Google doesn’t care. $48 billion in cash on hand. $7 million=$0

Bmore on March 9, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Wait a minute. Isn’t that about the same percentage out of the federal budget as the sequestration? That should topple Google overnight!!

Get off the Internet already. It’s invented, funded and run by the liberals. We’re also the guys who put fluoride in your water. Stop drinking that too.

I recommend living in a cave for concerned conservatives. That way you will avoid all the evil scientific black magic.

lester on March 9, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Since we’re making a list, let’s add to that lynched blacks in the old South, gassed millions of Jews, started a eugenics program that turned into Planned Parenthood… Shall we go on?

Don’t trust Google.

in_awe on March 9, 2013 at 7:41 PM

If this happened, your leak was via Outlook.

Don’t trust Microsoft.

I wasn’t aware of it since I funnel all my POP3 email into my Outlook inbox and never found it necessary to actually visit the gmail account once it was set up.

Don’t trust Google.

…pays Chris Matthews’ salary.

I thought that Microsoft no longer had a stake in either the broadcast part of the company as of about five years ago, and now has no stake at all.

Get off the Internet already. It’s invented, funded and run by the liberals. We’re also the guys who put fluoride in your water. Stop drinking that too.

I don’t care if he is a troll; funny is funny. I mean, do you all just avoid name-brand smartphones a la Britta Perry?

OhEssYouCowboys on March 9, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Whadduh know. I do, too!

It really takes a long time to clean up the Avira register…….the first time, it was like 10 minutes. I thought it was broken.

I figure it’s the same with “open” wireless networks.

avagreen on March 9, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Thanks for the info.

Your time is appreciated.

I use CCleaner after every session on the computer. And, for that matter, I use a Very Complex Overwrite – 35 passes.

:O)

Thanks, again.

Google to pay up in “Wi-Spy” case

Hope they’ve learned their lesson…next time, they’ll just be more careful not to get caught.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Lots of medicinal dope shops and dope smokers, in several states, are currently in violation of the Federal marijuana laws, and remain uncharged. Whether or not one is charged, is irrelevant to whether or not one has broken the law.

I’m satisfied that my original proposition is correct – that the matter of whether or not Google has violated Oklahoma’s Computer Crimes laws remains a possibility.

That was my only proposition, so very long ago.

I’m moving on.

I recommend living in a cave for concerned conservatives. That way you will avoid all the evil scientific black magic.

lester, it’s time for your violin lesson! on March 9, 2013 at 11:18 AM

We have no choice-you and your fellow Low-IQ Democrat Voters have all of the dark areas under the bridges spoken for!

Questions re: duckduckgo -

Does it give you as much information as a Bing search engine?

Can you make it your ONLY browser?

If so, how can I get rid of Bing?

Thanks for any info.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 9, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I think you meant “Can you make it your only search engine.”
To choose search engine: If you have FF, you can click on the left side of your search engine box and choose DuckDuckGo. If it’s not listed(which it won’t be), click on “Manage Search Engines”. And, then type it in.

Regarding info it brings up: Not as many as Bing, but I’ve found it quite sufficient for my purposes. If I wish to check if there are other info available, I go back to Bing, do my search, and then go back to DDG. I erase my cookies and empty my cache every few minutes, as well, to erase anythig that may have been been deposited for mining. May not help as much as I hope, but it’s still worth trying.

I have no idea. But, that is irrelevant, concerning the matter of whether or not Oklahoma law has been violated.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM

I would assume that whatever Google did, it did all over the world. The Europeans are incensed about the violation of privacy, so I’d expect any place whose laws have been violated to be proactive in the enforcement of the violated laws.

But if no law was violated, then whatever happens would be identical to what would happen if a law were violated and the transgressor not punished. An unenforced law is the equivalent of no law at all — which I think all those who have been upset over the illegal alien issue would attest.

If Schmidt truly believes his own statement he should be happy to release all that same type information from every Google site worldwide. He should also order that no Google site will change any of the information released since none of the people they collected information were informed so that they could take action to change or protect their information.

Guess that Google motto is getting in the way of their business.

john1schn on March 9, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Silly boy, their motto isn’t “Don’t DO evil”, it’s “Don’t BE evil”.
Pursuant to the entitlement mentality referenced up-thread,
Google, by definition, is NEVER evil.

Did OK charge Google under this law? I couldn’t find anything indicating that they did.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 2:56 PM

I have no idea. But, that is irrelevant, concerning the matter of whether or not Oklahoma law has been violated.

It appears that the question of whether or not Google would’ve violated Oklahoma’s Computer Crime laws, has not been settled.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 9, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Did OK charge Google under this law? I couldn’t find anything indicating that they did.

These instances are supposed to have taken place involving “open” or unsecured wireless networks. I have one at my house, but it’s got some pretty heavy encryption on it.

I may not be a networking wizard, but if you have pretty heavy encryption, you no longer have an “open” or unsecured wireless network.

But if I were Google, and faced with that definition of “gain access”, I’d defend myself by pointing out that the federal telecommunications acts awarding this right to listen to public communications trumps any countervailing state law under the 14th Amendment.

It all in the matter of which laws you consider as expanding your rights. When two parties are in conflict, each will point to different laws.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Except that the States can, pursuant to their own Constitutions, enact more expansive Fourth Amendment protections than are afforded under the Federal Constitution.

Accordingly, the States can, pursuant to their own Constitutions, enact more restrictive Computer Crime laws than are afforded under any Federal telecommunications acts.

It appears that the question of whether or not Google would’ve violated Oklahoma’s Computer Crime laws, has not been settled.

P.S. Does your interpretation of “gaining access” have its basis in Federal law, or in Oklahoma law?

The State’s have every right to more specifically delineate and interpret their Computer Crime laws.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 9, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Neither, because neither defines the term. I agree, if OK has defined the term “gain access” to include mere reception (akin to listening or seeing) as illegal, then there you go — it’s illegal under OK law.

But if I were Google, and faced with that definition of “gain access”, I’d defend myself by pointing out that the federal telecommunications acts awarding this right to listen to public communications trumps any countervailing state law under the 14th Amendment.

It all in the matter of which laws you consider as expanding your rights. When two parties are in conflict, each will point to different laws.

Technically that amounts to the right to read your house address from the street, and that is about as far as that goes.

SWalker on March 9, 2013 at 1:49 PM

If the rights imparted by law are to be interpreted expansively rather than restrictively, then I’d say it amounts to a right to read far more than your house address from the street — it also amounts to a right to read the campaign sign on your lawn, to paw through the trash you leave for pickup out on the street….

In other words, anything someone can observe about you from off of your property. That means that Google Maps’ satellite data showing my house from the air is not illegal. Nor is their publication of my SSIDs (“aethyrfyre8″, “aethyrfyre52″, “aethyrfyre25″, “aethyrfyre3″,…) in Google Location Services illegal. In fact, had I been transmitting data in the open, I’d say that even that data is public — having crossed my property line and gone into the street.

If I ever become truly paranoid about my data, I’ll be sure to use Cantennas between my house and my garage, and I’ll paint the exterior of both with TEMPEST paint. Of course, if I do that, my wife will kill me because I’ve screwed up all the cellphones in the house, but that’s just something I’ll have to live (or not) with…

…pays Chris Matthews’ salary.
Hard to pick a winner here.

Ronnie on March 9, 2013 at 11:13 AM

lesser of evils, no one watches Spittles..

hillsoftx on March 9, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Actually Microsoft sold back their stake in MSNBC to NBC several years ago.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 1:59 PM

P.S. Does your interpretation of “gaining access” have its basis in Federal law, or in Oklahoma law?

The State’s have every right to more specifically delineate and interpret their Computer Crime laws.

To understand the correct use of “gain access”, Google (heh) “gain access” and see what pops up.

unclesmrgol on March 9, 2013 at 1:59 PM

I think that it would be reasonable to interpret “gaining access” as “intercepting.”

Anyway, it was interesting, and I appreciate your feedback.