The article says that Google lost the case several months after it started in 2011, and it was gagged from telling anyone until 2015.
So thus, can we conclude that Google did in fact turn over all of the requested metadata on the user without his knowledge for nearly 4 years?
The question about whether Google should fight to protect this information should be weighed along with just how much metadata that Google collects and stores about your online behavior in the first place.
The smartphone market is consuming the point & shoot customer. The P&S market existed primarily because there were no other options in years prior for casual photography, they simply replicated the same model that existed for film P&S with digital sensors.
The mirrorless market is consuming large parts of the DSLR market. That's because the dslr market used to be made up of a lot of people who didn't want to carry a DSLR in the first place, but had no other option for interchangable lenses.
Now that viable options are avaiable, the markets are going to shift. It's funny that the DSLR makers were the last ones to realize the shift was occuring. The Canon mirorless was horribly late to the market, and they were caught with their pants down. The minor or struggling camera makers like Sony, Ricoh, Fuji and Olympus are capitalizing on it.
The DSLR market will continue to exist, but they've run out of innovation for a while now. The one area they haven't addressed, portability, is why the market is being ripped into new segments.
In other news, California courts ruled that Yelp is allowed to manipulate the ratings that users see, depending on whether the restaurant pays for advertising.
With a title like that, maybe the summary could point to the amount of damage and evidence on the harm to the economy without having the reader to deduce it on their own?
now I don't have a complete case history for all invasive species but I do recall reading that in one case the fish that was introduced was from the local population wanting to eat a fish that was non-native and otherwise unavailable, so they imported the live fish into the local region
Namely, don't you value Alibaba based on the size of Yahoo's investment (plus a multiple for future growth), rather than using that investment to gauge how much the investor is worth?
As myspace proved out, the social market is incredibly fickle. Facebook's billboard model is only part of the market, and there are already signs that communication is shifting towards real time. That market isn't so clear, with plenty of fragmentation across LINE, the weibos in asia and facebook's relatively poor sticker offering trying to catch up. WeChat may have been pricey, but a necessary addition to admit they missed the boat on this angle.
The only conclusions that I can draw has to do with the people who use Twitter. While twitter's user base may be sufficiently representative of the overall mobile user space, I don't see how it can correlate to wealth of platform adoption until other factors are also ruled out.
I was primarily commenting because the summary said "Gmail messages are encrypted from the time they leave a user's machine to the time they leave Google's infrastructure." which is obviously incorrect. The messages aren't encrypted at all, only the network connections are.
SSL/TLS is only for data in motion, and applications that choose to use it. Anyone who gets access to the backend will still be able to freely read as much content as they like
It all seems trivial if he is successful building this. I suppose it's true that applying tech to poop isn't something a lot of people are researching.
The road to hell is paved with NAND gates. -- J. Gooding