|
|
It is not worthless. I for one am interested in non-NSA, non-FBI requests too. My local cops probably have more influence on me than the NSA anyways.
Also, it's not true that they can't provide information about NSLs. Google negotiated permission to publish ranges of numbers, and with that precedent established it shouldn't be too hard for others to do the same.
In other respects, I was disappointed. I think the biggest downer for me was when we were formally advised that reading other patents in the field was potentially dangerous.
IMO, the way to test whether or not the patent system is accomplishing its constitutional goal is to look at how much time practitioners spend looking through the patent library to find solutions to their problems, or ideas they can build upon, with the idea that it's better/faster/cheaper to find a developed patent and license it rather than do the hard work of inventing it yourself. If the patent database is heavily used as a research library, then it has accomplished its goal of contributing to the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Your comment is exactly what corporate attorneys have told me as well, and the fact that it's good advice proves that the system utterly and completely fails the test.
Bah.
Small businesses sue each other all the time. It's not that expensive to sue. It can be incredibly expensive if the parties choose to make it so, and if you sue a megacorp they'll either write you a check to make you go away, or they'll bury you in lawyers, which means you'll need your own big pile of lawyers. But when Quickie Laundromat sues Quickie Laundromat it doesn't cost very much. The parties do much of the legwork themselves to keep the attorneys' time (and bills) low, and they hire cheap lawyers.
It has been proven that a first responder has actually saved lives before, and not just shown up to do light investigation.
Absolutely, police responding to calls have saved lives and prevented crimes. We saw a good example recently in Arapahoe High School. But that only happens when the police happen to be close enough to respond in time, and if they decide to intervene. Generally they do, if they're around, but they're under no legal obligation to do so, at least in the US.
The bottom line is that the old saw "when seconds count, the police are just minutes away", is absolutely correct. Because they're usually not present when the bad stuff happens, police are primarily responsible for making reports and doing light investigation, just as the GP said.
Right now, Google only packages and provides (rather than sells outright) data to law enforcement.
Actually, Google doesn't do that either. It does respond to subpeonas, warrants and National Security Letters, when those documents are provided per the requirements of the law and are narrow and specific (i.e. no dragnets). See David Drummond's numerous public statements on this topic.
you cannot seriously claim that Google won't package and sell data to ordinary customers in the future. All it takes is a decree from Larry Page, a change in policy, and it's done.
I agree, that is a valid concern. I don't believe it will happen, certainly not while Page and Brin are in charge. But it's a possibility. I'm skeptical that it could be made retroactive, but I suppose even that is a possibility.
When Larry Ellison buys Google in the next 10 years
LOL.
Google is Evil because they Built The Dataset. This data is so valuable and comprehensive, and the pioneering of the techniques to do it over and over again, ever more efficiently and cheaply, that people without scruples want it now, will want it in the future, and will eventually control it.
The dataset will be built, regardless. Personally, I'd much rather that it was Google doing it, because Google actually does care about user privacy. In the long term, this isn't a problem with a technological solution, it's going to require a legislative solution. Either that or we'll evolve a society that simply doesn't care about privacy (which isn't an entirely negative idea; read David Brin's "The Transparent Society"). Personally, I'm skeptical of a world that doesn't allow for personal privacy, so I think we need to address it legislatively. I don't know that we need to be quite as draconian about it as some European nations have, but their legal frameworks provide a good starting point.
He claimed no exclusive ownership to his password. So he'll let me have it
So that means you're going to give me the Golden State Bridge, right? Or are you claiming exclusive ownership of it?
Me: HELLO 911?
Op: What is your emergency sir?
Me: I AM HIDING IN MY CLOSET FROM THE GUY WHO KILLED MY WIFE AND IS RANSACKING MY HOUSE!
Op: Please quiet down, if you yell he'll hear you and find you.
Me: HOW ELSE CAN THE ASSHOLE POSTING ABOVE ME HEAR ME IF I DON'T SHOUT?
Seriously, though, I've always wondered why the hell it's taken 20+ years to be able to send texts to 911. At least when they finally get around to it, they'll be set up for MMS and you can send them the pic of the getaway car or whatever.
Google has an interest in proper encryption. They can only sell your data if the potential buyer cannot acquire it without paying them.
Sigh.
Google does not sell data, at least not in any form other than anonymized and aggregated, and not very much even that way. Google makes money from using your data itself (to target ads to you), not from selling it to others.
FWIW, I work for Google, on crypto security stuff, and Google does have a strong interest in proper encryption, because it's the right thing to do. It allows people to control their data. With respect to Google's business, Google would like you to choose to provide your data because you think it's a good trade for Google's services, but wants you to have the ability to make the choice not to provide your data. To anyone, if that's what you want.
Wow. With one single contract, RSA just destroyed their whole business. A company in the trust business cannot allow themselves to lose their customers' trust.
No RSA product can ever be trusted again.
Except that RSA destroyed their whole business a couple of years ago when it was found that they'd left the root keys for their SecureID tokens on an unsecured, network-connected machine. After that no one could trust them again.
But people did, and they'll continue doing so after this, watch and see.
Marvin is dead.
Sounds like a success to me, thanks for telling me about it, you traitor!
There's a difference between telling us we killed the Al Qaeda second in command and telling us how we killed the Al Qaeda second in command. We hear plenty about the first... as long as they're not in the US. Wonder why.
Your successes are secrets
Secrets from who? Marvin the Muslim who figured it out the instant he didn't get his America-shattering kaboom?
Ah, ColdSam, you are a barrel of laughs. Everyone is supposed to know the exact amount of traction their car will have on a given day in a given location so that they can make sure their car doesn't slide an inch or two past a line which is ALWAYS put at such a distance as to allow for a foot or more of sliding before a pedestrian or another vehicle would be at risk, and you are perfectly fine if they are penalized for that. Yet, when a law is enacted for your safety and the convenience of everyone around you that says you can be fined for not crossing in clearly marked locations, that's the law that isn't useful.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.