[SATLUG] So much for Google being your friend.
mayfield_mark at att.net
Fri Jun 4 09:47:40 CDT 2010
On Fri, 2010-06-04 at 08:42 -0500, pcdls wrote:
> On 6/4/2010 7:48 AM, David Kowis wrote:
> > On 6/4/2010 1:22 AM, pcdls wrote:
> >> Pretty much saw this coming. Hope none of you have made any
> >> compromising searches....at least, not intentionally.
> >> http://www.pcworld.com/article/197955/google_relents_will_hand_over_european_wifi_data.html
> >> Hopefully, Texas law should have some interesting counter-measures to
> >> deal with their goofiness (it does).
> > Because they kept the data, or because they're caving into the
> > government's demands?
> > Just curious as to what you see the core problem being.
> > Personally, if you've got open unencrypted wifi, and someone collects
> > your packets, shame on you. It's like shouting in a room, and getting up
> > set when someone writes down what you're saying...
> > David
> Core problem: There is a continuous and relentless effort to justify
> these sorts of actions. Where does it end?
> I love analogies!!!
> It's like having a private conversation and someone has bugged your
> phone to write down what you're saying. Silly rabbit!! Stop using your
> It's like leaving the door to your house unlocked so that people with
> poor manners and a lack of decency can just come in whenever they feel
> like it to check out what you're doing...and then report it. Always
> keep your house in lockdown and trust noone!
> It's like going about in public, being deliberately followed, and
> watched ( ala cointelpro )...but, hey, you're in public! Stop going out
> in public!
> I suspect, as time goes on, the next statements to come from the
> apologists will be: "Hey, we can't help that no matter how hard people
> try to encrypt their data or their communications, we will always have
> the keys!" And, when that statement is made. Will we accept it?
> Baby steps....baby steps.
I'm with David on this one. Its not like an unencrypted signal would
stay only on your property. Your basically sending an unencrypted signal
into other people's property (possibly public property) and getting mad
at them for paying attention to it. If you encrypt it at least you're
making it known that it is intended to be a private signal.
Breaking an encrypted signal seems more like the tapping of a phone than
monitoring an open signal on public property. Either way our phones have
already been tapped on a massive scale and we are already recorded in
public all over the place (even police have those heat detection devices
that can see whats going on in your house without going inside). I don't
really like them passing it on to Governments though.
I would prefer they destroy the data and stop doing it.
More information about the SATLUG