On 1/14/10 12:31 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the picture
to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies the common
community the recipients belong to.
The Google Spokesperson I heard on the radio yesterday evening said
that they had not yet stopped censoring, and declined to give a date
when they would. His point was that the clock is ticking and Google
can see it.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Jérôme Fleury wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Anthony Uk wrote:
The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from
their inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
I'm not Chinese, but putting myself in their position...
I would be surprised if they were trying to
i am confused here, which is not at all unusual. did the chinese get
any data which google does not give to american LEAs in answer to an
administrative request, i.e. not even a court order?
randy
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:00:38AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
i am confused here, which is not at all unusual. did the chinese get
any data which google does not give to american LEAs in answer to an
administrative request, i.e. not even a court order?
You mean why didn't they just ask for it
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Benjamin Billon wrote:
Seems logical, after all.
Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China compared
to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't change a bit
in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing.
, nah, nah, nah.
You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly breaking a
law is bad joo-joo.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: more news from
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
I think we all consider their approach to copyright law refreshing and
useful, so there are certainly laws worth breaking. 8-)
.
Regards
Marshall
You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: more news from Google
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 17:14, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was
very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results, although I can
understand why
Jérôme Fleury wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 17:14, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was
very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results,
You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly breaking
a law is bad joo-joo.
OT.
Please don't say joo-joo every time the TechCrunch folks see that
they get diarrhea
Cheers
Jorge
PS what about all the property and copyright laws being supposedly
broken over there ?
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
OT.
Please don't say joo-joo every time the TechCrunch folks see that
they get diarrhea
That is a horrible name for a product. Just
13, 2010 12:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: more news from Google
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure out their /ANGLE/. :) /cynic
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
On 13.01.2010 06:24, Ken Chase wrote:
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure out their /ANGLE/. :)/cynic
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
Well played, google?
/kc
From
On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from their
inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
It's arguably something that gmail users consent to when they give Google
rights to index and process their mail,
You should most likely read their terms of service and that would
actually answer this instead of guessing. Also, if your reading your
own employee's email, that is most likely perfectly legal.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
On 2010-01-13, at 11:31,
On 2010-01-13, at 14:51, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
You should most likely read their terms of service and that would
actually answer this instead of guessing.
I've read the terms of service. I may be interpreting them incorrectly, sure,
but I'm not guessing.
If your comment was not directed at
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
activists.
I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gmail does, and often look
at their mailboxes
In a message written on Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:31:44PM +0100, Anthony Uk wrote:
I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gmail does, and often look
at their mailboxes (with their consent, of course), but I still couldn't
tell you the political position of any of them (apart from the
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:49 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: more news from Google
It's not clear to me you have to read any e-mail to figure out that
help_us_free_ti...@gmail.com might be someone who's
Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from their
inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
It's arguably something that gmail users consent to when they give Google
rights to
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
activists.
I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gmail does, and
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the picture
to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies the common
community the recipients belong to. It's pretty straight forward.
The magic
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: more news from Google
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the
picture to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies
the common community the recipients belong to. It's pretty straight
forward.
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure out their /ANGLE/. :) /cynic
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
Well played, google?
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416
through with it...
Stefan Fouant, CISSP, JNCIE-M/T
www.shortestpathfirst.net
GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: more news from Google
I must say I'll have to take
Seems logical, after all.
Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China
compared to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't
change a bit in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing.
That doesn't mean closing RD centers.
Ben
Le 13/01/2010
29 matches
Mail list logo
