whackberry's comments

So by your logic simply owning a Wi-Fi access-point at home and not adding strong cryptography is reason enough for a corporation to drive their car to your house and capture your data?

So to keep Google away from logging my network data I need a strong virtual fence now, otherwise they'll come spying on my traffic?

That is 100% wrong. Google shouldn't be snooping on my data at all, not even if my AP was within their corporate headquarters reach. That is simply not acceptable behavior from a major corporation.

> That's because the software Google used didn't actively browse the networks to look for documents

Do we know that for a fact? Sorry if well known, genuine question.

> But then again I'm sorry, I have never seen what the big deal was about this.

You don't see what the deal is with a major corporation doing wardriving and packet capturing?

> If you broadcast your crap around you can't blame people for receiving it.

By your logic then if someone gets robbed on the streets, then it's their fault for "walking around freely"?

> What is the point in publicly naming an the engineer in this case? How does this benefit the public good?

The public has the right to know. Otherwise, who decides what should be public or not, the ministry of big brother?

That's the Linus way. You never know when he's being sarcastic, but mostly he's being serious with a few sarcastic turns.

This is one of my heroes, he never has let me down in his opinions. No BS, straight talk, one of the very few relevant people still not sold out in this business.

Turning the desktop into a retarded terminal for some company's javascript apps is a bad idea, but some can't seem to grasp that.

Are you being sarcastic?

> Why are we happy? We are not. Terminal emulation needs to die

Yes, but the proposed replacement for UNIX consoles is a Google web browser that requires you log into Google in order to use it?? I don't think so....

> Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's,

Yes but Dropbox doesn't have the reach and amount of data gathering power Google has. Google is actively monitoring hundreds to thousands of personal data gathering systems, whereas Dropbox is only a cloud storage system. There IMO lies the difference.

> Complete FUD.

Care to provide backup to this claim? Privacy issues and property rights on Google services seem very real to me.

The article seems a bit hastily written??? To say the least?

> -1 For Google for creating what is the biggest threat to content providers by enabling easy-to-use DDOS attacks across the entire interwebs.

Wanna help make the web better? Stop using Google and use a competitor like DuckDuckGo.com. Google has too much power, too much control.

How we trimmed 2 seconds from page load times: remove AdSense.

Google was able to portray an image of being good and free and transparent early on in its existence. This image still lingers from their PR efforts but the reality is that Google is one of the most agressive corporations out there. Let's not demonize Google in particular, Sillicon Valley is brutal. But, let's also make clear that Google isn't some nice old lady that does no evil. Google spies on users just like Facebook, Google plays hardball with its monopoly in web search like Microsoft played monopoly with their OS. Google goes the whole nine yards in the Sillicon Valley dirty games and still these articles all mention "Google is open" or "how could Google do evil". Google has a PR team as good as or better than their programmers, that is a fact.

> my wallet is in my back pocket, reaching for it with my left hand

If I were a officer and someone narrated what they're doing like that I'd immediately find it suspicious. Just say you're gonna get your wallet, cops aren't all completely stupid.

"I'm reaching for my wallet with my left hand sir" sounds retarded.

Does look like so. No judge I know would spend even 5 minutes on a misdemeanor case such as this one.

It is amazing that a judge would even listen to this in a non-criminal and minor offense case. Most places I know it'd just be dismissed and the fine upheld.

I assume most of us here at HN do some sort of computer development work. In computers, languages aren't simple, human readable, though modern languages try to be as readable as possible. Why is that? It's because you can't have ambiguity. An ambiguous command could set off a nuke...or break a pacemaker and kill a patient, or something worse.

There is a reason why legal documents are terse, boring, difficult to read. It's because they need to avoid the natural ambiguities of human language.

Mom just saw a cat in the living room. The mom was in the living room and saw a cat? The mom was in the kitchen and saw a cat in the living room? See, for a casual conversation it doesn't matter. But to prove where a murder happened, it matters....

As much as I hate lawyerspeak(computer programmer here), I understand the need for a technical language and I understand that the simplifications in that document WILL allow for ambiguities.

For example: "If you use more than your fair share, we may gradually limit your account." Can mean anything....

Clicked on create site, got taken to Google accounts. Hit Ctrl+W.

I'd like to be told when I'm about to be sent to a third party site which will try to collect my personal information, thank you.

I've been in the computer business all my life. I've learned something: there is no place on Earth where ridiculous amounts of money is spent on ideas that may or may not make sense like it is on tech.

I've seen companies spend millions on mainframe computers used for transferring text files around, which a handful of pc-sized servers could probably do just as well.

The "easy" money in the technology sector is something that should be seriously investigated IMHO. I think everyone who works with technology has seen their share of suspicious deals. The question to ask is often: who is providing the easy money, money which can be "wasted" as long as it produces a profit?

Facebook ran on investor money up until a short while ago(a short while in major corporation age, what, 2 or 3 years?).

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple bought Instagram. But Facebook is not even established as a blue chip, it's not a money printing machine, and it just pulls U$ 1 billion out of its pocket and buys a photoshop thingy???

I find this deal hard to understand. I think U$ 1 billion has just been efficiently moved from place A to place B and that's as much sense as I can make of it.