‘Don’t Be Evil,’ Meet ‘Spy on Everyone’: How the NSA Deal Could Kill Google
wired.com
wired.com
The idea that bing and yahoo mail aren't consuming your personal data in order to show you more ads, or wouldn't cooperate with the government if asked, I find to be laughable.
I doubt it will erode Google's market share or traffic much (or at all), but only because the average computer user is neither informed nor interested in privacy and security.
But it's still not a good idea to over-centralize the internet in principle. My own Google usage has fallen off a lot lately just for the sake of not relying on a single service for too much.
AT&T's behavior seems to have had no effect on iPhone enthusiasm. When I've asked people about having to use AT&T to use their iPhone, it seems a total non-issue. They simply don't care if a company was engaged in illegal spying, they want what they want.
It reminded me of when there was much more railing against software patent, and Amazon grabbed on for one-click shopping. There was some noise, but Amazon's cheaper prices soon won the day.
The Dead Kennedy's had it right: Give me convenience or give me death.
Why do they need the NSA to help them against attacks, exactly?
And while we're on the subject, will other non-government companies faced with online attacks also have access to NSA resources? And if not, why not? Where's the line here and what are the implications?
So let's assume that the NSA gets the lion's share of nearly $70 billion, say $30-35 billion, as its annual operating budget. It also gets access to things money can't buy: classified technologies, crytographic techniques, secret knowledge of physical infrastructures, etc.
Google, on the other hand, has no (or extremely limited) access to state secrets (either those of the U.S. or of foreign countries), and it has an annual income of about $6.5 billion--one fifth that of the NSA.
The NSA doesn't utterly dwarf Google, but on the other hand they have some substantial advantages that Google simply cannot match.
I read this as a warning to China that the US has taken a Defense Interest in Google (and implicit interest in the other companies affected in the recent attacks). And that further 'incidents' may trigger a National Response. There's simply no other reason to announce the partnership.
No matter how strong the firewall Google puts up between surveillance and intrusion diagnostics, there will be people questioning it.
You can say whatever to your community... But if you are public you need to increase your revenue and enter in every market that can satisfy this need for the investors. "Don't be evil" and things like that are BS, if you are not evil into the markets, someone will take yours.
And the Iraq war is over: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/29-01-2010/111925-wa...
Anyway, he states that the current war in Iraq (and perhaps Afghanistan) (against the "Islamist Jihadists" as he calls them, revealing more about his politics than is necessary) is not going to be a priority for the next 10-20 years. The primary purpose was to destabilize the region, not win the "war on terror", which certainly seems to have worked.
The next conflict, as he sees it, will be with Russia as it once again tries to gain greater access to the Atlantic, becoming another global power with access to both oceans.
I'm not well-informed enough to do more than repeat what I've read so far, but it is a thought-provoking thesis. And recommended reading.
Also, I just logged into HN with my google account.
Also, Google provides public services by hosting assets such as Javascript libraries - are you blocking those as well?
If you don't want Google to track you you should just not visit Google domains, block Google analytics (and other trackers) and inspect your cookie cache every now and again to see what's leaking. That should suffice for a non-obsessive level of Google paranoia.