Absolutely right, they shouldn't be forced to pay back government losses. They, along with every other too big to fail corporation, should pay annually in perpetuity into risk pool that will handle all future bail-outs. Not as a tax, but as an insurance pool, that coincidentally, should be required to be held in US treasury bonds.

I'm sure if you presented that idea, they'd rush to substitute the $10b payback.

Is this a new change, because after I saw the google announcement, I saw a report that they would share all that data about loading of images with marketers. End result: safer images, but just as much information for marketers, as along as they make nice with Google as 'official' email marketers. Would love to be wrong. Here's my source, Ars Technica article.
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/12/dear-gmailer-i-know-what-you-read-last-summer-and-last-night-and-today/

Excellent point. It's an assumption of mine that no request to check vulnerabilities was made. That would make all the difference.
My other assumption is that people on a public wifi network are informed they should be using it for only routine non-secure tasks.
If the public network was being used for official business, then that's a problem, but it's not a technical problem. It's a training and education problem.
Public Wifi is never secure.

'Hey, I just kicked in your door to show how easy it is to kick in your door!'
'Hey, I just graffitied your wall to show how easy it is to graffiti your wall!'
'Hey, I just kicked you in the balls to show how easy it is kick you in the balls!'

Calling yourself a security researcher doesn't magically give you rights to go dick with other people's networks.
Email over a public wifi network is no less secure than a cellphone call, hallway conversation or written notes.

A public wifi is a convenience and very useful for the right purposes. A white hat researcher reveals unknown vulnerabilities to the people who build protocols. This was an asshole with a script, a laptop and a desire for attention.

I was so ready to side with Adecco on this. It's really not a very original twist on 'Around the world in 80 days', and it's really just a limited time use by them. Then I saw they've applied a TM to the term. They made his whole point for him.

It would seem like a good system to help copyright holders be aware of usage. If it flagged videos for review by the holder, then left it to them to request take-down, that would seem to re-enforce Google's existing safe harbor protection, and would give artists the opportunity to not be douche bags. Of course, even with this, if you wanted to block something from being uploaded to youtube, like perhaps a political speech, you could just walk around with a boombox blaring Metallica's greatest hits in the background.

My guess would be that most of the original hires have long since moved on, due to financial stability and better opportunities. That leaves lots of 20 nothings competing hard to get those jobs. They are going to beat out inexperienced older workers easily. Most well-qualified older IT workers are not looking to start new jobs at Google, there's simply too many other exciting opportunities (Google is not going to have another IPO, afterall), and they don't need a career starting resume bullet. That said, I'd gladly work at Google (39), but they'd have to match my current 6 figure income, which is not going to be entry-level.