On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:51:33AM +0530, Gautam John wrote:
Saw this via BB:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/
It's their official Public Policy blog.
I rather read http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
too bad it's down again.
--
Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a
On 6/19/07, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:51:33AM +0530, Gautam John wrote:
Saw this via BB:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/
It's their official Public Policy blog.
I rather read http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
too bad it's down again.
You can still
Charles Haynes wrote:
I rather read http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
too bad it's down again.
You can still read it using Google's cached copies.
I am just imagining Charles saying this with a deadpan expression and
laughing my arse off!
:)
Madhu
--
*
Madhu Menon
Shiok Far-eastern
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Madhu Menon said the following on 19/06/2007 12:07:
I am just imagining Charles saying this with a deadpan expression and
laughing my arse off!
And I just parsed that as you saying you imagined Charles laughing your
arse off.
Don't visualise
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:34:29PM +0530, Charles Haynes wrote:
I rather read http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
too bad it's down again.
You can still read it using Google's cached copies.
No, the stuff they promised to post I can't.
I wonder whether this is again a glitch,
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:34:29PM +0530, Charles Haynes wrote:
I rather read http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/
too bad it's down again.
You can still read it using Google's cached copies.
No, the stuff they promised to post I can't.
I wonder whether this is again a glitch, or something
more
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:08:35AM +0530, Udhay Shankar N wrote:
I am quite willing to believe that google handles customer data (on
the average) with great care for privacy and security. The problem is
the sheer volume of linked, mined data that it has at its disposal,
thereby making even
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 09:58:59AM +0530, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote:
security. The privacy community should really go after the bigger
offenders of which there are many. Banks, accountants, governments...
the privacy community does this, of course. but there are two reasons to spend
more
2. google intentionally gathers more data cutting across more domains for
more people across the world than perhaps any other single organisation,
making it a uniquely concentrated potential point of failure for privacy,
whether through security problems (or more to the point) government
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:24:15AM +0100, Badri Natarajan wrote:
That is, Google doesnt just have the most information, it also has it in
the easiest, most accessible form.
or at least, has a self-imposed mission to do so, thus the more successful
google is at its self-imposed job, the more
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote: [ on 04:03 PM 6/18/2007 ]
That is, Google doesn't just have the most information, it also has it in
the easiest, most accessible form.
or at least, has a self-imposed mission to do so, thus the more
successful google is at its self-imposed job, the more of a
On 6/12/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Written and spoken fluency in Mandarin, Cantonese or Japanese a
plus.[1]
#include not-speaking-for-my-employer.h
#include not-speaking-for-my-past-employers.h
I have been with organizations in the past that have handled far more
Srini Ramakrishnan wrote [at 09:58 AM 6/18/2007] :
I have been with organizations in the past that have handled far more
sensitive data with astronomically less regard for privacy and
security. The privacy community should really go after the bigger
offenders of which there are many. Banks,
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh [12/06/07 02:03 +0200]:
...Written and spoken fluency in Mandarin, Cantonese or Japanese a
plus.[1]
thanks to seth finkelstein for drawing my attention to this, in a
comment [2] to danny sullivan's deconstruction [3] of privacy
international's report [4] singling out google
14 matches
Mail list logo
