Who said he's been in jail for two years? The police only came across the USB drive in July 2011, and he's been sentenced today.

Why does he need to have mailed the letter for it to be an indication of his mindset? What if it had been a diary and not a letter that he'd written? Don't forget there was also this "shopping list" that was found in his room (according to the Guardian). That seems to add to the idea that there was intent.

The police certainly aren't doing themselves any favours with this statement though:

"I also want to stress that this case is not about policing people's freedom to browse the Internet. The materials that were downloaded were not stumbled upon by chance - these had to be searched for and contained very dangerous information that could have led to an explosive device being built. That is why we had to take action."

I don't know about everyone else, but that really doesn't follow to me. Whether he actively seeked out the material or not, taking action on that basis alone is still "policing people's freedom to browse the internet" in my opinion.

I'm all for not limiting freedom of curiosity, but if you have a read of TFA, it says that along with the downloaded material, was a letter from a "24 year old man" (Asim Kauser is now 25), in which the writer states he "seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad". It's not possible to say for sure without being in possession of all the facts & evidence, but on the face of it, that seems like it could add intent into the mix. Take that together with the "shopping list" they apparently found, and that changes things quite a bit. I'm no lawyer, and the article is a bit thin on detailed facts, but I'm guessing at some point the prosecution were able to convince a jury he was the author of those documents.

I'm not sure we're going to get very far, but here goes...

Yes, I'm aware of the history, but thanks for the lesson. Perhaps I need to spell out the fact that, "these anti-competition complaints" is referring to those mentioned in the links in the article. Believe me, the point I've been making hasn't changed since my original comment. Perhaps your interpretation is off. You're clearly convinced that you have me suss'd, so I doubt telling you you're way off would make much difference.

That statement is so hypocritical. You keep quoting this apparent fact that Google is third in the search engine market. Practice what you preach. Perhaps if you dropped this rubbish about me having some sort of hidden motive to spout anti-Google FUD, then you'd be able to grasp the fact that it's not that I've failed to demonstrate an abuse, it's that I don't even suggest there is one! My original comment was predicated with "If true". You seem to believe that's being a weasel. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's also central to my point and you've chosen to gloss over that. I'm merely debating hypotheticals. Not pie in the sky hypotheticals, but ones that are relevant to current events and the original article. I happen to not have much of a view either way as to whether Google are abusing their market position. If anything, I doubt they are. My whole point has nothing to do with trying to say Google is being anti-competitive; it was in response to someone suggesting that it if competitors claims about Google giving prominence to their own products in organic search results were true, it was simple as "Wow, they're promoting their own products on their own website. That's hardly controversial." I disagree. If that's FUD, then I'll eat my hat.

Fortunately, I'm under no obligation to meet your criteria for relevance in my own posts. I said it because you somehow seem to believe it IS an unusual statement to make.

Wow. Of course it's a debate. We're exchanging views on something. Is that not a debate? "Fan boi FUD"?! What a load of rubbish. Fan of what exactly? How can I be spreading FUD when I haven't suggested Google are doing anything wrong? Oh, wait. I forgot. That's not actually true; I'm being a weasel. Your last few ranting sentences, in which you attempt to assume exactly what I think and what I'll attempt to say/do are a little sad to be honest. Not to mention very wrong. Where did this suggestion of a "conspiracy" come from? I'd be a little embarrased if I were you. You really are convinced I'm coming from somewhere that I'm just not. Not even close. Trouble is, your premising all your answers on that poorly made assumption. I smell a hypocrite (again).

What proof do you want exactly? I take your point that it's not a fact until it's been proven in court that something is anti-competitive. In that sense, yes, it's my opinion. An opinion that I've shared. An opinion that is based on my interpretation of competition law; not just pulled out of thin air. If you're looking for me to present facts in the form of rulings (either US, or EU) that have yet to be made, then obviously that's not going to happen. I take your criticism that my wording was suggesting there's only one outcome if it were to be found that Google are giving undue prominence to their products. The rest, well... I think we've covered that.

If the OP wants to try and suggest it was as simple as they did, then they're inviting such a comment. Perhaps if they demonstrated that they appreciate the complexity of the issue a little more...

Also central to understanding my point as it was intended, but hey. If you want to interpret that in such a way that it allows you to make the arguments you have, then who am I to stop you?

Not sure where "us" comes from. It was in response to a single person. Careful. If my post ended there, then you might have a point. Unfortunately I gave an explanation.

Again, also the truth. No goal post moving here, I assure you. There it is again - you making assumptions (despite me even saying things to the contrary) that fit your argument. Either I'm a liar (I'm not), or you're doing more of the same.

Again, please practice what you preach.

Wow, talk about quoting me out of context. You should be well aware by now that that's a hypothetical statement which allows me to make my point. Even within the statement you've chosen to quote, is the word "possibly".

Errr, no. How about, "If it's true".

Perhaps the phrase "of course" was a bad choice. It's my opinion, yes. You honestly believe that debating whether that behaviour would be contraversial IF it were shown to be true isn't a serious discussion to be had? I should probably say that I still believe the word "controversial" has useful meaning if used in the correct context. There's a huge difference here. There aren't scores of people (whether rightly or wrongly) complaining about my behaviour around small children. There isn't any suggestion (again, whether right or wrong) that my conduct with small children is even remotely likely to be a problem, or worth debating or investigating. This, on the other hand, is.

This is getting a little pathetic. Clearly I'm referring to the word 'illegal'.

Uh, no baffling intended. While we're on the subject of things getting old - there's those baseless assumptions again. The context is exactly as I have explained several times.

I think you know my opinion on that by now.

What's your point? My argument was developed in the areas you've chosen not to quote.

What?! I'm not even sure what you're trying to suggest here. I have no vendetta against Google. I have no idea why you have this idea in your head, but it might be an idea to lose it. Being me, I'm quite familiar with my own views, and I can tell you, categorically, that you're way off the mark. I was merely suggesting that they're a business, doing what businesses do. It's not evil, or wrong. I just felt it was a little disingenuous of a Google engineer to suggest their motives weren't based somewhere in business. We have no way of knowing for sure what their motives are, but I had a hard time believing it was something they would have done if it didn't ultimately provide a business benefit. If you have an issue with me sharing that opinion (after all, I wasn't sat in the Google board room), then I really don't care.

I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads. Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive. That's not an unusual statement to make. You may not see it that way, but to use the word "bullshit" in response just highlights your inability to have an intelligent debate in a respectful manner.

Wow, surely you're able to have an intelligent debate without resorting to troll like comments such as that. Do you say that to everyone who disagrees with you? Do you hear me calling your logic "bullshit"? I think you may need to take a look at your own standards.You may not agree with me, but that was totally unnecessary.

That's a little strong. Bordering on trolling if you ask me. I merely didn't think it was necessary to explain the link quite so explicitly.

With respect, things are a little more complicated than can be understood from a Wikipedia article. Using your dominance in one market sector to in such a way as to give you an unfair advantage over competitors in another market sector is one of the main reasons competition law exists. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers if it's allowed to continue.

Maybe I should re-iterate the fact that my whole post was predicated with "If true". I made no mention of whether I believed Google were engaging in such practices.

Competition law exists because things really aren't that simple. In a capitalist society, healthy competition is what helps ensure prices are low and products are constantly improving. At some point, a company can do so well in one market sector (yes, usually because they've earned it), that they can use that leverage, if they so choose, to gain an unfair advantage in another market sector. Sure, there's a grey area, but there's limits. This is well established under monopoly and dominance provisions within competition law. Regarding your Burger King comment, I don't think anyone (certainly not me), was suggesting Google should be forced to unduly increase the prominence of their competitors. We're talking about organic search results here, not ads. The European Commission's concern centres around Google's supposed tactic of giving undue prominence to their services in organic search results. If they are doing so (and I'm not suggesting they necessarily are) then, to me, that clearly seems like an abuse of a dominant position in one sector to gain an unfair advantage in another. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers. That's why competition law exists.

My use of the phrase 'gate-keeper of all things internet' wasn't meant in quite such a literal sense. I was just referring to their dominant market share. Yes, there are competitors to Google (Bing, Yahoo, etc). That's fairly irrelevant to the issue we're discussing though. It's the fact Google are using their dominance in the search market to possibly gain an unfair market share in other areas.

If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the gate keeper of all things internet to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.

Yes, Google are producing Chrome because, either directly or indirectly, it advances the web as a platform. The thing is, they're only doing it because the web IS their platform. It's hugely advantageous to their business model that the web is a viable platform for their products in the years to come. What I object to, is Google trying to suggest that the ultimate reason for producing Chrome is anything but commercial. Don't get me wrong, I love Chrome and the impact it's having on the whole browser market, but they're not doing good just to be good.

@MrsStephenFry is possibly not the best example, since it's quite possible that it is, in fact, the great Mr Fry himself. He'd never admit it of course, since that would spoil the fun.

Does this mean I'll get arrested from now on for cheating people out of money when playing Monopoly?

Unless you're intimately familiar with the tasks undertaken by GCHQ analysts such as the one this test is recruiting for, I think it's hard to say for sure whether the test was, in fact, good or bad. The thinking behind why some elements of the test were designed the way they were may not be immediately obvious. Having said that, I do wonder whether GCHQ would put their best minds to task working on devising a top rate recruitment puzzle. With the current international climate, combined the the current economic climate, I'd hazard a guess that their time is rather precious ;)

If a company requires compliance with certain information security standards, then they should be checking these things prior to signing up. If it's not clear on their website, then a quick question sent to their sales staff should clear it up. If that doesn't clear it up, then I'd be concerned just because I'm not getting decent answers from their sales staff. I tend to contact sales staff and fire a bunch of questions at them anyway, just to get an initial idea of whether their service will be any good. If their sales staff know their stuff, then there's a chance the support staff might too. A good pre-sales experience doesn't necessarily mean post-purchase service will be up to scratch, but if they're poor at answering my pre-sales questions, then that usually means they're crossed off my list.

Money. His autobiography goes on sale on Monday. Nothing like a few controversial quotes to stir up some hype and get people queuing like they're waiting to buy an iPhone 4S.