Critics Call For Probe Into Google Government Ties 289
bonch writes "The National Legal and Policy Center has written to the House Oversight Committee to investigate alleged ties between Google and the Obama administration, specifically with regards to the closure of an FTC probe into Google's Wi-Fi privacy breach, when the company admitted to having collected users' unencrypted information over the course of three years. The NLPC compares Google's relationship with the administration to that of Halliburton and cites the timing of a $30,000-a-head Democratic fundraiser at Google CEO Marissa Meyer's home less than a week before the FTC ended its inquiry, where Obama made a personal appearance, as well as the fact that US deputy chief technology officer Andrew McLaughlin is a former Google employee. The NLPC further alleges that the FTC is tougher on other companies, issuing fines to Twitter and Sears for their privacy violations while letting Google off the hook after the company promised to improve its privacy practices."
Same Obama administration (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this the same Obama administration that threatened Google with an anti-trust trial and breaking Google up if they landed a search deal with Yahoo, but said they'd allow Microsoft to buy-out Yahoo?
I wouldn't say the administration has been particularly pro-Google.
Re:Same Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
Good points. I'd also counter with a request for a probe into the former administration's ties to Microsoft. Why exactly did the DoJ find that Microsoft had illegally exploited their monopoly position and then let them go with nothing more than an admonition?
Re:Same Obama administration (Score:5, Insightful)
An article [tgdaily.com] I found says
Google's relationship with the Obama administration is nothing like Cheney and Halliburton. I mean, has Biden or Obama held large amounts of Google stock like Cheney and Bush held stock in Halliburton?
I don't remember anybody calling for an investigantion into Cheney and Halliburton during the Bush administration.
This is more like the Bush ties to Microsoft; the Bush Justice Department pretty much let MS off the hook after Clinton had them by the balls. I didn't see any investigantions into that, either.
This smells to me like nothing more than dirty politics; kind of like Clinton's forty million dollar blow job.
Re:Same Obama administration (Score:4, Insightful)
Look for a lot, lot more calls for the House to investigate the Obama administration. The new majority in the House will not be able to pass any of its program, but it will have the subpoena power to make political theater. With enough smoke, some voters will believe there's fire.
More Info on the NLPC, they are DIRTY (Score:5, Informative)
They are a front: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Legal_and_Policy_Center [sourcewatch.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Info on the NLPC, they are DIRTY (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Media Matters describes itself as a "progressive" center dedicated to "correcting conservative misinformation" financed by a left wing billionaire George Soros (who by the way made his billions in currency speculations on a scale that bankrupted a country). Sounds fair and balanced to me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one asked if it sounded fair and balanced. I believe the assertion was that they correct misinformation. Yes, they correct misinformation put out by the right and not the left, but their goal is to get the truth out, not to make money for two old rich guys, which is what the NLPC is for.
LIAR (Score:5, Informative)
No, you lie.
Media Matters received its first ever donation from Soros last month [politico.com], after years of you Republicans lying, say he was financing it all along. Meanwhile, you Republicans have your fraud network financed by billionaires like the Koch brothers [wikipedia.org] who also finance Republican campaigns, lately secretly through the Citizens United rules that dominated the election that just passed.
Of course it sounds "fair and balanced" to you, because it's an endless pile of Republican lies, just like the Fox "News" that uses that fraudulent slogan.
Re:LIAR (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't lie, I might be wrong but if so I am honestly wrong. First of all, technically I am right because he just donated $1 million to them so they ARE financed by him. Secondly, you are being pretty naive if you think that overt donation directly from his pocket is the only kind there is. For example, Soros laughably claims that the donations made by his Open Society Institute are not actually made by him and it's a totally separate thing. OSI has spend over $5 billion over the years on liberal causes, including a lot of goups which in turn create or fund things like media matters. Without having time to research the matter, here is one example: OSI donates $1 million to The Tides Foundation in 2005. The Tides Foundation donates $1 million to Media Matters in 2005. Nothing to do with Soros, right?
Re:LIAR (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm, I hope you realize that the second largest shareholder (not donor, actual owner of the company) of Fox News is a Saudi Arabian prince who, according to Fox News, may have ties with terrorists?
Look, just because people give money to causes they approve of doesn't automatically make those causes suspect. You should also critically examine the material they put out, not just who funds them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, give it up. we are in an age when Science can be debunked or ignored or even left standing unchallenged after someone questions the claim because someone worked for an oil company, or some company that worked for an oil company 20 years ago.
You won't be able to convince people that others are just like them and act in their own interests. Everything has to be associated with the evil of the day (for or against) and nothing can be further from their own truth. Perhpas this is because they operate on an
Re:LIAR (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because none of the above are unbiased, but all except Fox do nothing more than spew talking points constantly and have every Republican candidates on the payroll as hosts and advisers. How many Republican presidential and vice presidential candidates from the 2008 election are employed by Fox? (Here's a hint: nearly every single one) Now how many Democratic candidates are employed by all of the rest of the stations you listed combined? (Here's another hint: none)
Just for reference, I have no problems with me being genetically superior to you because I can look at facts and use my brain in a manner not consistent with party doctrine, but I'm not going to be the one to say it. I'll leave that up to you. Or, rather, you already said it.
Re:LIAR (Score:4, Informative)
First, who do you think is viable for a 2012 Republican bid that isn't working for Fox other than Mitt Romney? They pay Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee - literally everyone GOP other than Romney that is a major candidate for 2012 who isn't currently an office holder.
Second, did you forget that after the 2008 election, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and Karl Rove all joined Fox as regular contributors? You know, McCain's VP, the guy 2nd in the primary race, and the guy who orchestrated the previous 8 years of the Republican Era.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the NLPC seem to be more focused on the specific corporate competition and political enemies of the two founding members. They aren't left or right really, they are the attack dogs of two rich guys.
No (Score:2)
No, they're not. Except insofar as "false" is a wrong version of "true".
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, sourcewatch.org is operated by the "Center for Media and Democracy" which was founded by John Stauber and currently led by Lisa Graves.
John Stauber is a liberal activist, and Lisa Graves worked for Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. And from her website "She previously served as the Senior Counsel for Legislative Strategy at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she led the ACLU’s lobbying efforts on national security issues affecting civil liberties, including the Patriot Act reauthor
Re: (Score:2)
Right wing conservative politicians are far, far more in bed with corporations than left wing politicians.
Oh, really? Would you care to look at corporate candidate funding before spouting off like that? Which companies are you talking about, exactly? Ford? Dominoes Pizza? Outback Steakhouse? Office Depot? Maybe that's why pizza delivery is so goddamn expensive, or why it's 2010 and we're unable to get 'paperless' still, seeing more fucking printers being bought than ever before.
Hint: It's complete bullshit, almost a polar opposite of how things actually are.
http://www.goodguide.com/contributions
The reality is t
Re:This is just propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
"Here's politics in America: 'I think the puppet on the right shares my belief.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Wait a minute...there's one guy holding both puppets!'" -Bill Hicks
Republican, Democrat, Third Party...they all serve the same corporate masters. The only difference exists in we the people's minds.
Re:This is just propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. This false equivalence between the parties is fueled by conservative media outlets, and it's designed to frustrate voters so they skip the polls entirely, allowing the vote be dominated by the right-wing base.
If you want to see the difference between the parties, just compare the Bush keys to the legislation that was passed by the House over the past two years. A lot of that didn't make it into law, but that's because of Republicans filibustering in the Senate, not Democratic malfeasance.
It really takes a special kind of stupidity to think "they're all the same" after 2000-2008. The Democrats aren't perfect, but by god, at least they don't yearn for a return to serfdom.
Re: (Score:2)
More money moves towards everyone when Democrats are in power, because Democratic policies are better for the economy and everyone makes more money.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Democrats have been in power since 2006.
How's that working out for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Better than the alternative, Grandpa Crazy and Caribou Barbie.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your sig is laughable given your childish left wing posts. The NLPC describes itself as promoting small government, which by definition makes them right leaning, so your expert investigation was not necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not for small government. They are for big government handouts to their corporate masters, and ethics investigations of their master's competition and political opponents.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow, when you get tired of foaming at the mouth about evil Republican "corporate masters" that you read so much about on huffington post and daily kos, maybe you'll realize that Democrats get more money in political contributions from corporations than Republicans do. To take one example, Obama was the biggest recipient of donations from BP.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof?
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html [politico.com]
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_timothy__071011_corporate_donations_.htm [opednews.com]
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/democrats-rake-record-donations-corporations/story?id=9777742 [go.com]
Btw, since we are on the subject of Soros: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=589 [discoverthenetworks.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting the article you reference:
“President Obama didn’t accept a dime from corporate PACs or federal lobbyists during his presidential campaign,” spokesman Ben LaBolt said. “He raised $750 million from nearly four million Americans. And since he became president, he rolled back tax breaks and giveaways for the oil and gas industry, spearheaded a G20 agreement to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, and made the largest investment in American history in clean energy incentives.”
You may want to read what you cite before you cite it, to make sure it says what you think it says.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, ha, you are quoting the article's quote of Obama spokesman. Please read from the begining:
"While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.
BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to
Re: (Score:2)
It is no secret that corporations give more money to the candidate most likely to win. It's just good business. Whoever is in power gets the most money.
Re: (Score:2)
For the sake of argument lets suppose you are correct. Does that excuse the fact that right wing politicians are in bed with corporations, too?
Re: (Score:2)
How am I putting words in anyone's mouth by asking a simple question? I want to hear it from him, he can simply say "Yes, it is just as bad when Republicans do it."
Re: (Score:2)
I never said political donations from corporations are a bad thing, I am just pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Corporations are made out of people, employees and shareholders, that's it. If the shareholders, who own a corporation, wish to donate their money to a political candidate why on Earth shouldn't they be allowed to do so? If the executives who are hired by the shareholders to run the corporation give the money without shareholders approval, they are free to fire them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so you believe corporate control of our political process is a good thing, gotcha. You are actually happy that big corporations are giving money to liberal causes. I was confused about that. Because earlier, you made it seem like a bad thing.
Bush/Cheney and Halliburton (Score:2)
I don't see any evidence that this NLCP has ever called for investigating Halliburton [google.com]. Even though the Bush/Cheney corruption with Halliburton was catastrophic for the country and totally obvious.
This NLCP attack is the kind of rightwing propaganda is the kind known as false equivalence [google.com]. Rightwingers cook up some Democratic target to equate to some well known rightwing evildoer. The Clinton impeachment is a good example: Republicans live the legacy of Nixon resigning rather than face impeachment for very se
Re: (Score:2)
Doc! I haven't seen you in a while! Where you been?
Re: (Score:2)
Working. And taking time off while Slashdot's signal:noise ratio went through the floor. Now it's back on the floor, and worth wasting some time here.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you believe the NLPC is biased. What does any of it have to do with the NLPC's accusations? You didn't actually refute any of them.
You don't think an investigation is warranted if the president shows up at a top Google employee's home mere days before a major FTC probe is dismissed? Other countries continue to investigate Google, and Britain recently re-opened its probe. Why does Twitter get fined by the FTC but Google just promises to do better next time and avoids any punishment?
You're seriously
Re: (Score:2)
Of course an investigation is warranted. Lots of investigations are warranted. The things that actually get investigated tend to be the things that benefit someone wealthy. Why has the NLPC not called for an investigation of Halliburton?
The real question is, what have you got against Google and liberalism? It's in your sig. You have a specific beef with them. You pick and choose stories that make google and/or liberals look bad. You've never submitted a story railing against Microsoft, or Republicans. What'
Re: (Score:2)
How so?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You cite a breitbart website as proof? You might as well just make shit up. .. Oh, wait, you did!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Breitbart IS very jealous of Soros.
Re:This is just propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
On Slashdot, only right-wingers are evil puppetmasters. Left-wingers are enlightened, oppressed victims just trying to get the word out.
Just look at all the people who immediately rushed to Google's defense by attacking the NLPC while completely ignoring the points they raised in their letter about the timing of the FTC inquiry's dismissal, the inconsistent punishments handed out to companies other than Google, or the Google employees serving in the administration. To them, none of the accusations have any merit because of the NLPC's political leanings, even though they're refuting none of the accusations.
You cannot criticize Google on Slashdot. The posters have become fanatical about this company no matter how many privacy breaches there are or how many boneheaded statements Eric Schmidt makes. If it was any other company, people would be all over their asses. If Steve Jobs said only people who have something to hide care about privacy, it would be a months-long controversy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look at all the people who immediately rushed to Google's defense by attacking the NLPC...
I remember the vast majority of the defensive posts being entirely technical and not political. The issue was that Google used some modified version of a tool like tcpdump, dumped raw packets, and didn't strip packets that might contain http headers or other potentially identifiable information. Nobody has alleged that Google used this raw data for anything nefarious, and nobody appears to be arguing that it's collection was anything more than a simple programming oversight. The defensive posts generally bo
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really what I meant, the NLPC are more specifically an attack dog for the two founders, going after whichever politicians piss them off and whichever corporations compete with them. Yes, that happens to mean left wing politicians bear the brunt of their attacks, but obviously they go after corporations and right wing politicians they don't like, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck google. They are a big corporation who, like any corporation, would fuck its grandma for a buck.
Don't even try that shit with me, you punk ass AC.
what (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly how many unnecessary and costly (both in terms of money and lives) wars has Google profited off thus far?
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts." (Score:5, Interesting)
"Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."
So lets count them
Google vs. Microsoft (in search) - I'm going to f***ing bury Google
Google vs. Apple (smartphones)
Google vs. Facebook (social networking/open-ness)
Google vs. MPAA (YouTube)
Google vs. ATT/Verizon (FCC Spectrum Auction)
Google vs. Oracle (Java)
Google vs. Patent Office (Patent Reform)
Google vs. Author's Guild (copyright on orphan works)
The shame of it all is most if not all of those fights are worth fighting and very few others are stepping up to the plate.
Re:"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts." (Score:4, Insightful)
The interesting thing about that list is I would enlist on Google's side in every single one of them.
Google vs. Net neutrality, not so much.
Re:"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts." (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless they're lying through their teeth, I'm with Google. QoS is fine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, their CEO did not say that.
During an interview, aired on December 3, 2009 on the CNBC documentary "Inside the Mind of Google", Eric Schmidt was asked "People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?" His reply was: "I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
In other words, "you have nothing to fear from Government information requests if you have nothing hidden".
I understand your deep-rooted desire to demonize Google, but stop propagating falsehoods.
Political Parties = "Which Industry" (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's big news if Google has ties with the administration but it's just fine for an army of ex-RIAA critters to be nominated to high posts?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's big news if Google has ties with the administration, and no, it's not fine for an army of ex-RIAA critters to be nominated to high posts. Next question?
The Underground Twinkie Syndicate at Work Again (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, some less powerful people like Barack Obama and various world leaders attend but they're really just an audience for what is decided. Back when "Google" was getting its start, Larry and Sergey were actually installed by the Twinkie Syndicate to archive and modify all movies and books online to reflect Twinkies as a healthy, natural alternative to apples and other competing products. In doing so they restored order and the Twinkies once again began to flow.
This action, of course, was backed by the Corn Growers Association and the European based "Society for a Stupider, Fatter America" -- the same people responsible for the advent of Christianity in the Americas as well as cream.
Sure there were some unexpected side effects like GMail and Android
Don't be surprised if you hear news reports of my body found floating in the Potomac
Re: (Score:2)
What's up with all these black suburbans? One sec while I answer the door...
Re: (Score:2)
Just another non-profit, I'm sure (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me guess, "The National Legal and Policy Center" is a non-profit organization able to accept donations without needing to reveal the donors, isn't it? Probably with absolutely no political agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess, "The National Legal and Policy Center" is a non-profit organization able to accept donations without needing to reveal the donors, isn't it? Probably with absolutely no political agenda.
I bet they get most of their funding from Mark Zuckerburg.
Re:Just another non-profit, I'm sure (Score:5, Informative)
From Wikipedia:
The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is a right-leaning 501(c)(3) non-profit group that monitors and reports on the ethics of public officials, supporters of liberal causes, and labor unions in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Legal_and_Policy_Center [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
FAIL!
Quoting Wiki on anything even remotely political earns you 30 days in the corner wearing your Dunce hat.
Re:Just another non-profit, I'm sure (Score:4, Interesting)
I can get behind that. Wikipedia really is shit for anything political or otherwise controversial. It's really only useful for shit no one cares about.
Shit no one cares about (Score:2)
Then by definition shouldn't Wikipedia be out of operation already, because nobody cares to use it?
It's really only useful for shit no one cares about.
Re:Just another non-profit, I'm sure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
where the fuck these people were during bush era, and why didnt they call any inquiry to bush administrations BLATANT dealings with haliburton ?
In office?
Re: (Score:2)
They were participating in those deals. They had no interesting in bringing their own dirty dealings out into the light.
Re:And ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you saying that if the US president gets a company off the hook because, if the allegation is correct, they contributed money to him, it is ok as long as the previous president did the same thing? Plenty of people did call attention to Bush admin. dealings with Halliburton. These guys happen to be calling out Obama's dealings with Google.
nonsense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on waking up from your coma (and to the people who modded you up too).
When you've had a chance to actually catch up on the events of the Bush years, you'll find many people in fact *did* call for such inquiries.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Evidently you don't even know what you speaking of yourself. First, it's the administration's right to stack the appointments under him. It's true that they need approval from congress but that's it. The president selects them, submits them, and directs their actions. IF at any time, they didn't want to use Halliburton, they could have stopped. If at any time, they wanted to make it legally required to have a separation between government employees and businesses like Halliburton, they could have by executive policy order as well as asked congress to pass a law. They didn't.
thats it ?
if you bring someone that the other party is totally against, you cannot have it passed. hence, everyone has to pick a candidate that is acceptable by the other party under the guise of 'bipartisanship'. otherwise your candidate gets rejected, and you get into a standoff. that was the way the candidates were selected even by obama, supposedly a very leftist president. candidates are vetted even before they are selected as a lot, through unofficial channels in between the sides. this is the way
This is the real result of the election (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is the real result of the election (Score:5, Insightful)
They could have spent the last two years dragging everyone and anyone who was involved with the Bush administration's more questionable policies (wiretapping, suspending habeus corpus, extraordinary rendition, Halliburton, bogus intelligence and so forth) and probably had a PR field day tearing the ethics of their predecessors apart. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld alone would have been pure gold, and we'd all have been better for having the spotlights turned on the dark, dusty corners of that era.
But oh no. Either they were idiots and thought that, after eight years of dirty pool, the Republican party's powerbrokers would respond well to bipartisanship (you'd think they'd notice how that was going after six months?), or they were hoping to pull some of the same stuff, in which case they pissed away the moral high ground which would have served them pretty well a few days ago.
I swear, the Democrats have, certainly since Clinton and possibly since Kennedy, been completely spineless and cripplingly un-unified in the face of a much more disciplined Republican machine. How they managed to piss away the single biggest political advantage of all time in two years is astounding. How they've silenced their conscience (and anyone else on the Left who has one) is even more shameful
They really are past their sell-by date, and the few who have principles (Kucinich comes to mind) need to put some respectful distance between the rest of the chumps, endorse Nader (or someone like him) and start work on a progressive, thinking version of the Tea Party.
Re:This is the real result of the election (Score:4, Interesting)
The reason they didn't go after the Republicans is the same reason we didn't nuke Russia during the Cold War: mutually assured destruction. Start shining a flashlight into the dark corners of Washington politics and everyone is guilty. 2/3's of the administration would have ended up in jail, impeached, or at least publicly ridiculed over such an attempt. The Dems don't talk about or investigate Halliburton (except to regurgitate the talking heads' arguments ad nauseum) and the Republicans do not go after Democrats ties to labor unions (except as vague campaign promises that never lead to action).
There's similar quid pro quo deals all through Washington, unspoken but very real. The only thing that they can seem to agree on is the putting down of any upstart who won't play the game. Hence any real, honest politician is either corrupted into the system, or they cooperate to find/manufacture dirt about him and get him booted out of office. It's sickening.
Re:This is the real result of the election (Score:4, Insightful)
They could have spent the last two years dragging everyone and anyone who was involved with the Bush administration's more questionable policies (wiretapping, suspending habeus corpus, extraordinary rendition, Halliburton, bogus intelligence and so forth) and probably had a PR field day tearing the ethics of their predecessors apart.
First, a correction, the Democrats gained both houses in 2006, not 2008, so they could have started then... and as a member of the right, I WISH THEY WOULD HAVE. Not because the open partisanship would have cost them votes, because I don't think it would have given how reviled the right had become by 2006, but because we need an open an honest government. However, neither party wants that, they both want a closed, powerful government even if it means they take turns owning the keys.
Obama continued the Bush wiretaps, even "accidentally" extending them to domestic only calls [zdnet.com] and wants to extend it to the internet [sfgate.com]. Obama hasn't closed Gitmo, he's still practicing extraordinary rendition (which didn't started under GWB), Halliburton is still getting contracts (because they're one of only a handful of companies that does what they do), we still have problems with bad intelligence, etc.
I don't say that out of partisanship, I say it because Obama and Bush are relatively interchangeable in their practice of foreign policy (oh, sure, there are minor differences, but all the major policies are identical).
But oh no. Either they were idiots and thought that, after eight years of dirty pool, the Republican party's powerbrokers would respond well to bipartisanship (you'd think they'd notice how that was going after six months?), or they were hoping to pull some of the same stuff, in which case they pissed away the moral high ground which would have served them pretty well a few days ago.
Again, noting the above, there is one additional reason why they didn't... They were acting like Mark McGwire. Career batting average of .263, but you knew every time he got up to the plate, he was swinging for the fences, looking for that home run, or even better, grand slam. What do I mean?
Democrats have long been in love with socialized medicine... for the political leadership, it's the one thing they're missing in their dependency pie. Again, what do I mean? Every time a Democrat runs for office and is seriously challenged, what do they run on? "My opponent wants to starve your kids, kick your parents out of the nursing home, take away your childcare, etc." A HUGE portion of the Democrat bases votes Democrat on the fear that their precious entitlements would be taken away. By finally getting socialized medicine in place, it would have forced the working stiffs in the middle that traditionally vote Republican to vote for the party that would keep the handouts going.
So, they spent most of the first two years swinging for that grand slam. The bases were loaded - people already hated the Republicans, the Democrats occupied the White House and, most importantly, had large majorities in both houses of Congress. They came up to the plate, pointed to left field, swung and missed. The liberal Republicans weren't going to go along. They came up to the plate again and missed. This time the conservative Democrats weren't going to go along either. Then Ball 1, the Senate passed a bill in the middle of the night before Christmas break. Ball 2, the House would work on passing the Senate bill if they could get some fixes. Ball 3, they promise some meaningless stuff on abortion and to fix the bill's most glaring problems down the road, all while giving the crowd the finger. Democrats are standing at a full count. Finally, a homer down the left line! But wait! Now th
Collecting data (Score:5, Insightful)
Google only logged publicly accessible information. How is that a privacy violation? They didn't attempt to crack any encrypted sessions. It seems rather unfair to hold them accountable because of someone else's lax security. Consider the amount of information that other, older data mining companies have on us, what Google did was nothing to be bothered by.
Re: (Score:2)
That was my thought on the whole thing as well. If you are stupid enough to broadcast your private data over public airwaves without encryption, you deserve what you get.
It sounds like they really wanted just the MACs for the APs anyway, so they probably ignored everything else, but you need a packet to get the MAC.
It didn't seem unreasonable to me to log a bunch of data, then just go through it later to grab the MAC and line it up with GPS data.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In some states, walking down the street with a tape recorder would be illegal. I know that Pennsylvania is one such state. We have very strict wiretapping laws, arguably the most strict in the union. Google operates in our state and may have to answer to a number of felony charges.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Google is scary. They keep showing us how powerful collected data can be. It's the public's view in to that world and it's frightening. Some members of that public start thinking about all the projects Google is involved with and all the additional data that goes through their systems and their even more frightened. Then they go to post about that fear on Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not legal to trespass into someone's home just because the door was unlocked. The constant defense of Google's blatant disregard for privacy is pretty shocking considering how vehemently pro-privacy this website used to be a few years ago. It seems privacy today only matters to people if it protects them from RIAA lawsuits.
Re:Collecting data (Score:4, Informative)
It's not legal to trespass into someone's home just because the door was unlocked.
Which is not at all what Google did. Your wireless router transmits data into public space (the street). Anyone is free to collect that data. Don't like it? Paint your house in RF-blocking paint or don't use wireless!
Re: (Score:2)
In order to have a real violation of an expectation of privacy, some sp
Dem Johns vs. GOP Johns (Score:2)
Though both parties are basically the same old same old, you have to hand it to the Dems--they have cooler masters: Hollywood, Google, and Apple.
Compare R's: US Chamber of Commerce. Bo-ring.
Re:Dem Johns vs. GOP Johns (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but Republicans smoke cigars in dimly-lit conference rooms. That is classy as fuck.
Errors in summary (Score:5, Informative)
Democratic fundraiser at Google CEO Marissa Meyer's home
Eric Schmidt might be surprised to find that Google has a new CEO ;)
I know this is Slashdot, but could we get basic facts right in the summary? Marissa Mayer is a Google VP, not the CEO
I know, I must be new here...
Let no good deed go unpunished (Score:5, Insightful)
The wi-fi situation wasn't a case of Google "getting caught" - it was a case of them noticing the data being collected had more than they had wanted and being up front and open about its disclosure. And in the latter case, it's basically never a good idea to prosecute as it shows good faith, and attacking people for good faith effort only encourages bad faith. Nobody in their right mind wants that!
We provide technology solutions. Despite all our care and attention otherwise, mistakes get made. And when they do, it's our policy just to say what happened, how we fixed it, and whether or not we think it violates TOS. This simple act creates trust and goodwill because by casually acknowledging that your pants were down in the first place, everybody realizes that they're just happy you pulled them back up and quickly lose interest.
Glad to see... (Score:2)
That the insane are still running about and blabbering their mouths.
Let's ignore that every other country has found that google did not wrong and dropped the issue.
Has the economy made the nutjobs all riled up? Why have they came out of the woodwork over the past 2 years? Previously we would all have wrote off these kinds of people as complete nut-jobs and publicly ridiculed them.... Now they get airtime on Fox News. And we get 1/2 hour talking head discussions....
Next up on CNN: Is Obama the secret #
I thought it was Eric Schmidt (Score:2)
Since when is Marissa Meyer google's CEO?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much. The United States of Corporations is alive and well!
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, singling them out? This is a technology site, so technology companies like Google are often the topic of discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, singling them out? This is a technology site, so technology companies like Google are often the topic of discussion.
Read your own sig, then you tell us what you think he means.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm..... I think you need to at least understand what you read before you criticize it. The article states that Marissa Meyer is an "executive". All upper level business administrators, such as a vice president, are executives. executive != chief exective
Re: (Score:2)
The summary is where the incorrect title appears: "fundraiser at Google CEO Marissa Meyer's home."