May 28, 2012
— rdbrewer Recall Google's claims that it didn't harvest information deliberately. They said they didn't know their software was doing that. (Heh.) From the MailOnline.
They downloaded emails, text messages, photographs and documents from wi-fi networks as they photographed virtually every British road.It is two years since Google first admitted stealing fragments of personal data, but claimed it was a ‘mistake’.
Now the full scale of its activities has emerged amid accusations of a cover-up after US regulators found a senior manager was warned as early as 2007 that the information was being captured as its cars trawled the country but did nothing.
Around one in four home networks in the UK is thought to be unsecured – lacking password protection – allowing personal data to be collected. Technology websites and bloggers have suggested that Google harvested the information simply because it was able to do so and would later work out a way to use it to make money.
(Emphasis added.) Marius Milner, a software engineer who now lives in California wrote the Google Street View software "repeatedly warned that it collected personal data, and called for a legal and privacy review." He has pleaded the Fifth Amendment and will not answer investigators questions.
Whoops, we scooped up your pictures! Oh, no, we got your emails! How did that happen?! Oopsie-daisy, we got your texts, documents, and passwords! We didn't mean to. Hey, it's no biggie. Don't worry; our motto is "Don't be evil!"
I think what Google is doing is selling itself to bureaucrats and politicians who aren't inclined to, say, care too much about privacy issues. They're offering an intelligence-gathering partnership. The big selling point is that their hands aren't quite as tied. So, they reason, if you guys just leave us alone, we'll gather information that helps us market to consumers, and we'll let you take a peek.
Digusting, if true.
Posted by: rdbrewer at
10:20 AM
| Comments (342)
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.
Well I can't wait until I can put a Google camera on my head.
When were they going to start mining asteroids?
Posted by: indigo child at May 28, 2012 10:26 AM (xXhWA)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 10:27 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Blue Falcon in Boston at May 28, 2012 10:28 AM (KCvsd)
Hey that's our job!
Posted by: U.S. Government at May 28, 2012 10:28 AM (tKFT6)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at May 28, 2012 10:30 AM (Gk3SS)
And suppose you don't have the resources to grease all the right bureaucrats and politicians.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 28, 2012 10:32 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: Your Neighbor at May 28, 2012 10:36 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: PJ at May 28, 2012 10:36 AM (DQHjw)
Posted by: Your Neighbor at May 28, 2012 10:38 AM (Iyg03)
And I said black hole, not black whore, for you NAACP types.
Posted by: Cicero at May 28, 2012 10:38 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Meggy Macncheese at May 28, 2012 10:39 AM (serDP)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 10:39 AM (oipCQ)
Posted by: garrett at May 28, 2012 10:39 AM (qmZ8D)
Posted by: Boots at May 28, 2012 10:39 AM (neKzn)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 10:40 AM (oipCQ)
Posted by: Meggy Macncheese at May 28, 2012 02:39 PM (serDP)
Don't know about Google, but I'd subscribe to that newsletter.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 10:40 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 10:40 AM (oipCQ)
Posted by: talking survelliance camera [/i] [/b] at May 28, 2012 10:40 AM (akXk+)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 10:41 AM (oipCQ)
Google and Facebook are basically the greatest domestic survelliance programs ever created. Do you think the government—especially the UK government—wouldn't want a piece of the action?
Posted by: Jason at May 28, 2012 10:42 AM (1XQNO)
I and B'Gal were sitting on the back porch one day when a Street View car came through our neighborhood. With its big red ball on top, you couldn't miss it.
Anyway, this thing takes an image of the back of Casa Backwardio (and us) right over the top of the privacy fence. I later called the local Sheriff's office and asked if it was legal for someone to walk up with a camera and point it over your fence to take a picture of your house. The answer was, well, maybe.
Come on. Either a law permits something or it doesn't.
I just fucking love this postmodern bullshit of "the law may have been broken" nonsense. Make up your mind. Whatever happened to certainty?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 10:43 AM (d0Tfm)
No independent 3rd party software professional would believe that claim.
Google executives and developers need some quality time in prison to reconsider their approach.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 10:43 AM (LREpx)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 10:44 AM (oipCQ)
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 10:45 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: Stark Dickflüssig at May 28, 2012 10:47 AM (0XbWx)
Posted by: eman at May 28, 2012 10:47 AM (6KkLK)
Posted by: S Daniel at May 28, 2012 10:48 AM (BVkEs)
I and B'Gal were sitting on the back porch one day when a Street View car came through our neighborhood. With its big red ball on top, you couldn't miss it.
I am surprised nobody has pulled a 'slip and fall' type scam on Google and their vehicles.
If I ever see one, I'm gonna fix that.
Posted by: garrett at May 28, 2012 10:48 AM (qmZ8D)
Is there that big a difference between putting pictures of everyone's front door, cars, licenses, etc. on the net for public consumption and picking up unencrypted wifi traffic being beamed out of the same places? I don't see it. And what about the people who run these same sorts of information scoops without advertising any of it on a big public, highly popular piece of software?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 10:49 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 10:49 AM (oipCQ)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 10:49 AM (Mrdk1)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 10:50 AM (vaKm1)
iirc
Isn't Google a uber liberal outfit ragging about what a bad person Boosh is and are big scoamf supporters?
Oh and there rich liberals on top of that so I guess it's okay.
Posted by: YIKES! at May 28, 2012 10:50 AM (fgJMi)
“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”
To the Atlantic
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”
At a CNBC interview
“Streetview the cars we drive only once, you can just move, right?”
In a CNN Interview
Posted by: kbdabear at May 28, 2012 10:51 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 02:49 PM (Mrdk1)
Men hide your mistresses!!
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 28, 2012 10:52 AM (tKFT6)
Heroes!
Posted by: Chris Hayes at May 28, 2012 10:52 AM (XdlcF)
iirc
Isn't Google a uber liberal outfit ragging about what a bad person Boosh is and are big scoamf supporters?
Oh and there rich liberals on top of that so I guess it's okay.
-------
Why yes. Yes they are. Personally, I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. Lib on lib violence is the best kind.
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 10:52 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: Douglas at May 28, 2012 10:53 AM (YKOnu)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 10:53 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 10:53 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: Ian S. at May 28, 2012 10:53 AM (wllJH)
Posted by: Beto at May 28, 2012 10:54 AM (lpWVn)
.This sounds like Germany, with antennae laden cars going through neighborhoods trying to detect tv's in apartments that hadn't paid the state tv tax.
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 10:54 AM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at May 28, 2012 10:55 AM (1iauC)
Posted by: Stark Dickflüssig at May 28, 2012 10:56 AM (0XbWx)
Posted by: Skynet at May 28, 2012 10:56 AM (6KkLK)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 02:49 PM (Mrdk1)
No way she's Ferengi. They're totally free market and a swat at Jews.
Posted by: Beto at May 28, 2012 10:56 AM (lpWVn)
Does your computer/wifi sit around beaming out your pictures if you're not currently sending them to someone? Whether or not your system is encrypted? My understanding from the article is they wrote software that would pull you stuff out of your computer if it was on an unprotected network and happened to be switched on.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 28, 2012 10:58 AM (Iyg03)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 02:54 PM (4Ofz/)
They do this in the UK too. The new google driver-less car will be the end of us, it looks cool but the monitor on top must be full of personal info it observes.
Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 28, 2012 10:58 AM (tKFT6)
Posted by: Greg from Canada at May 28, 2012 10:59 AM (H0lcY)
HAAa.. She's at least 1/32 Ferengi.... look at that mouth... the enlarged cranial brow, the warrior screech... heard at night when the moon rises!
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 10:59 AM (Mrdk1)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 11:00 AM (oipCQ)
If they can get thought WiFi encryption why is that car not in Beijing or Iran to get real spy secrets.
Posted by: Tjexcite at May 28, 2012 11:00 AM (ovjF+)
Wifi bandwidth would require the car to actually STOP to retain the signal long enough to download significant amounts of information. How about Googles provide the GPS data on their cars so we can see if they actually did stop when the found an open Wifi?
Yeah, right. They are making unauthorized entries into computer systems (hacking by any lawful definition) and are getting away with it.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 11:00 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Ian S. at May 28, 2012 02:53 PM (wllJH)
But it's not much more creepy than streetview, itself.
Google has always been creepy. This isn't news. But people still use their creepy stuff, use their creepy name to describe a plain search, and then complain about them. A lot of cognitive dissonance going on, I think. And our inconsistent laws add to the problem.
Google is gathering data on people right on this site. That's creepy. But we accept it because the site needs the ad money and has to allow some tracking (I guess) in order to do that.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:00 AM (X3lox)
This is precisely why no professional will believe them. Designers and programmers simply don't put gratuitous features like this in code and leave it live.
I've put lots of gratuitous code in things for various reasons, but its always disabled or commented out in the production release that exits final integration and systems testing.. ALWAYS.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 11:01 AM (LREpx)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 11:01 AM (Mrdk1)
It's a bullshit article. There will be NO all female sub- the writer is retardPosted by: Nevergiveup
It says no such thing.
You guys didn't read the article, did you?
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at May 28, 2012 11:01 AM (akXk+)
Posted by: Greg from Canada at May 28, 2012 02:59 PM (H0lcY)
Well I can hear the captain saying over the intercom "all hand on deckdick".
Posted by: YIKES! at May 28, 2012 11:02 AM (fgJMi)
I find it hard enough to get software to do what I need it to do, and the thought that it (the code) would be able to do more than I was trying to accomplish, and in an organized and useful manner is absurd.
They knew what the code was doing!
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 28, 2012 11:02 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 11:03 AM (Mrdk1)
There's theft of services too. They caused people's computers to execute shit they otherwise wouldn't have executed had Google not been stealing their CPU cycles and drive bandwith.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 11:03 AM (LREpx)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 11:03 AM (05RcU)
***
Actually, yes, yes there is.
Just because they people who had their information stolen weren't doing a very good job of securing it doesn't mean it isn't a crime.
This is rather like opening someone's mail when they put it in their mailbox.
And I'd argue the penalties should be about the same...per incident.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 28, 2012 11:03 AM (3aXbg)
Posted by: Speedway Bomber at May 28, 2012 11:04 AM (BHM5V)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 11:04 AM (Mrdk1)
If the Google car could do it, so could anyone else when you have unsecured WiFi and unsecured network. Serve you right if you are that inept with a computer you deserved to have you computer info stolen though the air. Just what does someone with a unsecured computer have that is of importance.<<<
This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, then:
It's still illegal to walk into someone's house and take their things, even if they don't lock their doors.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 11:04 AM (vaKm1)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 11:05 AM (Mrdk1)
Share the wealth man.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 11:05 AM (LREpx)
Posted by: ol_dirty_/b/tard at May 28, 2012 11:05 AM (C3zoJ)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 11:05 AM (05RcU)
Try getting access to your neighbor's hard drive from his unsecured wifi network. You've still got to get past logon passwords. If Google was really getting personal data from accounts on a PC it seems like it would have required some ingenious and purposeful codewriting to make this possible.
Posted by: Cicero at May 28, 2012 11:05 AM (QKKT0)
It's still illegal to walk into someone's house and take their things, even if they don't lock their doors.
Heh.
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (Iyg03)
They changed the article. Not an hour ago, it still stated that the Illinois was going to be the first all-female sub.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (01Bj+)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 03:04 PM (vaKm1)
What if they put their stuff out on the street?
I'm not saying that google didn't break the law (it's far too easy to break any of 8 trillion laws, these days, anyway) but at what point do we stop protecting people from their own stupidity and ineptitude?
If someone doesn't know the basics about wifi, then they really shouldn't have it. It's not as if it's difficult to secure it.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (4Ofz/)
****
If you leave something of value in your front yard and someone steals it, you are stupid, but that doesn't make it any less of a crime.
If I was a shyster, ah, lawyer, in Britain I'd be filing a class action lawsuit about right now.
The RIAA charges $3K a song right?
I love blue on blue.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (3aXbg)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 03:04 PM (vaKm1)
That's just pre-Obama straight-up racist thought!
Posted by: Hrothgar at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (7W3wI)
http://tinyurl.com/bn3f2xx
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 11:07 AM (LREpx)
Not necessarily. Shared folders on a Windows home network are open to anyone who can connect to the LAN and see the folders. Permissions are wide open. This generally includes a Shared version for music, documents, pictures, and video.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 11:08 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:08 AM (Bx12D)
***
I'm pretty sure skynet will make us read every bit of spam in our inboxes.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 28, 2012 11:09 AM (3aXbg)
It's still illegal to walk into someone's house and take their things, even if they don't lock their doors.
It's amazing that that little principle isn't applied here.
And here's anothing thing: If Google is making money from my online activity, where's my paycheck?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 11:09 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 11:10 AM (05RcU)
And here's anothing thing: If Google is making money from my online activity, where's my paycheck?
***
Hmm, perhaps we should introduce the occupoopers to Google's actual revenue model.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 28, 2012 11:10 AM (3aXbg)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:10 AM (Bx12D)
Posted by: Andy at May 28, 2012 11:11 AM (XG+Mn)
Posted by: Captain Hate at May 28, 2012 11:11 AM (7Ph7Z)
What if they put their stuff out on the street?<<<<
They didn't put their stuff on the street. Their stuff was still inside; a closer analogy is that they left their door open and a note taped to it saying that they were away on vacation.
Stupid. But stupid isn't illegal. Theft is. If stupid were illegal, Mark Ruffalo would have been tried and executed by now.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 11:11 AM (vaKm1)
And there's a pile of so called conservatives that go along with this horseshit.
Posted by: lowandslow at May 28, 2012 11:12 AM (GZitp)
***
You know what we call Google? Presidential material.
Posted by: The Regulars at Chicago's Mantown at May 28, 2012 11:12 AM (3aXbg)
Posted by: Cicero at May 28, 2012 03:05 PM (QKKT0)
----
Not in the old days. I once ran some software that alerted me when someone tried getting into my comp. Black Ice (I think). Anyway, it alerted me of an IP on my same c-block so I tried FTP'ing to that IP, and lo and behold the guy was running an ftp server with his entire computer open. I went to his documents, one of them had his email address. I mailed it asking why he was trying to get into my network, and that I've contacted the Lima OH FBI branch (I didn't). Got a reply back from some guy who said his son did it and it wouldn't happen again. I figured he was lying about the "son" part, but dropped it.
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 11:12 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: SkyNet er um I meant Google at May 28, 2012 11:13 AM (61yvg)
***
See, if you conservatives had your way the gentle beasts if the plain would be extinct.
Posted by: Joe Biden at May 28, 2012 11:13 AM (3aXbg)
Posted by: joncelli at May 28, 2012 11:14 AM (708Gm)
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 11:15 AM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 03:11 PM (vaKm1)
I have to disagree. When someone is beaming out unencrypted wifi they are putting their stuff outside of their house onto the street - where the creepy google vans are.
If they are concerned with their information then they should encrypt it. That should be the responsibility of the wifi owner, regardless of whether it's still a crime for anyone to pick up what is being broadcast freely. I believe this is called this an "attractive nuisance" in many of our creepy and dysfunctional court systems.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:15 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Obamas keepers at May 28, 2012 11:15 AM (61yvg)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 11:16 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 11:17 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 03:15 PM (7W3wI)
Didn't you hear? Memorial day leads to more wars
Posted by: MSNBC at May 28, 2012 11:17 AM (61yvg)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 11:17 AM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 03:17 PM (4Ofz/)
Google already monitors all ace traffic and this site makes money off of it. That's perfectly fine. We all know it and accept it and those of us who don't find it appealing block it.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:19 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 03:17 PM (4Ofz/)
clearly they haven't stole any info off my hard drive. Their minds would explode from all of the pron.
Posted by: Lemmiwinks at May 28, 2012 11:20 AM (61yvg)
You can break the law repeatedly without consequences as long as you make yourself useful to the Democratic Party in the process.
Posted by: Dreck Cumberlin at May 28, 2012 11:20 AM (8hBZi)
Posted by: Beto at May 28, 2012 11:20 AM (lpWVn)
I have to disagree. When someone is beaming out unencrypted wifi they are putting their stuff outside of their house onto the street - where the creepy google vans are.
If they are concerned with their information then they should encrypt it. That should be the responsibility of the wifi owner, regardless of whether it's still a crime for anyone to pick up what is being broadcast freely. I believe this is called this an "attractive nuisance" in many of our creepy and dysfunctional court systems.
That transmission is intended for the inside of the home, to be used by the inhabitants. Anyone who intercepts that signal is hacking it.
I also don't buy the lefty bullshit that we don't have a right to our own privacy. We do. What we don't have is people in government to protect our rights. If we did, this wouldn't be an issue because Google never would have considered doing it, given the penalties.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 11:21 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 28, 2012 11:23 AM (6gk77)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:24 AM (Bx12D)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 11:25 AM (Mrdk1)
http://tinyurl.com/7q86m7a
1) Its bullshit to make them paranoid, or
2) The ops is over and done, or
3) The op is ongoing using alternate tech/methods, or
4) Obama want to sound tough, and ordered this guys to spill.
Take your pick.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 11:26 AM (LREpx)
Posted by: Beto at May 28, 2012 03:23 PM (lpWVn)
I can write a pretty awesome 'Dear Penthouse' with that list ...
Posted by: garrett at May 28, 2012 11:27 AM (qmZ8D)
Encrypt your traffic or it's free game.
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 03:24 PM (Bx12D)
Bullshit. It's officially "unauthorized interception of an electronic communication", and "unauthorized access to a computer system." In layman's terms, HACKING.
What, are you downloading your pron via your neighbor's wifi, and attempting to rationalize your theft?
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 11:28 AM (NS2Mo)
I have to disagree. When someone is beaming out unencrypted wifi they are putting their stuff outside of their house onto the street - where the creepy google vans are.
If they are concerned with their information then they should encrypt it. That should be the responsibility of the wifi owner, regardless of whether it's still a crime for anyone to pick up what is being broadcast freely. I believe this is called this an "attractive nuisance" in many of our creepy and dysfunctional court systems.<<<<
I certainly sympathize with your point of view, but can't help but notice that you are repeatedly using the word "should", meaning the way you and I would LIKE things to be.
They are not.
Even so, this Eric Schmidt cocksucker should be prosecuted under the RICO statutes and sent to a pound him in the ass federal prison.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 11:28 AM (vaKm1)
Posted by: Sandy Berger at May 28, 2012 11:28 AM (oipCQ)
That's pretty severe, seeing that the default setting on many wifi devices is to try to connect to whatever wifi is around. Even people who have no clue what they're doing can't really claim that they haven't seen the huge lists of wifi networks their own wifi adapters pick up. They see all their neighbors systems (for those too dumb to not broadcast their SSID) and they see which ones are encrypted and which aren't. Do you really want to make even looking at that a crime? It is, the way things are worded now, I'm sure, but think about what this really means.
And granny who dosn't know anything but buys a wifi enabled computer that just happens to hop onto her neighbor's wifi would become a criminal in this simple way.
I also don't buy the lefty bullshit that we don't have a right to our own privacy. We do. What we don't have is people in government to protect our rights. If we did, this wouldn't be an issue because Google never would have considered doing it, given the penalties.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 03:21 PM (d0Tfm)
Of course we have a right to privacy. That's why I said that I consider streetview to be just as creepy. It's harder for me to put a tarp over my front door and keep my shades always closed than it is to encrypt my wifi.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:29 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 11:29 AM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 11:29 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Lincolntf at May 28, 2012 11:30 AM (6gk77)
Posted by: Sandy Berger at May 28, 2012 11:32 AM (oipCQ)
Even so, this Eric Schmidt cocksucker should be prosecuted under the RICO statutes and sent to a pound him in the ass federal prison.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 03:28 PM (vaKm1)
Hey, I've got no problem with this.
I'm just arguing the idea behind these laws and how much responsibility people have to understand how to use their own tools.
I was always amazed that one could build a twelve foot fence around their swimming pool, but if someone illegally climbs it - even goes to great lengths to breach it - and drowns in the pool then in many states the owner is still responsible. Now, that is crazy. Here, we have the exact opposite insanity. We are being squeezed by stupidity on both sides and it ain't fun or healthy.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:32 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Mephitis, channeling roe vs wade at May 28, 2012 11:33 AM (CiOOF)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 11:33 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: WH Choom Gang at May 28, 2012 11:33 AM (c3mby)
Posted by: Jeanne. at May 28, 2012 11:36 AM (Q18G/)
It's still illegal to walk into someone's house and take their things, even if they don't lock their doors.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 28, 2012 03:04 PM (vaKm1)
------------
But what if you take your belongings and set them out on the curb?
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 11:36 AM (cWkOB)
from findlaw.com...
A person is guilty of the crime of "unauthorized use of a computer" when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization. A person uses or accesses a computer "without authorization" when such person knows that his or her use or access is without the owner's permission, or where such person had actual notice that he or she lacked the owner's permission.
A person commits computer trespass when he or she commits the offense of unauthorized use of a computer (or computer service or computer network) and either (a) does so with the specific intent to commit, attempt to commit, or further the commission of any felony; or (b) knowingly gains access to computer material.
Google CANNOT assume an unsecured network is equivalent to "permission."Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 11:36 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 11:37 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 11:38 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 11:38 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:39 AM (Bx12D)
A person is guilty of the crime of "unauthorized use of a computer" when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization. A person uses or accesses a computer "without authorization" when such person knows that his or her use or access is without the owner's permission, or where such person had actual notice that he or she lacked the owner's permission.A person commits computer trespass when he or she commits the offense of unauthorized use of a computer (or computer service or computer network) and either (a) does so with the specific intent to commit, attempt to commit, or further the commission of any felony; or (b) knowingly gains access to computer material.Google CANNOT assume an unsecured network is equivalent to "permission."
-----
"causes to be used"? So the owner is just as guilty or what?
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 11:40 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:40 AM (Bx12D)
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 11:41 AM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 11:41 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:42 AM (Bx12D)
Posted by: t-bird at May 28, 2012 11:43 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 03:39 PM (Bx12D)
----------------------------------------
Bullshit. I'm paying for my service. Google is stealing from that usage for their own gain. That's a crime in my book.
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 11:43 AM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:43 AM (Bx12D)
Posted by: rabidfox at May 28, 2012 11:43 AM (zG3Cq)
Tangentially related:
When I used to comment on Powerline - eons ago - they used to let people post image links. I warned them, and the other commenters, that that allowed people to post one little image link (perhaps one pixel that no one even saw) and that person could monitor all traffic that hit that page.
Powerline's guys didn't take me seriously and then had some idiotic idea to try and force their commenters to use real names (as if they could check that every "john smith" was actually john smith). There are many commenting sites that still allow this and people don't understand that just having a pic on a page makes your browser send all sorts of info to the server holding that image (which if any links are allowed means that people can easily find the ips and other info for any commenters who view that page).
Then powerline decided to trash their forum and just wiped everyone's comments. Nice folks, there.
There are lots and lots of simple methods of tracking people over internet pages that people don't really understand. Cookies are just the crudest. Every image can track much of a person's internet behavior.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:43 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:44 AM (Bx12D)
But the Obama indictment of Romney in the economic sphere will extend beyond Bain and the Bay State: It will go to character. It will drive home the idea that Romney is a skillful but self-serving plutocrat whose résumé is replete with self-enrichment but who has never cared an iota about bettering the lives of ordinary people. One tagline that the campaign is considering using—“He’s never been in it for you”—encompasses Bain, Massachusetts, and every Gordon Gekko–meets–Thurston Howell III gaffe he made during the primary season in one crisp linguistic swoop.
“Romney really, actually thinks that if you just take care of the folks at the top, it’ll trickle down to everybody else,” says another Obama operative. “But no one believes that stuff—no one! And once you puncture that, there’s nothing left. He’s not likable. He’s not trustworthy. He’s not on your side. You live in Pittsburgh and you’ve got dirt under your fingernails, who do you want to have a beer with? It ain’t fucking Mitt Romney. You’re like, ‘Shit, I’d rather have a beer with the black guy than him!’ ”
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at May 28, 2012 11:44 AM (akXk+)
This whole property analogy is wrong because it says that Google is literally taking things from your house that isn't freely replaced.
You are either mistaken or lying. No law explicitly considers an unprotected Wifi site to equate to permission to use, nor is there any case law I can find that allows it. Find me one.
I can find plenty of state laws that say otherwise.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 11:44 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 03:42 PM (Bx12D)
-----
Yes, I'd assume they pick the low hanging fruit. If it requires typing, they'll probably move on to the neighbor, unless it IS the neighbor doing it.
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 11:44 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 03:41 PM (piMMO)
That stops most people from logging onto your network (though there are fairly simple ways around the MAC blocking, from what I understand) but your traffic is still unencrypted and readable by anyone.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 11:45 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Vic at May 28, 2012 11:45 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 11:46 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: t-bird at May 28, 2012 11:47 AM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Vic at May 28, 2012 11:48 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 11:48 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 11:48 AM (oipCQ)
Posted by: The Mega Indpendent at May 28, 2012 11:49 AM (AlYnQ)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 11:49 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:50 AM (Bx12D)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 11:50 AM (oipCQ)
www.securityfocus. com/ news/ 9281
take the spaces out.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 11:50 AM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 11:50 AM (cWkOB)
Posted by: Underground Vulgarian at May 28, 2012 11:51 AM (oipCQ)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 11:51 AM (Bx12D)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 11:55 AM (Mrdk1)
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 11:56 AM (7W3wI)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 11:56 AM (lkdo/)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 03:44 PM (Bx12D)
------------------------------------------
Just listening is one thing. Recording and storing that data is another. They're using a service that I payed for, collecting that data, and possibly putting it up for sale to enrich themselves. It's sounds like theft and the inevitable fence operation to me.
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 11:57 AM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 28, 2012 11:57 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: Y-not despises the SCOAMF at May 28, 2012 11:57 AM (5H6zj)
Once again, we have to go to the British to find out what's really going on in America.
But hey, the MBM has the latest on Ann Romney's horsies and Kim Kardashian's ass
Posted by: kbdabear at May 28, 2012 11:58 AM (Y+DPZ)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6sp6muy
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 12:00 PM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: toby928© keeping his comment counts up at May 28, 2012 12:02 PM (NG097)
I am sure Assad is trembling
Can a sternly worded memo be far behind?
Posted by: Peaches at May 28, 2012 12:04 PM (kpCLl)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 12:04 PM (Mrdk1)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 03:48 PM (piMMO)
Curse you and your rockin' tits!
Posted by: Gerald B. at May 28, 2012 12:05 PM (qmZ8D)
There is no case I can find that claims an unsecured network is tacit permission to use said network. I have found several where the opposite is true. The guy in the Florida case was nailed with a felony. I do see, however, a lot of people claiming that it's not against the law on various sites. I think that's, perhaps, wishful thinking on their parts (to put it lightly).
Even in Canada, you can't access an unprotected wifi point. A man was charged, in 2003, I believe, with unauthorized access as part of a large multi-count indictment, for sitting in the street and downloading child pornography from an unsecured home access point.
That's just for accessing. Once you go so far as to pull data from a networked computer, you're onto an entirely different set of crimes.
Certain businesses advertise free wifi, such as McDonalds. That's fair game because they have placards, etc. that say their wifi is free. However, like in the Lowe's case, just because a business has an open access point doesn't mean you can use it. There has to be explicit permission.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 12:08 PM (NS2Mo)
This site will check out your computer to see how secured it is including looking for any open ports and test your firewall. It's in the "Hot Spot" section.
http://tinyurl.com/yvrsl
Posted by: YIKES! at May 28, 2012 12:09 PM (fgJMi)
Posted by: toby928© keeping his comment counts up at May 28, 2012 12:09 PM (NG097)
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 12:12 PM (cWkOB)
Generally, it isn't. Most wifi software defaults to jumping on every available network until it lands on one. And even if someone specifically goes to their own network, if they get kicked off for whatever reason, the wifi software will just jump on the next one it sees ... and then look for that network later.
The google scum can be easily gotten on perjury. That's an open and shut case. These laws about hopping on others' wifi are dangerous and can easily be used against almost anyone the authorities decide to concentrate on.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 12:13 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 12:15 PM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: toby928© keeping his comment counts up at May 28, 2012 12:17 PM (NG097)
Posted by: Eric Schmidt at May 28, 2012 12:17 PM (8hBZi)
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 04:13 PM (X3lox)
----
Its always the coverup that gets them.
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 12:19 PM (cWkOB)
Posted by: Yip in Texas at May 28, 2012 12:21 PM (Mrdk1)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 12:21 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: HoboJerky at May 28, 2012 12:22 PM (Bx12D)
My phone does do that, but the software default doesn't change the legality. It actually asked me if I wanted to connect to any available access point, and I declined. It now warns me if it detects one, but I have to connect manually.
People who let their devices connect to any available access point automatically are making a decision to potentially access without permission. The providers of the phone operating systems do not warn you, nor do they have to. Computer manufacturers don't have to warn you not to hack with their equipment. If you're going to use technology, you had better be aware of the big picture.
If people in that situation are prosecuted (admittedly very unlikely, unless they do something egregious) I doubt that ignorance of the law will be a defense, though it may be a mitigating circumstance.
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 12:22 PM (NS2Mo)
Posted by: toby928© keeping his comment counts up at May 28, 2012 12:24 PM (NG097)
90 degrees with a dewpoint of 70 degrees. What could go wrong?
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 12:24 PM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: Racefan at May 28, 2012 12:28 PM (Zj50n)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 12:29 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: grognard, SMOD-Squad at May 28, 2012 04:22 PM (NS2Mo)
What if 5 people in an apartment complex all get linksys routers and leave the default "linksys" SSID on. Then none of them can even know which network is really theirs.
People ned to be held responsible for securing their own wifi so that a person can't run an unsecured wifi, do all sorts of illegal stuff, and then argue in court that he is innocent because his wifi is open and there is reasonable doubt that some "other person" hopped onto his network and did the dirty deeds. And there certainly is reasonable doubt there.
I'm telling you, these laws which are meant to protect people who use tools they don't understand the least bit about are bad, bad laws.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at May 28, 2012 12:29 PM (X3lox)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 12:31 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Racefan at May 28, 2012 12:32 PM (Zj50n)
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at May 28, 2012 12:33 PM (r4wIV)
The Google Steetview cars didn't steal peoples' email and data or infiltrate their networks - they simply saved all wifi packets they received while driving by. So only if your wifi was unsecured and only if you happened to be sending or receiving over the wifi network in the 10-15 seconds while they drove by could they possibly have captured any personal information. Information which was broadcast in the open into their vehicle - not 'stolen'.
Furthermore I've used the software in question, kismet, and other similar packet sniffing programs and it's tricky to configure them to only capture certain kinds of packet. It's much easier to just capture everything and then filter it later for what you're interested in. Given that they might only get a single drive-bay and didn't have to worry about disk space, I would done the same thing just for convenience.
Look if you use a technology without a basic understanding of it and knowledge of best practices for it, then you're being foolish and just asking for unpleasant surprises.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 28, 2012 12:36 PM (VDusq)
Look if you use a technology without a basic understanding of it and knowledge of best practices for it, then you're being foolish and just asking for unpleasant surprises.
I'm no lawyer, but isn't this merely a formalization of the 'Rickroll' defense?
Posted by: garrett at May 28, 2012 12:40 PM (pPS36)
For Google to even claim that they didn't know is garbage. Anyone who ever believed that nonsense should question their own sanity.
Posted by: SilverGTP at May 28, 2012 12:43 PM (MnSRY)
Posted by: Scobface at May 28, 2012 12:44 PM (IoNBC)
Posted by: The littl shyning man at May 28, 2012 12:47 PM (PH+2B)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 12:48 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Kim Mitchell at May 28, 2012 04:45 PM (01Bj+)
We not only knew that, too, we know whether it's diet or regular.
Posted by: Google at May 28, 2012 12:51 PM (joSBv)
After slaughtering 108 civilians (49 of them children) special UN envoy Kofi "blood for oil" Annan is going to have a "serious and frank discussion" with Syrian president Bashar "no chin" Assad.
http://tinyurl.com/7nwc642
Posted by: YIKES! at May 28, 2012 12:53 PM (fgJMi)
OT - DRUDGE, Michelle Obama celebrates female submariners...
-----
Can one day go by without these sub-human scumbags partitioning off the human race into classes and sub classes. I'd go further but the SS would be on me like flies on shit.
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 12:53 PM (cWkOB)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00
Posted by: Baron Münchhausen at May 28, 2012 12:53 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Emperor Eric Schmidt at May 28, 2012 12:55 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: Google at May 28, 2012 12:56 PM (FcR7P)
Posted by: Truman North, iPhone snob at May 28, 2012 12:56 PM (I2LwF)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 28, 2012 12:59 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: toby928© keeping his comment counts up at May 28, 2012 01:00 PM (NG097)
Posted by: Baron Münchhausen at May 28, 2012 01:01 PM (e8kgV)
An, what a winner: Barney Frank jokes with black dignitary about Trayvin Martin shooting during his remarks at UMass Dartmouth commencement.
---------------------------------------------
Trapsican is going to rise out of his freshly filled grave and bite all of these douches in the ass.
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 01:02 PM (4Ofz/)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:04 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at May 28, 2012 01:04 PM (bxiXv)
Posted by: Soona at May 28, 2012 01:04 PM (4Ofz/)
****
I caught it Friday night, right after The Dirty Dozen. AMC put on a great week of movies last week.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:06 PM (piMMO)
SOCIAL media sites and blogs have lit up after eagle-eyed viewers spotted a surprise cameo in a Chinese TV documentary about the country's police force: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan.
The documentary by CCTV was part of a series on Chinese police and high-tech crime-solving methods. A few seconds of footage showing Zuckerberg and Chan walking behind two police officers were shown included in a brief clip posted online by the Hebei province satellite station.
The footage shows the couple wearing the same clothes they were photographed in during a March 27 visit to Shanghai. Zuckerberg wears his custom hooded sweat shirt, this time in brown, and blue jeans, while Chan wears a printed short dress.
The clip shows Zuckerberg looking at the back of the police officers and smiling broadly as the couple walks off-screen. As they are shown, the narrator says: "There is a serious shortage in China's police manpower."
It was not immediately known whether CCTV producers had knowingly inserted Zuckerberg into the documentary.
Posted by: Attack Watch at May 28, 2012 01:09 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Retread at May 28, 2012 01:10 PM (joSBv)
Queensland Health has in effect become the first government health agency to recommend that wind turbines not be built within 2km of homes. In a letter to Tablelands Regional Council, Queensland Health's director of environmental health, David Sellars, recommended a "precautionary approach" be taken to approval of the proposed $500 million Mount Emerald wind farm near Walkamin on the Atherton Tablelands.
Posted by: Jared Loughner at May 28, 2012 01:11 PM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Riding Through The Desert On A Sock With No Name at May 28, 2012 01:12 PM (MG6Y6)
Posted by: soothsayer at May 28, 2012 01:14 PM (vzLhi)
Zuckerberg is doing this as was foreseen. Communist China, is , after all, the biggest potential market for Google and Google products.
Zuckerberg has no idea of the power of the Dark Side to IT!
Posted by: Emperor Eric Schmidt at May 28, 2012 01:14 PM (sJTmU)
Posted by: Anachronda at May 28, 2012 01:16 PM (fnxOX)
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at May 28, 2012 01:18 PM (Gk3SS)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 01:23 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 01:23 PM (lkdo/)
I just saw a new version of the Romney First Day ad on tv during the local news, this one talking about repealing regulations and going after China on trade. I have to admit, I am impressed by how the Romney campaign is going straight at Obama.
I agree. Since we pretty much had to get behind him, at least he's not running a copy of the McLame campaign.
Some Moron posited a week or so ago that Mitt had someone working full time as a sort of Axelrod Attack Asshole, dreaming up attacks and the response to them.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 01:24 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:24 PM (piMMO)
The cyber-espionage worm, designed to collect and delete sensitive information, is said to have 20 times as much code as Stuxnet, which attacked an Iranian uranium enrichment facility (and some 16,000 computers), causing centrifuges to fail. Iran blamed Israel and the US for its creation.
Flame is also believed to contain an element that was used in Stuxnet. Kaspersky said the Flame malware may have been lurking inside thousands of computers across the Middle East for between five and eight years. The creator of the virus is not yet knownÂ….
The country with the largest number of machines infected by Flame is believed to be Iran, following by the West Bank, and Sudan and Syria after that. Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have also been affected.
Posted by: Isl at May 28, 2012 01:25 PM (e8kgV)
I am not going to make it through this election without going something something.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at May 28, 2012 01:28 PM (Gk3SS)
Sorry, NDH, but I ain't clickin' on that link without a personal assurance from you (consisting of at least two pages of signed documents, in triplicate) that your link is a pic of Stacy Kiebler.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 01:29 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:31 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: toby928© keeping his comment counts up at May 28, 2012 01:31 PM (NG097)
Posted by: toby928© typing through swollen bleach burned eyes at May 28, 2012 01:32 PM (NG097)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:32 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 28, 2012 01:33 PM (mq/gG)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:33 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:34 PM (piMMO)
You gotta get up pre-ty early in the afternoon to fool me.
Mmmm, Stacy Kiebler. I'll be in my bunk...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 01:35 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:36 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 28, 2012 01:37 PM (mq/gG)
Survey Says .... Nope!
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 28, 2012 01:38 PM (01Bj+)
Yeah, but in my bunk I'm in in the time warp where she knows nothing of love...
Or leftards.
brb
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 01:38 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 05:35 PM (d0Tfm)
If google had a sense of humor Stacy Keach would be in a pop-up trying to sell you Deluxe Grahams and Grasshoppers right now.
Posted by: garrett at May 28, 2012 01:38 PM (n8H8G)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:41 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:41 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Riding Through The Desert On A Sock With No Name at May 28, 2012 01:42 PM (MG6Y6)
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 01:42 PM (7W3wI)
If google had a sense of humor Stacy Keach would be in a pop-up trying to sell you Deluxe Grahams and Grasshoppers right now.
I don't care who you are, that right there is funny.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 01:44 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 01:45 PM (lkdo/)
That's almost poetry. Anyway, in Bar Refaeli's case, I'm just assuming she was a well-paid beard.
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 28, 2012 01:45 PM (01Bj+)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 28, 2012 01:46 PM (mq/gG)
Too much prime cooch is getting used up by lefty douches.
Come on, they're barely making a dent...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 01:47 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: FORGER - Monster Hunter at May 28, 2012 01:48 PM (Sj72w)
Posted by: booger at May 28, 2012 01:49 PM (HI6wa)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 28, 2012 01:50 PM (mq/gG)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy
I guess there's something to be said for the candidate really wanting to be President.
Posted by: Dianna at May 28, 2012 01:50 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 01:52 PM (piMMO)
I'm not a very "grandmotherly" grandma. Just ask my daughter and granddaughter!
Posted by: Grandma Mimi at May 28, 2012 01:53 PM (HcUH2)
All these years, I've assumed that no one who touched George Clooney cared what he said or thought.
Like that "everything's better with kittens" tequila ad. I don't drink tequila, but I watch that ad with respect and awe.
Posted by: Dianna at May 28, 2012 01:54 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 01:57 PM (7W3wI)
Anybody really care about Hatfields and McCoys?
Well, there's that comely looking blonde one in the commercials...but other than her, no.
Posted by: garrett at May 28, 2012 01:59 PM (n8H8G)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 02:00 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 28, 2012 02:01 PM (mq/gG)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 02:02 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 02:04 PM (lkdo/)
posted by: Dr. Varno at May 28, 2012 06:01 PM (mq/gG)
no. the new kid in the South Park Episode that NDH was ref.
Posted by: garrett at May 28, 2012 02:05 PM (n8H8G)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 02:07 PM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: Fart at May 28, 2012 02:07 PM (CvvEA)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 02:08 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 02:10 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 28, 2012 02:19 PM (d0Tfm)
Anybody really care about Hatfields and McCoys?
Posted by: steevy at May 28, 2012 05:57 PM (7W3wI)
Hell yeah! Generations of Appalachian hill people killing each over a pig or goat or some shit?
I have some serious hilljacks in my family, I can probably relate to it!
Posted by: ErikW at May 28, 2012 02:27 PM (qn3Cx)
Posted by: ErikW at May 28, 2012 02:30 PM (qn3Cx)
http://bit.ly/KXDSRe
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 02:31 PM (piMMO)
Posted by: Reverend Peyton at May 28, 2012 02:53 PM (Am696)
Posted by: the new, improved arhooley -- now with 10% more cynicism! at May 28, 2012 02:56 PM (lXKFr)
Posted by: Presideezee of the United Steezee at May 28, 2012 02:58 PM (9+hJU)
Posted by: Jimmah at May 28, 2012 03:10 PM (cWkOB)
That is SO not true!
Posted by: the government at May 28, 2012 03:15 PM (/izg2)
Why capture anyone's packets at all? The only people driving around sniffing the ether for "good shit" are people up to no good.
Clearly someone working within Google knew this system was collecting stuff and ratted them out, otherwise nobody would ever have been the wiser and they'd have gotten away with it for decades. Passive interception is virtually undetectable.
There'd be no reason for a whistle blower to blow the whistle if the data wasn't being sliced and diced in some sort of organized manner. If it just sat benign and unused in some archival storage vault, nobody would give a hoot about it either.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 03:18 PM (/FCgd)
Vietnam veterans and the families of Vietnam veterans killed in action whose names are etched on the Wall were denied access to their memorial today, of all days, Memorial Day. The Vietnam Memorial was shutdown, cleared and secured for approximately 5 hours prior to Obama, his cronies and hand picked veterans for a 15 minute appearance by Obama. It's obvious it was all for show. After all, this is an election year.
Hundreds if not thousands of Vietnam veterans and families of Vietnam veterans killed in Vietnam stood in disbelief as Secret Service, Park Police, Washington DC Police, etc., blocked all access to the Vietnam Memorial and kept everyone approximately 100 yards away from their memorial for the first time in the history of the Memorial so Obama could get some photos of him at the Wall. Veterans in uniforms stood in the heat angered as Obama makes them wait. It was a photo op at their expense and families of those killed in Vietnam.
As I stated, I was there and witnessed all of this. Many veterans and others flipped Obama the finger as his motorcade drove past. I didn't honor him with a finger salute because I was busy holding up my 3'x5' Don't Tread on Me Flag as his motorcade drove past.
On another note, I was able to dedicate some port-o potties to Jane Fonda. Pictures attached. Maybe Obama should share this honor with Jane Fonda henceforth.
- Jim Morris
www.JimMorris.us
Posted by: Brian Trubee at May 28, 2012 03:20 PM (B1V8S)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at May 28, 2012 03:24 PM (piMMO)
That's your problem with this.
Posted by: witty username at May 28, 2012 03:25 PM (iZ6fL)
Posted by: Beto at May 28, 2012 03:36 PM (lpWVn)
Posted by: teej at May 28, 2012 03:38 PM (sbimF)
Well, every 28 days or so they will wage nuclear war.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at May 28, 2012 03:41 PM (ZOf1l)
I wouldn't bet on that. I'm pretty sure they'd do contract work for God and the Devil if the money was right.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 03:46 PM (/FCgd)
Posted by: boulder toilet hobo at May 28, 2012 03:48 PM (pvn7o)
Fucking Bastards!
Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at May 28, 2012 03:49 PM (sw9Gv)
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 03:49 PM (lkdo/)
An ALL-female nuke sub...... what could go wrong?
Well, every 28 days or so they will wage nuclear war.
haha..shit..angry women are not good. Time to start digging a bunker.
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 03:51 PM (lkdo/)
Hope they all dont PMS at the same time. Hillary said the glass ceiling has a million cracks in it. Women are kicking the ceiling. Wonder if/when it will shatter?
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 03:52 PM (lkdo/)
I await eagerly for some millionaires and billionaires to see prison walls.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 28, 2012 03:54 PM (eHIJJ)
As long as they kiss the govt ring and don't pose any challenge to US Govt intel gathering, and assist as whenever asked, they'll be left along. Google is scraping a lot of data the govt couldn't get without warrants.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 04:00 PM (/FCgd)
Syriza proposals
Posted by: Lampshade at May 28, 2012 04:00 PM (lkdo/)
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at May 28, 2012 04:05 PM (/FCgd)
Unless this blog is unpatriotic or something.
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 28, 2012 04:06 PM (I/Xad)
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 28, 2012 04:10 PM (I/Xad)
Posted by: Bill S at May 28, 2012 11:56 PM (2CRGo)
If you have a non-hidden SSID, then this basic stationkeeping information is being transmitted continuously for any device that wishes to try and connect. (Even if your SSID is hidden, the broadcast can still be detected and mapped, but perhaps not uniquely.)
And if you also have an unsecured, unencrypted wifi network, all your data is transmitted in the clear in the exact same way. It's all shouted to the world at top volume, for anyone to hear. This isn't by accident or a because of a design flaw or some nefarious hacking technique. It's the way it works. It's like standing on a street naked with a giant sign and a megaphone. If you decide to do that, then you can't complain that someone else overheard your "private" conversation. Not even if it's eeevil Google.
To call this theft is utterly ridiculous. Seriously, you know how you read a story about a subject you know, and you realize how utterly wrong the reporter got everything? This is one of those stories, and it has been since it was first introduced.
Posted by: GalosGann at May 29, 2012 06:06 AM (T3KlW)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3226 seconds, 470 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: eman at May 28, 2012 10:25 AM (6KkLK)