161–168 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a Nest in the UK, they launched a few months back.
I think they had to change the design for the UK (compared with the US model), but it was more to do with the electricity supply than the boiler design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there's a certain amount of histrionics here what with bringing up the whole 'evil' thing and your phrase "doesn't care about your privacy'. I would have bought a more reasoned argument - getting into bed with Google demonstrably involves a tradeoff in terms of privacy - but I feel we're just a small step away from the days of 'Micro$oft' comments on Slashdot now.
I don't think "Google doesn't care about your privacy" is histrionics. Let me remind you of a few examples: 1) http://gizmodo.com/what-the-google-street-view-wi-fi-decisio... "Google did this to enhance the accuracy and precision of its location based services. But it also captured "payload data," or the actual data transmitted through the Wi-Fi networks, including emails, usernames, passwords and more." 2) http://ww…
I would argue however that they vary in severity and also in terms of intentionality. The most severe transgression is probably the wifi sniffing but there's no strong evidence that this was a deliberate policy decision at a high level.
The wifi password issue has got a fairly plausible technical/UX explanation - which you may or may not disagree with - and no evidence other than speculation that there is anything nefarious going on.
I could go on. I think reasonable people agree there have been some genuine abuses from Google but munging these together with speculation, insinuation and things Eric Schmidt should have thought a bit harder before saying is where I get a whiff of M$-style conspiracy thinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think "Google doesn't care about your privacy" is histrionics. Let me remind you of a few examples: 1) http://gizmodo.com/what-the-google-street-view-wi-fi-decisio... "Google did this to enhance the accuracy and precision of its location based services. But it also captured "payload data," or the actual data transmitted through the Wi-Fi networks, including emails, usernames, passwords and more." 2) http://ww…
I wasn't arguing that Google has a whiter than white reputation on the privacy front and I'm aware of all the issues you listed. I would argue however that they vary in severity and also in terms of intentionality. The most severe transgression is probably the wifi sniffing but there's no strong evidence that this was a deliberate policy decision at a high level. The wifi password issue has got a fairly plausible tec…
What you seem to be missing is that all of those examples I gave point to a culture at Google where privacy is a secondary concern. Yes, things Schmidt said as CEO matter when you're talking about culture. The other examples are things that just would never happen at a company where privacy is taken seriously - you don't see Apple swiping passwords, or recording wi-fi data, when they could easily have done so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't arguing that Google has a whiter than white reputation on the privacy front and I'm aware of all the issues you listed. I would argue however that they vary in severity and also in terms of intentionality. The most severe transgression is probably the wifi sniffing but there's no strong evidence that this was a deliberate policy decision at a high level. The wifi password issue has got a fairly plausible tec…
Huh? My claim was that Google doesn't care about privacy. I backed up that claim with a bunch of examples where Google rode roughshod over the privacy of individuals. There was no speculation or insinuation, there were just clearly presented examples. What you seem to be missing is that all of those examples I gave point to a culture at Google where privacy is a secondary concern. Yes, things Schmidt said as CEO matt…
1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is that it wasn't a high-level nefarious decision but a mid-level manager or engineer who went too far. 2. Devices needs to store the wifi keys in the clear, device settings are backed-up in the cloud. Storing them encrypted would require an extra password. There's probably a solution to this but are you suggesting Google has a plan to illegally login to private Wifi networks? That would be a criminal offence and definitely in tinfoil hat territory. 3. Yeah - I think that was a dickish comment and I wonder if he regretted it the minute it was out. 4. What did you expect them to say? 5. Dumb move but more a part of their desperate need to defend against Facebook. It's hard to see this as anything other an incompetent attempt to grow Buzz quickly.
Interestingly you missed out one of the stronger cases you could have made - the nymwars - which I think were an attempt to push the public/private boundary in their favour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? My claim was that Google doesn't care about privacy. I backed up that claim with a bunch of examples where Google rode roughshod over the privacy of individuals. There was no speculation or insinuation, there were just clearly presented examples. What you seem to be missing is that all of those examples I gave point to a culture at Google where privacy is a secondary concern. Yes, things Schmidt said as CEO matt…
Like I said - I agree with you that Google has crossed the line on more than one occasion but I still think some of your examples don't carry enough weight to warrant saying that Google is a lost cause with regard to privacy: 1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is that it wasn't a high-level nefarious decision but a mid-level manager or engineer who went too far. 2. Devices needs to store the wifi keys in th…
Like I said - I agree with you that Google has crossed the line on more than one occasion but I still think some of your examples don't carry enough weight to warrant saying that Google is a lost cause with regard to privacy:
1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is that it wasn't a high-level nefarious decision but a mid-level manager or engineer who went too far.
2. Devices needs to store the wifi keys in the clear, device settings are backed-up in the cloud. Storing them encrypted would require an extra password. There's probably a solution to this but are you suggesting Google has a plan to illegally login to private Wifi networks? That would be a criminal offence and definitely in tinfoil hat territory.
3. Yeah - I think that was a dickish comment and I wonder if he regretted it the minute it was out.
4. What did you expect them to say? 5. Dumb move but more a part of their desperate need to defend against Facebook. It's hard to see this as anything other an incompetent attempt to grow Buzz quickly.
Interestingly you missed out one of the stronger cases you could have made - the nymwars - which I think were an attempt to push the public/private boundary in their favour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said - I agree with you that Google has crossed the line on more than one occasion but I still think some of your examples don't carry enough weight to warrant saying that Google is a lost cause with regard to privacy: 1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is that it wasn't a high-level nefarious decision but a mid-level manager or engineer who went too far. 2. Devices needs to store the wifi keys in th…
(Sigh. Replying to myself with a better formatted version because I can't edit the post and I never remember the arcane markup rules round here) Like I said - I agree with you that Google has crossed the line on more than one occasion but I still think some of your examples don't carry enough weight to warrant saying that Google is a lost cause with regard to privacy: 1. This one is pretty bad but my gut feeling is t…
Google cares deeply about your privacy. They desperately hope that the concerns of people like yourself never become mainstream - or that they never push their luck too far and the population at large becomes as cautious as some of the more tech-savvy already are.
Because almost their entire business strategy depends on people trusting them just enough.
You are a canary in the coal mine and I have no doubt that Google is very interested in your feelings about privacy for just that reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean lockpicks, or were you thinking of a sledgehammer?
I'm talking about the electronic version of breaking and entering, which would be incredibly difficult to prove someone did. And if falsely accused, would be incredibly difficult to disprove.