The DOM specs all provide spec-level testing (document.implementation.hasFeature(...)), but nobody uses that on the Web. Why? Because it's the browser bugs you typically have to work around, not backward-incompatible specifications. On top of browser bugs, you've got new user agents (iPhone) that the specs weren't designed for. And any experimental features will appear first in browsers before they turn into a specification, so developers will always use feature-testing instead of spec-level checks. Besides, feature-testing isn't as painful as you describe if you use libraries such as jQuery or Prototype.

Can't the airlines just put a license agreement at the bottom of the page, combined with a robots.txt entry, that says that the user is prohibited from aggregating and publishing prices? This is the standard method of protecting databases in the US.

By the way, the accidentally collected data fit in only four hard drives (according to Ireland update here). Hardly anything, by Google's standards.

Yes, a person can accidentally store data that he should have discarded. Google isn't a magical omniscient being; it's a collection of teams with their own disk quotas.

Not sure what your point is. Clearly, the purpose of the data collection was to associate router MAC addresses with physical location so that Chrome and Android can locate themselves more accurately (after the user grants permission). This is something that many companies such as Skyhook Wireless already do. Nobody that I have seen has intelligibly argued that the a map of MAC addresses is a privacy violation, although I suppose that conceivably a stalker can capture your router's MAC address and then query the database whenever you move.

As for emails, passwords and URLs, what motive would Google have for intentionally collecting a few unencrypted packets in passing? It was just an honest mistake, and the sooner governments allow them to delete the payloads, the sooner they will do so.

Yes, data mining can be scary, but there's no point in turning a company's attempt to come clean into a witch hunt. Google is honest about what they use your data for--to automatically determine which ads to show you. They don't sell your identity to anyone else. They don't limit your choices based on your identity (although search results are personalized, which you can disable). When it comes to specific privacy concerns and security risks, I'd say that Google is pretty benign.

Disclaimer: I used to work at Google.

I would not want to lend a netbook running Windows, Ubuntu, or Android to my hacker friend because he might install a keylogger or some kind of proxy, just for fun. Or to my grandmother, who might install malware by accident.

With a regular laptop, there's a mental cost in remembering to delete all my personal data before I stop using it. ChromeOS guarantees that your user state can't be accessed by the next person who uses the device.

There is value to having a computing device that you can use without worrying about its health and your data.

"Summary" is a required field when you report an issue. Type something and you can submit the bug.

The .dex format is very different from the .class format, and the differences are to optimize for memory and CPU on mobile devices so that you can run one lightweight VM per app. These aren't superficial changes.

Your description is the exact opposite of the way Google treats their fulltime employees. Their 401(k) match is at least 50%, they pamper employees with food and other benefits, and the few layoffs have been handled with delicacy. People are leaving despite a company that does its best to do the right thing to their employees.

They offer a few one-time numbers to use in case you lose your phone. If there is a chance that you'll lose your phone, you're supposed to write the extra codes down and put them in a safe place.

The major design decision of ChromeOS was to make it secure even when used casually. It's unfortunately hidden in the press releases and security documents of the ChromeOS project page. The idea is that you can lend or borrow a netbook and not have to worry about keyloggers getting installed or your friend later viewing your private data. To achieve this goal, Google requires a TPM chip installed on the netbook so that a user can easily tell that the OS is unmodified, and the OS is stateless (modulo careful caching). This design is what makes ChromeOS so difficult to reconcile with Android, which is a single-user OS for very personal devices.

I hope that ChromeOS becomes successful because I do care about securely sharing computers, but if not enough other people care about this use case (or even understand the security concerns), then I can see how it may fail in the market.

Google actually offers two-factor authentication with your cell phone whenever you're at a new browser. It's not perfect yet: you can't revoke access for a browser once it's been verified, and there are unprotected APIs such as GData and IMAP. But at least it's a step in the right direction.

The Brita pitchers are only intended to improve the taste of tap water by taking out chlorine and calcium, not to actually purify unsafe water.

Why is this at all insightful? You're blatantly taking the quote out of context to make an absurd strawman. The GP's point was that the ownership was obvious, not least due to the Apple branding and the fact that it's clearly not one of the 3 iPhone generations already on the market.

According to section 496 of the California Penal Code, knowingly buying property that was obtained by theft (defined by GP) is also a felony, and the punishment is prison and 3x actual damages.

For learning how to use Unix, I liked The Unix Programming Environment. Although it shows its age, the book helped me move from the opaque feeling I get from working with black-box GUIs to an understanding of the Unix philosophy: tools that are as simple as possible. It taught me to be comfortable with the shell and low-level utilities. And I love Kernighan's dense writing style.