Comment Re:Why not the US government? (Score 1) 201
I'd hazard a guess that another reason might be that those countries actually have privacy laws that could compel Google to turn over the information.
I'd hazard a guess that another reason might be that those countries actually have privacy laws that could compel Google to turn over the information.
There's all kinds of things that data could show, leading to any number of possible charges against (and eventual fines collected from) Google.
Like what? Can you give some examples?
The fact that his answer was so evasive is actually very telling. If they had a good reason to be looking at the data they'd have a warrant in hand.
“There’s a range of potential opportunities for oversight and scrutiny by a member of the U.S. Congress – including letters, meetings hearings, and potentially even legislation.”
Translation: we got nothing, so we're gonna try and invent some reason to get the data.
Destroying evidence while being investigated by the FCC/FTC is usually frowned upon. But I'm glad they are declining to hand it over for what you aptly called grandstanding. Honestly I think Google has handled it the best they can given the situation. Seeing politicians exploit the situation is beginning to irk me too though.
Has really taken on new meaning these days
Ah I see, thanks. Seems the real culprit here is iframes. Sometimes I wonder if they cause more harm than good. But really i guess it's hidden iframes causing the problem? Guess I'm just wondering what's the solution here. Should iframes send a limited header with just a domain name? Should they be removed? Are they really necessary? Or should there be a minimum size that can't be covered with other content or made visible? This is a pretty clever hack I'll have to admit.
Er, answering my own question -- it seems like it's quite difficult, but not impossible, to spoof the referrer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_request_forgery
Can JS make an HTTP request without sending the referrer?
Sometimes it even goes to the Supreme Court but not often, since the justices are part of the government and often defend their colleagues by simply not hearing cases.
That's about as spurious a claim as the DHS agent made. I suspect you'll get some hits with that kinda trolling though.
what is the third word on the 37 page
Petunias
Huh? How about, "ISPs are required to be net neutral with the exception of email."
Whew, that was hard. Glad we averted spam doomsday...just barely.
Kidding aside, you do seem to be overacting without providing an example of how ISP spam filtering would actually get caught in the wake of a Net Neutrality bill.
You still haven't explained why being pro copyright policy is hypocritical to pro net neutrality. Just because the blogger from techdirt frames that bill as being about free speech, doesn't mean Franken thinks it is. These two policies aren't one in the same.
QoSing torrent traffic is not net neutrality.
Copyright law and Net Neutrality are not the same thing. I think he clearly came down on the wrong side of that issue, but the right side of this issue.
Net Neutrality needs supporters, if that happens to make strange bedfellows out of pro RIAA politicians, so be it.
"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs
