No no no guys. This is just Pelosi charming her knowledgeable constituents after she was side-swiped this past weekend, for unethical trading practices. It is just more theatre.
Always question why they may feel this way. For politicians such as her, there is more than likely an ulterior motive. Or maybe I'm wrong and certain key players didn't offer enough money for her to sign the bill and she is holding out for that, and will give it an 'aye' with spoken intentions of 'correcting the issues with the bill later.'
I don't appreciate the way you responded to a general inquiry with a personal attack. Of course I thought of those ideas. I discuss it in other posts here in fact.
There would be no problem if what Google was doing were looking for open wifi hotspots in business areas where people congregate. However, it seems pointless because most of these places advertise having wifi access and therefore, the role of Google is negated in commercial places.
The idea where you propose that someone need to find if there is wifi in the area can do so from the wifi device without Google as well.
Creating infographics of wifi dispersion could possibly be interesting from a trivial standpoint but mostly useless in application.
I have thought of all the ideas you mentioned as well as others for being possible justifications for Google triangulating access points, but all of them are either useless or are providing fixes for problems that don't exist. So in essence, everything you mentioned isn't a problem for people. Also, notice how I didn't resort to personal attacks to make my claim. Next time, leave your personal attacks at the door when responding. Rather than embarrass me, it only makes you seem unable to thoughtfully respond.
In response to your only point, as I stated previously, courts have ruled in favor of privacy in open window cases.
Say you are walking down the street and glance over and oops, your neighbor is changing clothes stupidly in front of an open window. No big deal, because you kept walking. The only problem was them.
In the same scenario, say that you stop to take a picture of your naked neighbor. Now you have crossed the line and have violated the privacy of your neighbor by 'capturing the moment'. In the same respect, google was looking into your wifi network and saving data. I wish I could cite an example right now but I'm limited to my phone at the moment so I'll dig something up later if you are interested.
Note that I'm not truly advocating seeking such a claim against Google. I only offered that for arguments sake.
Right, and I don't disagee that it's legal or that Google was intending to map wifi access points while taking the photos.
However, first and foremost, the only reasonable way to triangulate a router location is to intercept packets from it and use the times from the packets to measure a distance. For Google to say that they didn't intend to intercept packetsis deceptive at best and flat out lying at worst. True enough that Google likely had no intent for using anting the snooped but the certainl intended to intercept. True also that these packets came from unsecured networks and the people using them have no real privacy because of that in this case. Although, I could argue that peeping tom laws could potentially be applied in some crazy aspect. Say, I live in a rural area with no houses around, and I'm standing naked by my window; you take my picture run off. While I'm definitely breaking exposure laws, it's been ruled that I have a right to privacy in my home from people who wish to snoop.
Secondly, the issue I take with this situation is not that they unintentionally packet snooped some emails and passwords, it's that they intercepted packets to begin with. No, it isn't likely to be found illegal but it makes me question what the use would be for knowing where wifi networks are located. In the case of a Panera Bread or a Starbucks, they don't need to triangulate anything because they know where the hotspot is just by using their eyes to read the network I'd and to see the store loation. What use do they have knowing private network locations?
Mike, generally I agree with your view point on the issues you discuss but I will have to differ on this.
I drive down city streets all of the time, occasionally even with a laptop open with the wifi antenna still on. I have yet to see any packets just happen to get saved to my computer though. I don't dispute that the information gained is meaningless at best to a giant company. However, in in what potential use does Google have to triangulating every wireless router? As your example in a previous post, Panera Bread is a wifi hotspot for customers and that is something that could be useful overlayed onto Google maps. Driving down private streets on the other hand, what use would Google have to know where privately owned (even if stupidly unencrypted and public by ignorance)?
You never seem to justify what use having a ccompletely mapped wifi overlay of the world would be. I am more interested in that than how Google happened to intercept packets that include emails and passwords.
I never claimed it was true and honestly wasn't sure but rather hopeful that rubber bullets would be used. It is of my opinion that using regular ammunition is extremely dangerous in use on a pressurized aircraft. Small punctures to the shell of the plane main body are no big deal. However, the thinness of the body also allows the bullet to travel through the skin at a continued high rate of velocity and into the fuel tanks located in the wings if improperly aimed and fired or at a close enough range, through a window which will depressurize the cabin extremely quickly, and almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out.
I'm the AC that discussed guns on planes. The point I was making is precisely the point being made by Brandon.
I am certainly not an apologist of the situation. In fact, I think 9/11 has led to people being less safe. Consider that people have less freedoms as a result of 9/11 and many are constantly monitored by the government for no apparent reason (look to the CA man that found the tracking device). The justice system has eroded away the Bill of Rights to shameful and in my opinion, criminal lengths.
Also consider that while people appeared to be less hesitant to take down a suspect person initially after the attack, the government has since instituted an elaborate theatre of security. This gives the indication that the TSA would, in fact, be able to stop most if not all future attacks that would be accomplished with airplanes or airports. Because of this, people are certainly much less likely to be vigilant if they see security everywhere and assume everything must be under control. However, to prove this point, several different situations have occured where people were able to smuggle the necessary items to assemble a small explosive on board the plane since 2001 and the TSA was unable to detect anything to stop them.
The TSA is useless and has also caused the public to be useless in this instance too. I think you need to review the situation yourself.
So you think it is good to give up your right to privacy is if you get fake security or even any real security in return?
Paranoia is a serious problem with this country lately. In 234 years, how many times has this country been attacked by another country? Two or three times depending on your guidlines? How many terrorist attacks have we've seen over the decades that resulted in a lot of people dead? Ten to twenty or so, depending again on your guidlines? I'd say this country already had a good track record and it certanly wasn't getting worse. However, more security is still demanded by many in the hopes of some self preservation dillusion. Meanwhile, we bitch about long waiting times at the airport and invasive government tactics granted by the patriot act.
TL;DR: you can't have your cake and eat it too. I for one would prefer privacy over the illusion of security any day.
What is funny about this situation is that a large portion of it's existencce is due to the economy pomoting 2-class system, a wealthy class and poverty class. The people downloading books and movies and music are made up of the dwindling middle class that has been buying the products all along and those who were too poo to have ever bought the poduct anyway.
So then where is the loss? Why the outrage over people using your product? You didn't lose a sale but you gained a fan.
For the past 30 to 40 years the middleclass has been shrinking and a lot of it has to do with corporations starving off innovation and progression, creating a world where if you want to make any money, you have to work for a giant corporate entity that has no concern for you or your well-being. But what's the alternative? You can always quit to work for another corporation or try your luck at a local store but then you are competing with those corporations that have endless supplies of cash to ensure that you don't gain marketshare as a small local store.
So instead your stuck in a corporate world that has consistently refused to adequately increase wages while at the same time, driving up inflation with their products leaving you, the employee and consumer in a hopeless situation. You may make enough to buy a decent number of entertainment products: movie tickets, blu-rays, itunes songs, etc. You also might be making too little and can barely pay your bills as it is so in reaching for some form of entertainment, you start downloading songs, movies, books, none of which you could have paid for based on your limited income. Both of these people are patrons to the same products but only one of which could have ever created a possible sale for the media company. Downloading content is no different than if these two people knew eachother, and one lent the other a book or a movie; sharing is taking place, not a loss of sale.
It's unfortunate that the same corporations driving this fight against sharing, are some of the same companies that refuse to properly pay employees.
I've yet to understand why capitalism gets so much praise...
In respect to John Mellendump being a humanitarian, who gives a sht when consideing his intolerant, unprogressive stance on the way music is moving these days. You could give billions of dollars to cancer researh but you are only providing the means, not the end result. Mellendump doesn't offer any real, compelling ontent that people are willing to pay for. However, many other atists are in fact able to turn a pofit not with the help of the record labels but word of mouth, myspace, and peer to peer networks.
I'm sorry that you no longer make wothwile songs of value John Mellendump. I'm sorry that you can no longer make a living doing what you used to. However, I urge you to wake up and realize that millions of other people no longer can make a living doing what they used to. They don't make public addresses whining that it is eveyone elses fault thet they lost their job. No, many take it as a life building step and proceed to look forward to their new chapter in life with a different career. You are no different John Mellendump.
Ouch, yes that was definitely an absent minded mistype. I did in fact mean supply has shifted over seas. Unrelated to this scenario however, I would also stand by my statement and say demand has shifted largely overseas as well to more quickly developing Asian nations.
The point I believe you're trying to make is that the steel industry never really died in America and that makes my analogy false. However, while I failed miserably to link the steel analogy into my comment better, I actually knew most of what you have explained here. The fact is, the steel industry was at one time the leading industry in America and is now just a shadow of its former self. It is most definitely true that American steel is still produced today as well. You mention, "...steel makers in North America never reinvested in their businesses to update and modernize plants..." This is a key aspect to why the music industry has and will continue to fail. They have refused to reinvest in a better stronger infrastructure that compels consumers to want their products. Instead, they have dug their heels into the ground and refuse to progress forward with innovation and entertainment that consumers are currently demanding.
The RIAA is trying to drive people to think that music will cease to exist if the 'music industry' is allowed to fall which is a blatant lie and historically incorrect when you compare it to something like the steel industry in America, which continues to thrive, albeit on a smaller scale, after having fallen so hard previously. This was the connection I was trying to make between steel and music.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by ZD.
No no no guys. This is just Pelosi charming her knowledgeable constituents after she was side-swiped this past weekend, for unethical trading practices. It is just more theatre.
Always question why they may feel this way. For politicians such as her, there is more than likely an ulterior motive. Or maybe I'm wrong and certain key players didn't offer enough money for her to sign the bill and she is holding out for that, and will give it an 'aye' with spoken intentions of 'correcting the issues with the bill later.'
It is all bullshit, never forget this.
Re: Re:
I don't appreciate the way you responded to a general inquiry with a personal attack. Of course I thought of those ideas. I discuss it in other posts here in fact.
There would be no problem if what Google was doing were looking for open wifi hotspots in business areas where people congregate. However, it seems pointless because most of these places advertise having wifi access and therefore, the role of Google is negated in commercial places.
The idea where you propose that someone need to find if there is wifi in the area can do so from the wifi device without Google as well.
Creating infographics of wifi dispersion could possibly be interesting from a trivial standpoint but mostly useless in application.
I have thought of all the ideas you mentioned as well as others for being possible justifications for Google triangulating access points, but all of them are either useless or are providing fixes for problems that don't exist. So in essence, everything you mentioned isn't a problem for people. Also, notice how I didn't resort to personal attacks to make my claim. Next time, leave your personal attacks at the door when responding. Rather than embarrass me, it only makes you seem unable to thoughtfully respond.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Subject
Thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned comment.
In response to your only point, as I stated previously, courts have ruled in favor of privacy in open window cases.
Say you are walking down the street and glance over and oops, your neighbor is changing clothes stupidly in front of an open window. No big deal, because you kept walking. The only problem was them.
In the same scenario, say that you stop to take a picture of your naked neighbor. Now you have crossed the line and have violated the privacy of your neighbor by 'capturing the moment'. In the same respect, google was looking into your wifi network and saving data. I wish I could cite an example right now but I'm limited to my phone at the moment so I'll dig something up later if you are interested.
Note that I'm not truly advocating seeking such a claim against Google. I only offered that for arguments sake.
Re: Re: Subject
Right, and I don't disagee that it's legal or that Google was intending to map wifi access points while taking the photos.
However, first and foremost, the only reasonable way to triangulate a router location is to intercept packets from it and use the times from the packets to measure a distance. For Google to say that they didn't intend to intercept packetsis deceptive at best and flat out lying at worst. True enough that Google likely had no intent for using anting the snooped but the certainl intended to intercept. True also that these packets came from unsecured networks and the people using them have no real privacy because of that in this case. Although, I could argue that peeping tom laws could potentially be applied in some crazy aspect. Say, I live in a rural area with no houses around, and I'm standing naked by my window; you take my picture run off. While I'm definitely breaking exposure laws, it's been ruled that I have a right to privacy in my home from people who wish to snoop.
Secondly, the issue I take with this situation is not that they unintentionally packet snooped some emails and passwords, it's that they intercepted packets to begin with. No, it isn't likely to be found illegal but it makes me question what the use would be for knowing where wifi networks are located. In the case of a Panera Bread or a Starbucks, they don't need to triangulate anything because they know where the hotspot is just by using their eyes to read the network I'd and to see the store loation. What use do they have knowing private network locations?
Mike, generally I agree with your view point on the issues you discuss but I will have to differ on this.
I drive down city streets all of the time, occasionally even with a laptop open with the wifi antenna still on. I have yet to see any packets just happen to get saved to my computer though. I don't dispute that the information gained is meaningless at best to a giant company. However, in in what potential use does Google have to triangulating every wireless router? As your example in a previous post, Panera Bread is a wifi hotspot for customers and that is something that could be useful overlayed onto Google maps. Driving down private streets on the other hand, what use would Google have to know where privately owned (even if stupidly unencrypted and public by ignorance)?
You never seem to justify what use having a ccompletely mapped wifi overlay of the world would be. I am more interested in that than how Google happened to intercept packets that include emails and passwords.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really
I never claimed it was true and honestly wasn't sure but rather hopeful that rubber bullets would be used. It is of my opinion that using regular ammunition is extremely dangerous in use on a pressurized aircraft. Small punctures to the shell of the plane main body are no big deal. However, the thinness of the body also allows the bullet to travel through the skin at a continued high rate of velocity and into the fuel tanks located in the wings if improperly aimed and fired or at a close enough range, through a window which will depressurize the cabin extremely quickly, and almost certainly cause most everyone to pass out.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Really
I'm the AC that discussed guns on planes. The point I was making is precisely the point being made by Brandon.
I am certainly not an apologist of the situation. In fact, I think 9/11 has led to people being less safe. Consider that people have less freedoms as a result of 9/11 and many are constantly monitored by the government for no apparent reason (look to the CA man that found the tracking device). The justice system has eroded away the Bill of Rights to shameful and in my opinion, criminal lengths.
Also consider that while people appeared to be less hesitant to take down a suspect person initially after the attack, the government has since instituted an elaborate theatre of security. This gives the indication that the TSA would, in fact, be able to stop most if not all future attacks that would be accomplished with airplanes or airports. Because of this, people are certainly much less likely to be vigilant if they see security everywhere and assume everything must be under control. However, to prove this point, several different situations have occured where people were able to smuggle the necessary items to assemble a small explosive on board the plane since 2001 and the TSA was unable to detect anything to stop them.
The TSA is useless and has also caused the public to be useless in this instance too. I think you need to review the situation yourself.
Re: Really
So you think it is good to give up your right to privacy is if you get fake security or even any real security in return?
Paranoia is a serious problem with this country lately. In 234 years, how many times has this country been attacked by another country? Two or three times depending on your guidlines? How many terrorist attacks have we've seen over the decades that resulted in a lot of people dead? Ten to twenty or so, depending again on your guidlines? I'd say this country already had a good track record and it certanly wasn't getting worse. However, more security is still demanded by many in the hopes of some self preservation dillusion. Meanwhile, we bitch about long waiting times at the airport and invasive government tactics granted by the patriot act.
TL;DR: you can't have your cake and eat it too. I for one would prefer privacy over the illusion of security any day.
What is funny about this situation is that a large portion of it's existencce is due to the economy pomoting 2-class system, a wealthy class and poverty class. The people downloading books and movies and music are made up of the dwindling middle class that has been buying the products all along and those who were too poo to have ever bought the poduct anyway.
So then where is the loss? Why the outrage over people using your product? You didn't lose a sale but you gained a fan.
For the past 30 to 40 years the middleclass has been shrinking and a lot of it has to do with corporations starving off innovation and progression, creating a world where if you want to make any money, you have to work for a giant corporate entity that has no concern for you or your well-being. But what's the alternative? You can always quit to work for another corporation or try your luck at a local store but then you are competing with those corporations that have endless supplies of cash to ensure that you don't gain marketshare as a small local store.
So instead your stuck in a corporate world that has consistently refused to adequately increase wages while at the same time, driving up inflation with their products leaving you, the employee and consumer in a hopeless situation. You may make enough to buy a decent number of entertainment products: movie tickets, blu-rays, itunes songs, etc. You also might be making too little and can barely pay your bills as it is so in reaching for some form of entertainment, you start downloading songs, movies, books, none of which you could have paid for based on your limited income. Both of these people are patrons to the same products but only one of which could have ever created a possible sale for the media company. Downloading content is no different than if these two people knew eachother, and one lent the other a book or a movie; sharing is taking place, not a loss of sale.
It's unfortunate that the same corporations driving this fight against sharing, are some of the same companies that refuse to properly pay employees.
I've yet to understand why capitalism gets so much praise...
In respect to John Mellendump being a humanitarian, who gives a sht when consideing his intolerant, unprogressive stance on the way music is moving these days. You could give billions of dollars to cancer researh but you are only providing the means, not the end result. Mellendump doesn't offer any real, compelling ontent that people are willing to pay for. However, many other atists are in fact able to turn a pofit not with the help of the record labels but word of mouth, myspace, and peer to peer networks.
I'm sorry that you no longer make wothwile songs of value John Mellendump. I'm sorry that you can no longer make a living doing what you used to. However, I urge you to wake up and realize that millions of other people no longer can make a living doing what they used to. They don't make public addresses whining that it is eveyone elses fault thet they lost their job. No, many take it as a life building step and proceed to look forward to their new chapter in life with a different career. You are no different John Mellendump.
Time to wake up and smell your shitty music.
Re: Re: Steel
Ouch, yes that was definitely an absent minded mistype. I did in fact mean supply has shifted over seas. Unrelated to this scenario however, I would also stand by my statement and say demand has shifted largely overseas as well to more quickly developing Asian nations.
The point I believe you're trying to make is that the steel industry never really died in America and that makes my analogy false. However, while I failed miserably to link the steel analogy into my comment better, I actually knew most of what you have explained here. The fact is, the steel industry was at one time the leading industry in America and is now just a shadow of its former self. It is most definitely true that American steel is still produced today as well. You mention, "...steel makers in North America never reinvested in their businesses to update and modernize plants..." This is a key aspect to why the music industry has and will continue to fail. They have refused to reinvest in a better stronger infrastructure that compels consumers to want their products. Instead, they have dug their heels into the ground and refuse to progress forward with innovation and entertainment that consumers are currently demanding.
The RIAA is trying to drive people to think that music will cease to exist if the 'music industry' is allowed to fall which is a blatant lie and historically incorrect when you compare it to something like the steel industry in America, which continues to thrive, albeit on a smaller scale, after having fallen so hard previously. This was the connection I was trying to make between steel and music.