What we need is to quit yapping and actually start resisting the surveillance society. -- Starting with Google and Facebook,...
Erm, yeah. Already done that. I choose not to use Google's services. I choose not to use Facebook. Or MSN. Or Skype. I can, and do, opt out of all of these services, largely because I don't think the benefits offered overcome the invasion of my privacy.
Thing is, I can't opt out of the government surveillance; the only choice is to attempt to get the government to change its decision that such surveillance is constitutional and/or beneficial.
I don't buy that collecting all the data on U.S. cititzens is consistent with the Constitution, regardless whatever oversights or limitations may be in place concerning the querying of the resultant database.
While US copyright law is clear that works of the federal government are not covered by copyright, that's not the case for state or local governments.
I should think that all laws enacted by such legislatures qualify as "works for hire" (i.e., a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment, USC 17 §101) and thus copyright ownership belongs to the employers (i.e., the taxpayers).
We should at least be granted access to it. Why should we have to pay for services such as Dropbox or Mega when all those files are being stored in a taxpayer-funded facility? Why should foundations such as Archive.org have to spend millions hosting a few dozen terabytes of data when we've are paying for the government to store hundreds of millions times that amount?
Also, what law authorizes the government to make copies of all of the copyrighted works that invariably end up being stored on these servers?
These bold "for the children" statements ignored the fact that both ISPs and search engines already actively block illegal images and supply info on these images to investigative agencies.
The problem is that ISPs and search engines are currently doing this voluntarily. It would be much better (for overly repressive governments) if they were forced to do so by law; that way, when it is decided that other types of content should also be censored, the legal mechanism will be in place to do so.
I imagine Clapper "bluntly" told the House Intelligence Committee members about his knowledge of the dealers who provide them with cocaine once a month, about their weekly trysts with the nubile interns, and about the numbered, offshore accounts which receive semi-annual deposits from defense contractors.
It is possible for a switch/router to determine the length of a cable connected to one of its ports using time-domain reflectometry (I just bought a switch that does this to minimize power consumption). One might even call this TDR approach as measuring a "ping delay", though this would not be the same as an ICMP "ping".
Even still, the only way Wally's point would matter is if the intranet connecting to the Google router was itself a token ring. I don't see this as a likelihood -- why would Google require their customers run a token ring network (and purchase specialized hardware) when nearly all commodity hardware and software is designed for ethernet?
Why couldn't you have just one device, a multi-port switch, connected to the MAU box and thus (by connecting all of your intranet workstations to the switch) maintain full gigabit access to the internet?