Could an Erasable Internet Kill Google? 210
zacharye writes "As Google's share price soars beyond $1,100, it seems like nothing can stop the Internet juggernaut as its land grab strategies continue to win over the eyes of its users and the wallets of its advertising clients. But an analysis published over this past weekend raises an interesting question surrounding a new business model that could someday lead to Google's downfall. Do we want an erasable Internet?"
Will Google end when I get superpowers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the odds of me getting super powers and destroying Google are the same as companies choosing not to store data. They will either openly admit to it like Facebook and Google, or they'll just lie and do it anyway.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
See subject.
Expanding though. Erasable internet is a very very small segment of internet data traffic. The whole point of something being erasable is that is only to be seen by one particular recipient. Given we are here on Slashdot, while logged into facebook, reading our email demonstrates pretty easily that ephemeral internet activities only make a tiny percentage of the total data.
We are still going to shop, browse, email, and post. Erasable internet is irrelevant to this.
IRC (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's so bad about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
With absolutely nothing pushing the pendulum in the direction of increased privacy, I'm for an erasable Internet, just because nothing else is there to push in that direction. Governments love the info. Companies love it. People don't have the power or voice to state anything. So, it is obvious when someone comes along that sort of guarantees [1] a picture will disappear, people will flock to that service en masse since they are so tired of a large, WORM database. Post a pic on FB, it is there forever. Post it on a website, reputable search engines will slurp it up. Use robots.txt and a hidden URL, it gets slurped up anyway unless there is some type of active authentication.
A company that makes a peer to peer protocol to send encrypted messages where the key comes from multiple clients (and each client will not send the piece after the expiration date) is going to make money. People do want privacy, but it so incredibly hard to get that. If I wanted to send a photo to someone, and physically travelling is out of the picture, I'd have to get with them, set up gpg, then send it via that. Or, copy it onto offline media and snail mail it. Some firm that uses decent cryptography will make a mint just assuring people that a conversation has a high chance of staying stays private and vanishing after it was done.
[1]: How long the pic really remains on the company's server is a question, but to people, it is off the record.
Re:What's so bad about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
There have been previous discussions about a "right to be forgotten [slashdot.org]." It is hard to say what sort of traction it will ever get.
I'm sure it will become a popular idea with recent college grads that enjoyed partying with friends that had camera phones, as well as hooligans. But it already can be pretty difficult to track down some things, especially since the search engines started limiting how many pages they will retrieve for a search (at least for the general public). Even if you can remove a document from one place, it can often be found in another. How do you get them all? It would take a fair amount of work.
Against the "right to be forgotten" there is also the continuing erosion of useful information from various sites. There are some things that are disappearing from the internet even if you can find documents that mention them. Servers go away, files are lost, purges occur because "nobody would ever want that, it's old!" There are a lot of factors involved in this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, as I said before I consider it a workaround not a solution.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it will become a popular idea with recent college grads that enjoyed partying with friends that had camera phones, as well as hooligans.
...and then companies will start creating their own collections of publicly available photos. :)
a better outcome would be accepting parties as a good thing
Re: (Score:3)
a better outcome would be accepting parties as a good thing :)
Never happen.
We are currently raising a generation of kids who are going to be in for a rude awakening one day, and have to learn the hard way that documenting every aspect of your life for the world to see can backfire in a multitude of ways.
Re:What's so bad about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of an erasable internet is laughable.
If you post your personal information to someone else's server, then you have lost control of it... end of story.
You can never be sure of what then happens to it regardless of what laws are in place or proposed.
Apart from not having any guarantees of the character of the corporations/employees/contractors/technicians that have access to the data you post, you also have no idea whether the data is being intercepted and stored for later decryption by government/hackers/criminal organizations.
Moral of story... if users of the internet really give a damn about their online privacy they should take a little more responsibility for the "information" they spew.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded down?
Since when are car analogies not appreciated anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
If you could find a way to show them that "right to be forgotten" was intimately tied to them getting laid, drunk, or high more often - then you'd have a chance.
I don't see how it's tied to them doing those things more often.
What it is tied to is those things not still haunting them 2 decades down the road.....
Re: (Score:3)
I'm for an erasable Internet, just because nothing else is there to push in that direction.
The problem is that an erasable Internet can only ever work with locked down hardware, incompetent users or a government censored Internet. And even with locked down hardware stuff like Snapchat would quickly lose it's point once Google Glass becomes more popular and you can just snap photos of your phone with your Glass. If anything, I see the future heading in the complete opposite direction. Record everything, all the time. A $100 3TB drive will already record a year or two of non-stop video in 360p@30.
Re: (Score:2)
It can possibly work on a P2P basis. About a year ago on /., a cryptographer made a decent way to have parts [1] of a key for encrypted data be stored on a number of machines, and accessible only until the time expired. If a few machines still offered the key, it was still no dice -- it would take a majority of the machines to be compromised to get the expired key back and recovered.
However, once assembled and the document decrypted, the user can do with it what they feel like. In reality, software on th
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A company that makes a peer to peer protocol to send encrypted messages where the key comes from multiple clients (and each client will not send the piece after the expiration date) is going to make money.
This has nothing at all do to with an erasable internet. You've described a system where someone has a time limit to view information, and if they fail to view it then it's destroyed. Anything that can be seen or heard can also be copied, so once it's decrypted and visible it no longer matters that there's a time limit.
Some firm that uses decent cryptography will make a mint just assuring people that a conversation has a high chance of staying stays private and vanishing after it was done.
This is not possible. You do not have control over the recipient's system so there is no way to ensure it's actually erased. It doesn't matter how much encryption or protection you use on a m
Definitely Not (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly, I think the impact on society of governments and organizations to rewrite history or remove history from the internet is a much more frightening concept than people being able to google your name and find out you were a twerp in your younger years.
Makes assumption that erasable internet possible (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think you can ask that question at all without first discussing if an "erasable internet" is even possible.
You know how data likes to be free? Well, it turns out it really enjoys being stored also.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the free/stored dual nature of data; which can be easily proven by passing data through a very narrow slit.
Re: (Score:2)
Both questions are useful. The question of whether an erasable internet is desirable is a separate one. Only a complete fucking idiot, asshole, or evil fuck would think so, however. Victors already write the history books, you want them to erase history as well?
There are two positive effects which come from the internet never forgetting. One, we will learn (eventually) that things are never forgotten, and learn to act accordingly. Two, we will learn (also eventually) that we are more the same than different
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can ask that question at all without first discussing if an "erasable internet" is even possible.
Snapchat proves that it's not only possible, but that it's also a rather popular idea.
User ID represents comment accuracy? (Score:2)
Snapchat proves that it's not only possible,
You mean the one that various apps and workaround exist for to keep the supposedly deleted content?
Yeah, bonehead.
Re: Makes assumption that erasable internet possib (Score:4, Interesting)
Real time dynamically changing content. What I see on website X at 1:38:25 pm, is 100% differet from what you see at 1:39:25 pm
That is not realistically going to happen of course. In reality most things change on a more life-like pace that is easily archivable for anyone that cares, or even those that just collect for the sake of collection.
But even in your presented case, you don't have to archive every iteration. Just snapshots, or trends, or some kind of summary about what was and how it shifted. There is always the possibility of storing some permeable shadow of a thing, no matter how often you try to change it.
One last thought; the saying "the more things change, the more they stay the same" exists for a very valid reason...
No. This headline is stupid. (Score:2)
The article doesn't mention any downfall of Google. The whole idea is a false dichotomy. Why can't both types of content exists. Oh, wait, they already do.
Just because something is erasable doesn't mean it has to be erased. Most useful content wants to be found. Erasing that content would be stupid.
Google's job is to help people find that content. There is a lot of competition to be found by google. I don't see the ABILITY to erase content an issue for Google.
Just because there are types of content like s
Re:No. This headline is stupid. (Score:5, Interesting)
They recently rolled out [pcmag.com] a fun new feature:
"If you're a Snapchat aficionado, it's worth your while to check out some of the app's enhancements, for they include a brand-new "Replay" feature that now allows you to re-view one of your previously viewed Snapchats a second time. Perhaps you didn't have your Snapchat screenshotting app ready to go the first time (or, worse, your physical camera).
Snapchat does build in a few caveats with the Replay feature. For starters, it doesn't appear as if you can close the app down and reopen it to view a previously viewed Snapchat. Any replay action you do has to be in one, singular instance — which eliminates our "load your screenshot app up" example from above. Additionally, you only get one Replay each day. Make it good.
Interestingly enough, Snapchat doesn't notify the party that sent you the original Snapchat that you've elected to view it a second time. That might be useful information for a sender to know, for no particular reason whatsoever (wink). "
Well, well. you mean to say that those magic disappearing 'snaps' don't actually magically disappear, it's just a couple of permission bits getting twiddled on the server and the client doing a (generally sloppy) job of deleting the local copy? Wow, you'll tell me that 'streaming a video' is actually the same as 'downloading it in ordered chunks and starting to watch the first ones while you wait for the rest' and not something magically different...
If anything, to be able to enable this 'feature' after the fact, snapchat is clearly storing much, much, more than their service would theoretically require (the 'snap' would have to live server-side until delivery; but could be purged immediately thereafter. It isn't.) They may be tapping into a desire for ephemeral communication that somebody like Google doesn't; but it's a facade, a deliberate deception to encourage people to put more sensitive information into the same giant pool of ever cheaper storage with some dubious path to 'monetization'.
Re: (Score:2)
Not NSA erasible (Score:2)
Nice idea but flawed...
Until we outlaw the NSA-Military-Corporate-Industrial Government's ability to do their "Big Data Spying" in the name of "security" no application / service will elude the rooms where they scrape your data & mail before it hits your application.
No mention of that in the article... but then you would not expect real reporting from a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch
Do we want an erasable Internet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we have it?
No.
Wisdom goes that there are no stupid questions. This, however, is as close as you can get.
Wrong. (Score:2)
Google already provides this service, to the appropriate clients.
Just serach for Soros and ###ACK ###80x805 Disconnect
Re: (Score:2)
It's happened before. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you dry up the source of information that has allowed Google to dominate Internet search then it would hurt them financially. The biggest fear for them would be tougher privacy laws. Right now the Class Action E-Mail/Wiretapping case [lexology.com] doesn't look too good for them so there may be some changes in the future for gmail users. The NSA fiasco with Snowden means that more people are asking pointed questions and Google and all the others who make money off of your personal data have to do a little walk on the tightrope. On one side they've pushed legislators away from enacting tougher privacy laws but now they're information has been hacked by the NSA yet they condemn that. The only reason Google exists is that it can mine information efficiently. Throw a few lawsuits and some new legislation into that mix and it suddenly gets very cloudy for them. Take a look at Google Glass for example, [huffingtonpost.com] right now the thought of millions of people with always on cameras can become quite disturbing especially since you don't know where those images are going or what they may be used for. Sure there's the augmented reality take on it, but how will society take to it in the long run?
Re:It's happened before. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand your point. Unless Google fully becomes it's own ISP there will always be somebody in the middle of your network access. The big problem for them is that they don't want to be branded as a communication company or a telco and in order to play the game with the various state and local governments. Licensed monopolies like AT&T and Verizon exist because they paid the fees (licenses) up front in order to deliver services to the customers. Google coming in and just wanting to s
Re: (Score:2)
They have gotten quite good at this; but getting the data they need is not automatic. They need to draw users in to their own properties, sell site admins on their analytics tools and adsense, and generally build both their surveillance/tracking capacity and their ad delivery capacity.
Your ISP, by contrast, is the one who delivers your requests to th
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy laws won't hurt Google much because everyone else will be in the same boat. They are an advertising company, there will still be a market for ads, it's just that targeting them will be harder. Harder for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Given the fact that Google copied millions of books without any regard of the law, I'd say there's little reason to believe they will respect privacy when appropriate laws are put into place.
FUD bullshit (Score:2)
Google did not copy millions of books with little regard for the law. They were found by a court of law to have fully complied with the law. They copied millions of books *LEGALLY*. They followed copyright law. They may have gone right up to the edge of the law, but they respected it and did not cross it.
Re: (Score:2)
If a court was dumb enough to regard spam filtering and ad targeting as "wiretapping" then what it would mean is that Gmail users would suddenly get (a) flooded with spam (but there would be no better place to go to) and (b) become expected to pay for their accounts, which means handing over credit card details, which include things like your full name and billing address. Be careful what you wish for!
Re: (Score:2)
If you dry up the source of information that has allowed Google to dominate Internet search then it would hurt them financially.
Yes but that is a wholly different matter than "making data erasable". It just means there is some data Google could not get to - directly...
No such thing. (Score:3)
If it's publicly viewable, it's archivable, which means someone will archive it, particularly if no one else is, so it's not erasable.
Obligatory (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That might be interesting if: (a) somebody didn't reference the law every time they see a headline ending with a question mark (i.e. every couple of minutes) - I assume to look intelligent; and (b) if it were actually true. Did you know that any headline ending in a question mark can also be answered 'yes'? Or even, shock, 'maybe', or even more shocking 'possibly'?
What we need is Google health care.... (Score:4, Funny)
What we need is Google health care. This tonsillectomy sponsored by advil.
Re:What we need is Google health care.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Google healthcare would boil down to "This node is uneconomic to repair, it has been sent for recycling and a failover node whose internet browsing habits most closely resemble those of the failed node has been dispatched to replace it. If any of your personal or professional relationships depended on the failed node, please try refreshing your browser."
Obligatory XKCD (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A tax on advertising, though... (Score:5, Interesting)
The House Ways and Means Committee is considering making advertising non-deductable as a business expense. [adweek.com] That would take a bite out of Google.
There are good arguments for a tax on advertising. Most Americans are "spent out"; they're spending almost everything they earn. The US personal savings rate is near an all-time low of 2%. In that situation, advertising can't create new demand. It's just a war between advertisers. So that's a good place to tax.
Re: (Score:2)
When it doesn't affect you, anything is a good place to tax.
But forget the corps, how many small business jobs will be lost? Printers who print those ad-ridden placemats for diners, how about business cards? Will signmakers take a hit too? Not to mention those who put up billboards or shoot and act in TV or radio adverts. And I'm sure the USPS will fall even faster in the red and iirc, they are the nations largest nonmilitary employer.
You might as well argue that Americans are spent out, it's just a war
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on what your goals for a taxation system are, that's downright terrible. I agree with wiping out income tax, but not all capital gains tax. (I would eliminate capital gains tax on investments that produce new wealth - like profit made off buying new machines to
Re: (Score:2)
We need a limit on the number of people in a corporation.
There's too much stuff inside google that would be much more valuable when open to the general market.
The situation has an analogy in modular programming: imagine one module having 1,000,000 lines of code. Not good.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've got your business practices backwards. Making advertising non-deductible would raise prices for consumers. Right now it is a cost of doing business and, in smaller cases*, a charitable gift (think of advertising on the back of little league t-shirts, or at your local [insert favorite] event. By being a cost of doing business it's tax deductible. Presuming that advertising doesn't drop (unlikely), that will just increase the cost of doing business.*
*For S Corps, charitable contributions flow t
Re: (Score:2)
But the real reason it won't happen is because it's a dumb idea. Like any other tax, the cost will simply be passed through to the consumer.
I wonder if that's true.
Imagine product A and B. Both cost $5.
But now a tax on advertising is introduced.
Product A uses advertising and now costs $10
Product B uses no advertising, and still costs $5.
Which product will you buy?
pointless question (Score:4, Insightful)
There will never be an erasable internet.
only when the majority cares .... (Score:2)
More importantly... (Score:2)
Could an erasable internet kill Google? (Score:2)
As it stands, the human race is the accumulation of human experiences (from our inherent interest in exploration, all the way down to what we put in our food and why). This information is integrated into the fabric of our consciousness, and when looked at from a global perspective, shows that evolution is actually going on. It's a bio-logic sense-making intelligence that needs nothing other than the human cor
Re: (Score:2)
The answer: Yes, an erasable internet would kill the whole internet, of which Goolge is a part.
You're assuming it's an either/or situation....
There are lots of resources on the Internet that would make no sense to make "erasable".
However, you could completely wipe both Facebook and Twitter out of existence, and neither the Internet as a whole, or the human race, would suffer for it.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't have an erasable Internet (Score:2)
There is no such thing as DRM, and apps to save "unsaveable" Snapchat images are legion.
This is a fool's quest, and whoever wrote this WSJ piece is woefully ignorant of their subject.
We already have an erasable internet (Score:2)
Google just puts you inside a bubble. That effectively erases the rest of the internet.
Patently absurd (Score:2)
The Recording and movie industries have spent decades trying to make an erasable Internet. In their fruitless endeavor they have been joined by countless embarrassed companies, politicians and countries. There is no such thing as an erasable Internet, and there never will be. The Internet isn't a single entity, it is an ecosystem made up of billions of parts with vastly different political, religious and personal views. None of which takes into account the crazy people, the Internet is full of crazy people,
Permanence Is Better (Score:3)
I'm not interested in an erasable Internet. The beauty of the Internet is how it saves data, conversation, ideas across time and makes them accessible to people now and in the future. The Internet is a repository of knowledge. Sure you have to filter out garbage, but that has always been the case since we first evolved memories.
The future of the internet is everything being safely and securely stored and accessible.
Is Unix Dead? (Score:2)
Will Martians Invade?
Is Pope Catholic?
Will Made-Ya-Look News Ever Cease
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on Slashdot.
And keep in mind AC has seen everything, commented on almost everything. This one really takes the cup.
Re:Rubbish. (Score:5, Funny)
This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on Slashdot.
Hi, you must be new here.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You haven't been here long enough to see two stories in a row posted on the same story, by the same editor.
I am pretty sure AC has seen that many, many times.
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true at all! Very often I'm looking for the answer to something and it was discussed in a forum back in 2007 or 2000 even... and now that human knowledge is forever passable to whoever needs it, when they need it. Humanities greatest achievement is inventing something that remembers for us. We're terrible at it.
Re: No, it would improve Google searches (Score:2, Interesting)
Well I sure wouldn't mind it if Google would stop bugging me about using my real name... And no I do not want to be part of Google+ for the 10,000th time. I've already stopped using YouTube after it twice cleverly forced all of my comments to use my real name.
Stop being evil, Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not true at all! Very often I'm looking for the answer to something and it was discussed in a forum back in 2007 or 2000 even... and now that human knowledge is forever passable to whoever needs it, when they need it. Humanities greatest achievement is inventing something that remembers for us. We're terrible at it.
But more commonly you end up wasting an hour trying to follow some outdated or obsolete advice.
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:4, Interesting)
internet is already erasable..
but what _could_ kill google would be some law that stated that you couldn't make use of caches of sites... since , uhm, that's what it would take to change the current erasable internet into even more erasable, by somehow forcing people to not keep copies.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, back in the days that Google started, I never opted-in for any automated service to crawl and cache my site's data.
Yes, you did (Score:3)
Yes, you did. You publicly posted your stuff on the internet. You opted in to EVERYONE crawling and caching your site's data. (Yes, every browser caches your site in local memory in order to render it). Google takes the high road and obeys robots.txt in case you change your mind and don't want automated crawlers to read your site. Not everyone gives you that option.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit assumptions about "old information" being anything 3 years or older.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously if Google does their job right old stuff won't appear in your results if you are searching for new stuff unless the new stuff is using the same names (in which case the person who came up with the new stuff is being stupid).
The real noise is the link spam crap.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"have left Windows Server 2008 R2"
Are you having a larf? Most of our systems have only just left Server 2003. At least 2008 has a functioning GUI wheras with S2012 MS wants you to manage everything remotely. A lot of our Server apps will never ever support MS Remote App managment and use a local gui to setup their config and operations. For some apps we deliberately disable remote access because of security concerns. Yeah I know that this sounds silly but these systems are used by people who are not use
Re: (Score:2)
The ~20% price hike did put a damper on things, but at least it is up front.
I'd definitely move any servers to RHEL [1] if given the option, but be aware it will cost about the same amount as Windows server software, especially if you use xfs in a supported manner, and you will need to pay yearly.
I agree about the remote access. The fewer ways a box can be hit by untrusted parties, the better.
Of course, W2012 and W2012R2 do bring some nice features (better filesystem and LVM replacement, deduplication, aut
Re: (Score:2)
The real noise is the link spam crap. When I search for stuff I get pages with my search terms but nothing else but ads or nothing related. Or worse I get unrelated pages without my search terms at all.
It used to be you could require that results contain a term by using +"term", but it doesn't work any more.
Basically, Google is now being more "helpful" in returning results that seem to match, but don't really.
Re: (Score:3)
Use quotes around words, or enable "verbatim results" in the options. The + thing was misunderstood and misused by most users, and they figured experts could RTFM.
Re: (Score:2)
Quotes around words doesn't guarantee you get that exact string. For example "LGA 2011" and "LGA2011" sometimes return results with the other version as the only one on the page. I think it's a "synonym" for Google, so they return both. Granted, with quotes, you get the version you type much more often than the other.
I hadn't known about "Verbatim", but it's a still a pain to have to change the results after you see them. It would be nice to have something I could type in the search box. I might be abl
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you've never had to work with anything but the most recent releases of software.
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you are so young you were never forced to do research for a high school or College paper without the internet. You know those books and Encyclopedias 'older than 3 years are noise and rot that nobody has any use for' yet they were available and useful for a century before the internet appeared.
This does not address anything I wrote. Work on your reading comprehension!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds plausible. Still -- one man's junk is another man's treasure
Archive.org is invaluable for this reason alone.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is close to unusable unless you manually set it to show recent results. Old stuff on the internet is mostly noise and rot.
I bet more than 95% of everything older than 3 years is noise and rot that nobody has any use for.
obvious troll is obvious
Re:No, it would improve Google searches (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This may make me sound old but before Google was around the Internet was much much smaller and search engines pretty much SUCKED. Searching was (and sometimes still is) a skill/art. Sure search engines and directories got incrementally better at first and then Google blew them all out of the water.
Feel free to use another search site. Nobody is forcing you to use Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because equipment you bought a year ago is garbage and needs to be thrown away and destroyed so that others do not have to suffer with it.
MOST results I am looking for are 3-5 years old, Just Tuesday I was searching and found information to make a very old USB framegrabber work under linux. I know heresy making old things work again, how dare I steal money from the corporate overlords like that....
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong.
Without the "old internet " hanging around, we'd all have forgotten Chris Burke's wonderful Bobcat Ranching advert.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1280423&cid=28457651 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with this poorly moderated parent.
The problem we have on the internet isn't privacy, but data longevity. It isn't that you tweeted or had an unfortunate picture posted on face book. But the fact that it just goes around and lasts forever which causes the damage.
Searching on Google for the most part you are looking for updated information about something... While there is some historical stuff for the most part you are trying to find the newest information.
Do you really need to search for se
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be pretty but the older stuff is often where the solid information is - a lot of the new stuff is noise with little long term value.
All I know is I want to leave Google as soon as possible. Bing is not an alternative and no other players seem to have the ability to compete. It's getting harder and harder to find stuff with Google search, it makes way way too many assumptions about my searches. Terms with multiple meanings are all but useless if you're not looking for the "popular" term. Image
Re: (Score:2)
The horse has to actually want that themselves.
No... you can lead them to privacy; no problem.
The trouble is; Facebook built a cage around privacy, all except a small sample jar, so even if the horse wants some, (s)he's going to have great trouble contorting around the bars of the cage, just to successfully get a small sip at most.
Re:You can't lead a horse to privacy. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand all the bitchin about facebook privacy when USA still has pretty much no laws at all on personal databases and sales of them.
you want the real privacy problem? that you can't ask in usa what data a company has on you. that they don't need to publish what they do with the data. that they can sell your SSN.
yet people bitch about one single company that only has data you wanted to post for other people to see...
Re: (Score:2)
you can't ask in usa what data a company has on you
Of course not, that would be a breach of corporate privacy. The real privacy problem is that people are attempting to define things as private that they have already made public, also the fact that it would be difficult to function in the modern world without giving certain information to corporations and the government, eg: try buying a house or an expensive car in cash and see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
You hit the nail on the head. Where this comes into play is the criminal justice "system". Someone arrested, as soon as they are booked, the info goes into hundreds, if not thousands of separate, public databases. Even if it is a case of someone using an alias or mistaken identity, those hundreds of databases now have that info in them, and just one being wrong can hose up someone's future chances at a job forever (good luck finding which one too.)
Re: (Score:2)
Th
Re: (Score:3)
"Memory" is critical to the operations of NSA in their war against United States Citizens.
Lies. They don't limit themselves to United States Citizens.