country. "You've got to decide: do you want to obey the laws of the countries you're in or not? If not, you may not end up doing business there," he told ABC's Good Morning America programme.
He also brushed aside accusations that Microsoft has been complicit in helping filter the web by saying that it was not an issue because any censorship could be circumvented with technical knowledge. "Chinese efforts to censor the internet have been very limited," he said. "It's easy to go around it, so I think keeping the internet thriving there is very important."
:facepalm:
ok well there you have it, at least MS is still no better than Google.
I'm a PC, and apologizing for Chinese autocracy is my idea!
\
(http://www.coins.ro/images/economic/Bill_Gates.jpg)
:mittens:
Microsoft, under Gates had their "IBM moment" with regards the internet. They didn't capitalise on their monopoly and acted like the internet was a passing phase they didn't need to worry about. From an industry perspective Gates has had moments of brilliance, I don't think he still really "gets" the internet and has much if any vision around it, however. At best it's an explanation not an excuse -- unfortunately though, we've got a long while to go before his opinions become completely irrelevant.
I just fucking hate those Windows 7 adverts and want to punch the faces of not only those in MS responsible for them, but the actual actors themselves.
i still find it humorious that the only real advange of pc netbooks
have to pay the 80 dollars to upgrade from 7starter to full version
is to be able to change the background image, and access to external dvd/cd device