One more step toward Google creating a complete and comprehensive end to end solution
Which provides GOOGLE with even more connected data points about a user when he/she is surfing the net.
Project Shield
51–60 of 92 posts
Re: Project Shield
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call me cynical Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.
Wow, Google is trying to provide DDoS protection and you figure it must be evil. Can you think of one thing Google could do for you to think that they are not evil?
Yeah, how about fighting for users' privacy rights and spark an inevitable years-long court battle all the way to the Supreme Court and not taking NSA's bullshit? They have the funds to do so. They're possibly the only company that could stand up to the government in addition to banging enough pots and pans simply by putting up something on their homepage to alert users as to what they're fighting for.
But they won't. Continued and uninterrupted profits are too important.
Re: Project Shield
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, Google is trying to provide DDoS protection and you figure it must be evil. Can you think of one thing Google could do for you to think that they are not evil?
Yeah, how about fighting for users' privacy rights and spark an inevitable years-long court battle all the way to the Supreme Court and not taking NSA's bullshit? They have the funds to do so. They're possibly the only company that could stand up to the government in addition to banging enough pots and pans simply by putting up something on their homepage to alert users as to what they're fighting for. But they won't…
Their obligation to their shareholders actually means that their uninterrupted profits are too important.
Re: Project Shield
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, Google is trying to provide DDoS protection and you figure it must be evil. Can you think of one thing Google could do for you to think that they are not evil?
Yeah, how about fighting for users' privacy rights and spark an inevitable years-long court battle all the way to the Supreme Court and not taking NSA's bullshit? They have the funds to do so. They're possibly the only company that could stand up to the government in addition to banging enough pots and pans simply by putting up something on their homepage to alert users as to what they're fighting for. But they won't…
They do to an extent they can. They fight for more transparency (http://gigaom.com/2013/08/22/google-and-microsofts-plea-on-n...) and fund organizations such as EFF.
You have to understand how US law works. If you are not an injured party, you can't sue the government for it. In other words, Google cannot sue the government for the injury government is causing to you. What they can do, however, is claim an 'injury' on First Amendment grounds, reasoning that their free speech is limited when they cannot disclose that John Doe is being surveilled (and thus John Doe is being injured). They do that with the hope that with transparency John Doe will have the information necessary to sue the government.
Re: Project Shield
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using your argument I could say that if you leave your laptop unattended, it's my right to steal it. The people who left their wi-fi open didn't do it on purpose, and didn't want Google to access their information.
copying isn't the same as stealing.
Yea, so when you give a restaurant server your credit card and they copy all the details off it to use later, it's a) your fault and b) not wrong anyway?
Re: Project Shield
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using your argument I could say that if you leave your laptop unattended, it's my right to steal it. The people who left their wi-fi open didn't do it on purpose, and didn't want Google to access their information.
copying isn't the same as stealing.
In terms of personal information, it's a lot closer to stealing than copying. Consider the harmful effects of someone having your account login information or personally identifiable information (government ID number, etc).
Re: Project Shield
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call me cynical Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.
Yeah I mean all those people who were broadcasting unencrypted information loud and clear to literally any device that receives wi-fi packets in the immediate vicinity, they have no culpability in this whatsoever!
Private citizens don't have IT staff, so their security is often unaudited. The law considers authorized access via a vulnerability to be similar, conceptually, to trespassing.
Re: Project Shield
#58Re: Project Shield
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see big time indirect revenue - with all of a sites actions/users moving through Google, they can gather way more (potentially private) information about a user - all the better to sell targeted ads on. Call me cynical, but that was the first thing I thought of when I saw this.
Call me cynical Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.
Please provide a source for your "fact" that Google "gave NSA direct access to their systems"
As opposed to the multiple vehement denials of that "fact" from Google's executive officers (see David Drummond's interview in The Guardian, for example)
Re: Project Shield
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Call me cynical Cynicism is warranted when it comes to Google. The fact that they gave NSA direct access to their systems; the fact that their Street View cars collected personal information through wi-fi networks, etc. means that "Don't be evil" is just a facade.
Please provide a source for your "fact" that Google "gave NSA direct access to their systems" As opposed to the multiple vehement denials of that "fact" from Google's executive officers (see David Drummond's interview in The Guardian, for example)
Here's a Snowden video in which he explains it (scroll to the bottom of the article): http://politiken.dk/udland/ECE2108923/usas-spioner-overvaage...