MrKurtz

9 ms·

1.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Their shares went down immediately after due to concerns they forfeited the opportunity to expand their business in the world's 2nd largest economy, but as the immediate economic damage was immaterial their decision wasn't followe
2.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
You can't declare that they're not fighting because you have no knowledge of what is being done by their lawyers and lobbyists, especially since the courts involved are secret. Lobbying scales better than shutting down or suspendi
3.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Shifting the blame and the burden for policy reform onto firms is not only silly but also unfair, you can't really expect them to shut down, they are not one man operations like Lavabit.
4.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
The burden isn't on Google (I'm not sure why you are singling out Google) their hands are tied from a legal and practical standpoints. They receive warrants and subpoenas with which they have to comply to keep doing business, if y
5.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Lavabit was a tiny private operation. If you think that a publicly traded multi billion dollar company with millions of users and customers can just shut down to avoid complying with government requests then you are a deluded moron.
6.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
A couple more listed here: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2013/08/youtubes-geeky-east...
7.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
At least they're transparent (as one can be) about it: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/transparency-report-s...
8.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
You can't convincingly make that argument since you don't know what lawyers have been doing behind the closed doors of secret court rooms nor do you have knowledge of their relevant lobbying, you're just assuming things. No t
9.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
"Participates" is the wrong characterisation, they are under the jurisdiction of FISA orders, if the NSA wants to call that PRISM, it's their business. Also worth mentioning is that providers in non-US countries are subject t
10.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
If you are seriously suggesting that abandoning the US market is a realistic option, especially for a multibillion dollar corporation, then you are (and I'm not using this word lightly) an idiot . Not to mention that there is no US eq
11.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
How comforting it is to be only subject to French surveillance: http://gigaom.com/2013/07/04/france-has-its-own-prism-like-s...
12.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
It's obviously deliberate. Are you not familiar with OS level profiles? in the case of OSX: http://support.apple.com/kb/PH11468 there is your master password. Also the post you mention was already submitted and di
13.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
The master password is that of your OS profile.
14.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Sigh. How does the saying go again: 'misinformed paranoia travels around the world and spawns parody sites before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on and start individually debunking each reposting' ? http://www
15.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Good point, they should have made that distinction in the article.
16.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Instead of just regurgitating whatever is handed out to them, these publication ought to be more skeptical of the claims of a company like Lookout whose business is built on FUD, especially when they are spreading that FUD about the only pl
17.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
http://www.bnowire.com/inbox/?id=1953
18.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
The most disturbing and disappointing part of the whole story is how it spread without even the slightest attempt to do any journalism work, and now that the truth was uncovered hardly anyone is publishing or updating originals with correct
19.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Even if it was due to her queries, they could have gotten them by tapping ISPs, they tend to comply easier than tech firms.
20.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
The police do what 100 time a week? Go to random houses and ask odd pressure cooker bomb related questions? Evidently in Boston they do. I agree completely, the goal is to verify the claims, and thankfully someone is trying to: http:&#x2
21.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
The distinction between public and private in this scenario is the difference between pictures posted so that everyone can see versus a string that only two parties can read directly or others might sniff indirectly.
22.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
She also says: "They mentioned that they do this about 100 times a week. And that 99 of those visits turn out to be nothing. I don’t know what happens on the other 1% of visits and I’m not sure I want to know what my neighbors are up t
23.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
There is a huge difference! if they visited her because of her web searches which are private then it's a big deal, if on the other hand the visit was due to her profile picture which is public then it's not as big of a deal.
24.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Nor have there been reports to support her claim. As to the police visit, there are plenty of other speculative reasons for it: https://plus.google.com/112961607570158342254/posts/FWAVRVaN...
25.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Huh? they're running a story that implies that the feds or local police can monitor Google searches without evidence, they are cynically exploiting recent headlines to pull traffic. If you want the press to be taken seriously on seriou
26.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
My point is to not take this story on face value, the details matter, and should be investigated.
27.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
If that was the case they would have mentioned that they received a "no comment".
28.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
It's shameful how many publications ran with this story on face value.
29.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Evidently there will be a Google Edition of the Moto X as well: http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/1/4579278/google-play-edition...
30.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
No one has even asked them! she should also FOIA this incident. My point is that it's all speculative at the moment.

More ›