[SATLUG] So much for Google being your friend.

Enrique Sanchez esanchezvela.satlug at gmail.com
Wed Jun 9 16:12:07 CDT 2010

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:47 AM, mark <mayfield_mark at att.net> wrote:
> 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
>> phone!
>> 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.

so, you wouldn't mind if you sent a post card to a friend and someone
keeps copies of them and reports what they have? sure people would
look at it but why keep copies of the contents ?

Enrique Sanchez Vela

More information about the SATLUG mailing list