Viewing profile — whackberry

Awesome! Wish I could upvote this twice.

That's not a problem with organ donation IMO, that is a problem with insurance companies.

> Living kidney donor here. The "living" part is redundant.

Oh that sounds ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Interesting fact, TIL.

That't be nice, yes, thank you. Just one question about this: > If you installed the briarpatch extension, all of your bookmarks are now in sync. If I had been using Chrome, all my…

> if you were driving around taking pictures of peoples homes some might call that creepy---but that's exactly what Google did to create Street View. I do find street view creepy.

> We're sorry but the beta version of the briarpatch extension is only available for Google Chrome. Looks like I won't be using it after all.

> It's one of the rare pieces of information that indicates altruism, along with charitable giving. Depending on your region, being a registered organ donor in fact says a lot abou…

Google and Facebook are the kings of plausible deniability. Everything they do is meant to collect personal data, but they always have the perfect excuse for doing it.

> When did you stop beating your wife? How do we know for a fact? I never was accused of that. Silly response. Google has been accused of several privacy violations.

Fair point, I stand corrected.

> Making it illegal isn't going to protect you. Well if making things illegal doesn't protect us any more then we're in serious trouble here.

I am aware of the context. To mark hotspots you don't need packet sniffing or data capture of any kind. Why is Google capturing packet payload during "wardriving"? Nobody does that…

> It's more like hearing a loud mouthed neighbor say to his wife "It's a secret! don't tell any one.. its very private too... we have won the jackpot" Yeah, if it was only near you…

Sure, but what is the parallel here? The paparazzi make a living from those photos, so there is a reason for them to be out there doing that(not saying I agree, just saying there's…

Exactly. We don't go into people's homes not because they have a fence and a shotgun but because we were not invited, that is the whole point. Most of the arguments here circle aro…

> no law was broken. We don't know that yet, do we?

> Personal information becomes public when it's not properly secured Really? Do you have any idea how wrong that statement is? So if a song is played in public, it becomes public?

> I don't, actually. There was no "hacking" or exploitation of any kind - any idiot with a wifi card can do the same thing. What the hell? So if Pizza Hut were to start capturing r…

So by your logic simply owning a Wi-Fi access-point at home and not adding strong cryptography is reason enough for a corporation to drive their car to your house and capture your …

> That's because the software Google used didn't actively browse the networks to look for documents Do we know that for a fact? Sorry if well known, genuine question.

> But then again I'm sorry, I have never seen what the big deal was about this. You don't see what the deal is with a major corporation doing wardriving and packet capturing? > If …

> What is the point in publicly naming an the engineer in this case? How does this benefit the public good? The public has the right to know. Otherwise, who decides what should be …