Precisely so. Freedom of speech wasn't the problem; people willing to support this nonsense or remain apathetic about it were.
It's like when people argue about whether people are killed by murderers, or by their weapons. At the end of the day, we can't get rid of murderers, but we can get rid of weapons. Likewise, we can't get rid of antisemites, but we can deprive them of their weapon, which is incitation to violence.
If propaganda works so well, then your disgusting laws wouldn't be much good, would they? They'd simply send out their magical brainwashing waves and get the laws struck down so they could carry out their little genocide.
No; altering constitutions requires large majorities, which they can't obtain without spreading propaganda first. We're safe.
I dont think you understand how cookies work:
Spare me the condescension, this is slashdot, nobody reads it without knowing how cookies work.
But of course your consent was implicit in choosing to visit that URL and request resources from that server; its your fault if you walk into a store and then complain that you're now on their CCTV because you chose to visit that store and play by their rules.
There's no such thing as an implicit consent. A web site can't force me to buy an encyclopaedia because I visited their URL. That's because entering a URL doesn't imply buying encyclopaedias, or selling your own private information. Stores have notices that tell you there's CCTV installed, and most importantly, they won't share tapes with your face, name and timestamp with all the other stores, and in particular they won't sell that information.
A lot of browsers (including IE starting with v6) allow you to disable cookies, or prompt you when they are requested. If this actually mattered to you, you could easily be notified when google cookies are "aimed" at your computer, and deny them, and then refuse to visit those sites.
Why, there are lots of legitimate uses for cookies beyond spying my life. I can't be forced to renounce them because some commercial company wants to sell my personal information without my consent.
And regarding the "multiple countries fined google", the US did not.
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=520518&A=2341 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/net-us-google-fine-idUSBRE83F00Q20120416 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/09/google-record-fine-ftc-safari
Find me a conviction for it in the US, otherwise really not interested in what a german court had to say about google.
Not only Germany. The list of countries that fined Google is much longer. Considering that the federal government used Google (and Yahoo, and Facebook, and whomever else) to spy their own citizen and those of the rest of the world, it's no wonder that they couldn't make a big fuss about privacy. Apparently the States are more sensitive about their citizens' privacy.
Your computer is already receiving the traffic, all google did was record it.
I'm certain that Google made no use of the accidentally collected data. The problem is, that when you're collecting large amounts of private data from the whole world, and gathering that information into a single place, you have to be extremely careful about what you do with that much data, and whose hands you put that data in.
Freedom of speech is not a problem; criticizing the government is a problem.
There are no laws forbidding people to criticize the government. Criticizing the government is constitutionally guaranteed, and a favourite hobby over here.
So... to save people's rights from some hypothetical scenario, we have to infringe upon people's rights. Forgive me for not being unprincipled.
It is no hypothetical scenario. I presented very hard evidence of that happening, and you chose to ignore it. What is hypothetical is this means to criticize the government involving threatening people, of which the citizens of the UK are supposedly deprived.
These laws are in place because people are unprincipled cowards who would rather have 'safety' than freedom.
In my country those laws were put in place right after the last world war by courageous people who physically fought, actually risking their lives, and often lost much, in their struggle to set their home country free from those who believed that Jews were to be exterminated. For cowards that they may be, I'd look at them for inspiration rather than people typing about abstract principles in the comfort and safety of an unthreathened democratic system.
What you're saying is that, what
Do you think that nazi-fascists (or whatever other form of totalitarians) were a small group of green people with antennae that landed here from Mars and enslaved every citizen? The truth is that a large portion of the population supported them, and a majority of the population didn't oppose them. This included both the uncultured masses and parts of the intellectual elite. That's because propaganda works. They tell people what they want to hear, especially when they're in difficulty, they point to an enemy, different from them, they tell them that removing that enemy will solve all their problems, and they either come to full power (as it happened between the world wars) or cause acts of violence against that imaginary enemy (as it happened, and still happens today, because of terrorism). This happens only because of hate propaganda. I've heard supposedly cultured people, today, proclaim their hate for Jews (or immigrants, or whatever people they can attach an "others" label to), even when they've probably never met one in person.
How strange, to think that about yourself.
I'm not biologically different than anyone. I've been educated to think that all people are equal, that problems have complex solutions, that one must look at oneself as the cause for his trouble before pointing his finger to the others. But not everyone has this luck. If I were born in the 20s, I could as well have been educated into hating Jews, who knows.
And? What does that have to do with censorship? You act like freedom of speech was the problem...
It is a historically proven fact that incitation to violence leads to violence here. Freedom of speech is not a problem, threatening and slander are.
If dealing with the problem means fewer freedoms, then I want nothing to do with that. Freedom is speech is a fundamental right.
As is the right to phisical integrity and to personal property. Those rights, and many others including freedom of speech, become toilet paper once the incited masses come to power. You may want to have nothing to do with that, but people have to when they end up on the receiving side of violence. Laws are in place to prevent that from happening.
They didnt share info with the NSA. The whole point was that the NSA was grabbing data off of the wire without permission or knowledge. Google actually has a pretty solid track record of not rolling over every time the authorities come knocking without a warrant.
They didn't share info with the NSA, they were effectively the NSA, by having pieces of NSA inside of themselves which could gather as much private data as they could, without any notice of this being made public. Wasn't it for Snowden, we wouldn't know anything about this. Whether this was done with cooperation from Google or without, they never said in an official statement: their statements do not deny nor confirm that they collaborated. Certainly their effort to protect the privacy of their users wasn't sufficient, if we want to believe that their data ended up at the NSA without them even noticing.
Of course, you seem to think that the info streetview gathers is somehow private (its not, we're talking about public wifi beacons broadcast to the whole neighborhood),
What information is public and what is private isn't a matter for me or for LordLimecat to deliberate. It's regulators and courts that decide that, and in fact they have repeatedly fined Google in multiple countries of the world over this matter. Your statement is also incomplete, as Google collected at the time not only wifi beacons, but also traffic paylods.
and wherever you got your information has misled you: far from lying about it, Google is the one who actually dropped the news that they were accidentally collecting info.
They lied two times: once when they said that they weren't collecting payload data, and once again when they said that they had already deleted. It's true that they admitted themselves that they were lying, but only after they were imposed by public authorities to provide data that would have exposed the problem.
When did I accept Google to track
When you visited their sites and began using their services. For non-google sites, when you visited sites whose webmasters made the decision to use google analytics or adwords.
Dont like it, take it up with those sites: Theyre the ones making the decision to drop google cookies on your machine.
I did not accept any license agreement by visiting those sites. They planted cookies on my machine without any form of consent at the moment that I typed their URL on my web browser, or that I clicked an hyperlink on another website.
History seems to suggest that: europeans = fascist murderers. It's that simple. Shouldn't we simply ban euro-peons outright?
European fascists are banned in the parts of Europe that were historically subject to fascism.
They are not idiots and do not spend all day smoking cigars in dark rooms trying to figure out ways to violate peoples privacy.
Whatever their intention, there's little difference for the end users: before they could have more privacy, now they have less. Objectively.
It wasn't visible in the UI because it's extremely easy to break your apps or entire phone by adjusting those settings, and giving hundreds of millions of users a convenient way to brick their own device by screwing with system process permissions is not how you build mass-market products.
Do you mean that Android doesn't have a "factory reset" option? Now this does look like a way not to build a mass-market product.
The reason you can't edit app permissions selectively is that this would be a nightmare for app designers: there are lots of permissions, so you'd have to write your app to handle all the possible combinations of permissions that the user might have deactivated.
Being able to respond to external conditions is a large part of what being an "app designer" boils down to. If you don't even bother to check the return values of the API methods you invoke, then your app is defective at best, and perhaps you should be designing something else.
What if you install a web browser, and the user accidentally or stupidly disables internet access permission?
The same thing that would happen if you use the said web browser, and the user accidentally or stupidly disables the wifi radio. Should we be afraid of this feature disappearing in future versions of Android?
Apps would just end up doing manual permission checks and re-presenting the same screen you already see at install time.
Looks like a solution. This outcome would be no worse than the current situation, so what's really bad with it?
Now I'd personally like to see an ability to apps to ask users to grant a few permissions at runtime for cases where a permission is for a truly optional subfeature of the app, or the need for it is best explained by context. Location requests would often fall into that category.
We all would like to, that's why we are protesting against Google's decision.
But permission nag dialogs can be annoying as well, so I understand why Android puts it all up front.
It's all about being able to choose what can be more annoying, a rogue application designed in an unknown country spying all of my life, or an opt-in behaviour to display a pop-up warning that I can disable if I feel that it's not useful.
Anyway, regardless of what you believe about the Android permissions model, seeing this as some kind of corporate mega-conspiracy is dumb and immature. It's a set of decisions that balance competing user interface design priorities. That's it.
Adding juvenile appellatives to the thesis you're trying to discredit doesn't make you more right. Nobody is claiming about a "conspiracy". There are clear, lawful, public steps of a for-profit company in the direction of collecting more user data and giving the user less choice about what data to share and with whom, and less knowledge about when such data is specifically being collected and by whom.
In America, how much blood will need to be spilled in order to gain back the ability to scream "fire" in a theater, or to slander someone and harming his profession? None at all, because there's nothing to gain and much to lose from that kind of freedom. And who gets to draw a line between free speech and putting public safety at risk? It is commonly accepted on
Here in Europe, we have the *very* concrete problem that it is possible to convince people of the fact that a certain subset of them, or someone coming from the outside, is responsible for all of their problems, and thereafter get elected into positions of power with a mandate to suppress that "enemy". We have constitutions in place to prevent that, but large majorities have the power to alter them. This has already happened historically (for instance my country had 10% of its population killed because of this during WWII) and it tends to happen again every time people are experiencing economic difficulties.
Just yesterday I've heard a "leader" of a massive protest movement in my country declare to the press that "we are the slaves of Jew bankers". Hearing that on the TV, hundreds of thousands of people, with a right to vote, will be convinced of that.