Sorry, no.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm

Here's one example:

In October 2004 in Caracas, Venezuela, a fire in a 56-story office tower burned for more 17 hours and spread over 26 floors. Two floors collapsed, but the underlying floors did not, and the building remained standing.

See http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/18/world/main649824.shtml

But... how do you KNOW they're doing what they say they're doing? Really? Without an intentional MiTM machine you can use to analyze what is ultimately being sent upstream to SpiderOak, you can't be sure.

Remember too, peeling apart and masquerading SSL/https sites is VERY easy to do, including certificate forging. Many companies do this today to decrypt (yes, decrypt) SSL traffic to then scan the plaintext content of the request. Heck, you can even set up Squid to do that if you want.

http://blog.blackfoundry.com/2011/06/02/break-open-dropbox-ssl-traffic-with-squid-proxy/

http://www.squid-cache.org/Doc/config/ssl_bump/

That's fairly easy to subvert: Don't ever use the same salt. Ever.

Look at something like PFS for where this is heading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_forward_secrecy

Google is already using this today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_forward_secrecy

Google is already using this today.

His point was that the system maintainer might be forced by a spy agency to alter the code so that the password variable is not temporary, but instead logged in persistent storage.

That's easy: Build your hashing systems such that there IS no persistent storage. Make it out of DRAM, and enforce rules to scrub the memory and temporary storage before and after each password hashing request or attempt. Additionally, just create a tmpfs volume, encrypted with a one-way hash/salt, and write your scratch data there, then dump it and scrub those bits when done. Problem solved.

Except for private Twitter accounts and deleted/redacted Tweets. Only the Library of Congress has the originals, in context.

What you see via the public, port 80 web interface to Twitter or via their API is nowhere near to the full Twitter data stream.

You do realize that recording public officials, law enforcement and the like is going to land you in jail, right? Actually, it's already been demonstrated, when a black teen recorded a police officer publicly harassing and beating another black teen. So the one who got 8 months in jail and is facing 7 YEARS in prison? Not the 15 year old behind the police officer's baton, but the one who RECORDED the event with his camera phone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1e9Htc6FMY

When it becomes legal and admissible evidence for an officer to bring in his dash camera footage, but ILLEGAL for a citizen to record an officer breaking the law, what have we become as a society? Seriously. This stuff is happening NOW.

And it scares the bejezzus out of me, and thousands of my compatriots.

Here's another of a fan running on a field, the cops chase him down, start beating him up ON THE FIELD in front of thousands of fans, when the fans storm onto the field and beat the crap out of the cops.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBfEh4aBt1g

With Google Glass, how soon before cops start smashing your $1,500 device, or shatter your phone, to prevent any evidence of their wrongdoing?

Maybe "The Final Cut", almost 10 years ago wasn't so far off:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364343/

"A Zoë Chip is chip placed in your brain at birth to record your entire life. When you die, the footage from your life is edited into a “Rememory”-- a film shown at your funeral pieced together by an editor. A toy for the privileged, Zoë Chips are changing the face of human interaction, but there are those who are against this emerging technology, and believe that memories are meant to fade."

As much as I object to an "Opt Out" mentality, we could make this easier, by ensuring that all Google Glass users adhere to the "Obscuring" policy (does not exist yet).

Basically if you're in a coffee shop and wearing your Google Glass, anyone in that shop who is signed into Google would get an alert that they are in proximity to Glass, and could then "opt out" of monitoring video and audio. The Google Glass wearer's device would then just blur our the faces of those who have opted out (easy, Google already does it for Maps), and subtract the audio from those users (harder to do, me thinks).

Anyone using Glass with an active monitoring device in-play (video, audio) SHOULD be notifying the people around them that they're actively recording them. Not only is this illegal in most states, if you're in on private property (i.e. Panera, Starbucks, coffee shop, McDonalds, etc.), you can be ejected and asked to leave.

Additionally, if someone near you objects to you recording them, or their surroundings with your Glass device and asks you to stop recording, you have to comply, or you can be slapped with fines and arrest for "Unauthorized Recording" (i.e. recording laws of the state in question). You can't record someone nor take photos of them without their consent. Do people do it? Sure, but if everyone starts wearing Glass, you'll see more people banned from public spaces (i.e. private property businesses) for doing so.

Also, since you can't use these devices anywhere near government buildings, public transportation systems (trains, planes, airports, bus stations, bridges, highways), it's really going to be a pain to take the device on and off hundreds of times a day.

As one of my colleagues once said: "This is an example of a good idea, poorly implemented."

With all the money you're going to spend filing those patents, why not contribute to the research instead? $20M would help bring the industry a long way :)

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee031913.htm

I think you probably meant to link to this copy of the file instead:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/PVeff(rev130307).jpg

Which of course, you should never do, since .htaccess will grind the performance of your site directly into the ground. It also means that anyone with access to the filessytem (such as an already-hacked WP instance) can revert your changes.

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/en/howto/htaccess.html#when

Because a significant portion of Google's backend infrastructure is run on Java.

That's funny, because I just interviewed with Google last week for an SRE role, and they specifically wanted someone with hardcore Python and Java development experience, at the filesystem and kernel level. They're moving -everything- into those two language engines.

Or, you can vote for neither and raise the awareness and quality of the other dozen-or-so political parties that are not on either side of that tired, worn out old coin.

Vote for new change, not the same coins you've always carried with you.