Judge to Google: sniffing even open WiFi networks may be wiretapping

arstechnica.com

By Nate Anderson | 6/30/2011

When a homeowner runs an open, unencrypted wireless network and Google sniffs the packets from that network, has wiretapping taken place? Or did the openness of the network remove the user’s reasonable expectation of privacy?

Google’s Street View project has enmeshed the company in litigation around the world, most notably over the company’s data collection from WiFi networks its camera cars passed while doing their work. (Google has claimed that this was a mistake.) In the US, a host of class-action lawsuits over the practice have been consolidated into a single case, and the California federal judge overseeing it has just refused Google’s motion to completely dismiss the case. Sniffing even open WiFi packets might indeed be wiretapping, he ruled.[...]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/06/judge-tells-google-sniffing-even-open-wifi-networks-may-be-wiretapping.ars

Everyone knows that the neighbor’s automobile – parked on a public road does not mean anyone can drive it away simply because it is in public space. It is in public space but it retains it private ownership. It is an object. It is a physical object. Ownership of physical objects – even in public space – is within the range of man’s common senses. But owning “radiation” in public space takes some getting used to. Being responsible for placing radiation in public space is a thinkable thought – but the idea that the radiation belongs to someone is new.

Do you need permission from the flashlight’s source to use a prism on the light beam from the flashlight? Not at this time.

Not long ago an American President claimed outer space. What if someone claimed the sun – would sun rays be the private property of the owner of the sun.

If you are the source of electromagnetic radiation, are you also the owner of the radiated “waves”? The idea that you are responsible for the radiated waves fits the intellect of many if not most human beings. But the idea that someone in the path of the radiated waves is restricted from interacting with the radiated waves unless permission is granted by the “wave owner” is new.

Radio and TV stations likely would never have gotten off the ground under the private ownership of electromagnetic radiation theory. And in some households, those private waves may even have been forbidden by the owner of the house.

The idea of privately owned waves in public space takes some special thought. And that idea is about as welcome as the results of the recent Walmart class action law suit suit, the “dog fighting case” and the recent game violence case.

One can consider the telephone as an instrument for private conversation. That is the nature of telephones. Long ago, when one shared a “party-line” one still wanted one’s telephone conversation to be private.

The telephone does indeed share some of the “characterics” of all things electro-magnetic. But it silly to talk about telephone attributes when the focus is on something else. Giving WiFi the privacy attribute of the telephone is really weird. But then we just had a class of females working for a single employer who did not qualify as a class. And we just had dog fighting elevated. And we just had violent games elevated. And we just had the “speed limit” of business to politics money highway raised.

Can’t Believe How Low Journalism Can Go – Believe Again

From the guardian.co.uk comes this:

MSNBC suspends journalist over Barack Obama insult

US cable news channel takes action after Mark Halperin calls US president ‘kind of a dick’

Poll: Was MSNBC right to suspend Halperin[...]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jun/30/barack-obama-dick-insult

So the “prose” of the “potty-mouthed” continues to contaminate America’s CURRENT EVENTS news pool. And the list of potty-mouths is now extended to journalists?

So, what is journalism and where do you go to find examples of journalism?

“Media Matters FOR AMERICA” published this ERIC BOEHLERT article in October of 2006:

Here’s how dishonest Beltway journalism has become

Books about politics and the press don’t come much more dishonest, or depressing, than the new tome hitting stores this week, The Way to Win (Random House). Written by corporate media bigwigs Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News and founder of its political newsletter The Note, and John F. Harris, national political editor of The Washington Post, the new digest — it’s their take on how to win the White House — is already being toasted by celebrity journalists inside the Beltway, which in today’s environment means the book politely re-enforces preferred conventional wisdom and graciously avoids asking tough questions about Republicans. The press corps also skates by in the eyes of Halperin and Harris, who continuously rewrite recent history in order to ensure that journalists shoulder little or no blame for D.C. pressroom disgraces such as Whitewater, the blatantly dishonest coverage heaped upon Al Gore’s presidential campaign, and for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth hoax that ensnared Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential run.[...]

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200610030008

Has the behavior of journalists been “de-regulated”? Was that behavior ever regulated? What does “freedom of the press” mean to journalists?

The above type poll question should be asked of other offending behaviors:

1. penis slicing

2. waterboarding

3. selling cocaine

4. outing a CIA agent

[ The above poll question tests how low America can go.] 

Consumers Union and Consumer Watchdog Websites Seem to Display Contrasting Views of Google

Consumers Union and Consumer Watchdog  seem to have constrasting “hot buttons” in their perception of threats to consumers. When searching those sites using the keyword GOOGLE. The contrasting results are more than “eyebrow raising”, the contrast is downright dumbfounding.

Look at these results:

ConsumersUnion.org

keywords google

Sorry, your query does not match any document.

http://www.synomia.com/sitesearch/consult5/index.php?mid=a3c1fd3c5585a5303ceaee238d3cbc4c&l=en

Consumers Union website, using the “google” keyword, found NO Google articles. Now contrast that with the search at Consumer Watchdog’s website:

Consumer Watchdog

keywords google

SEARCH

Search this site: Google

CURRENT SEARCH

Search found 785 items

(-) google

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/search/apachesolr_search/google?page=1

Two sites, serving consumers, see Google in such constrasting views that one would hope to see a poll asking consumers how they feel about Google. It is easy to discern how Consumer Watchdog feels about Google – but what is that a reflection of? There seems to be something puzzling going on here. And the political website, THE HILL, recently picked up an article from Consumer Watchdog.

Google professor David Cheriton warns over US economy

BBC NEWS

27 June 2011 Last updated at 22:53 ET Help

The professor who helped Google’s founders get the company off the ground has warned that President Obama is leading the United States on a “crash course” towards economic disaster.

David Cheriton, who taught Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Stanford University in California and became a billionaire as Google grew, said that America’s innovators and investors were being driven overseas in search of opportunity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13936930

The BBC’s Matt Frei talked with David Cheriton, a professor who taught Sergey Brin and Larry Page at Stanford University. And that is certainly worthy of note. Professor Cheriton must have great standing in the world of computer science.

Looking again at the above post we see:

The professor who helped Google’s founders get the company off the ground has warned that President Obama is leading the United States on a “crash course” towards economic disaster.

What American President successfully lead America on a “crash course” towards economic disaster? To answer that question – one only needs to query common sense. It does not take the credentials of a university professor to answer that question.

It was President George W. Bush who lead America’s economy on a crash course towards economic disaster. And it only took four years. However, many of the benefactors of the Bush Administration have been IN-DENIAL about neocon American history.

Where does David Cheriton’s expertise lie? Is it computer science, economics or some other discipline?

Would American investors abandon America in her time of financial need? You bet! Remember that post over at the Wall Street Journal that says business has no social responsibility.

Bush focused on investors in his 2003 State of the Union Address. He de-regulated the financial industry – investors feasted until America’s treasury was dead. The crash course toward economic disaster happened BEFORE President Obama came into office.

America’s economy had been TAX CUT and De-Regulated into a near death condition. And the rich, who are already rich, are bemoaning the “medicine” that is now required to bring America’s economy back into good health. And Mr. David Cheriton is likely correct – it is President Obama and NOT America’s neocon Congress who is posing a problem for the wealthy.  Certain neocon wealthy don’t like to be held responsible for poor financial management. The neocon Congressmen are respecting that by focusing on labor. Democrats are presenting  solutions that embraces all who are involved.

[ Professor Cheriton spoke of going overseas in search of investment opportunities. Greece is now looking. And word in the press now says Africa has been targeted for commercial farming.

But there are countries that "investors" might need to be wary of - if you don't obey their laws. ] 

Inventor of the “Swap” Blames Regulators for Financial Crisis

US News

By KIM CLARK

January 5, 2009

The Wall Street trader who invented the swap says he’s dismayed by how other traders have so abused his invention and the “complete and utter failure” of regulators to prevent the abuse that led to the current financial meltdown.

David Swensen, now the legendary manager of Yale University’s endowment funds, says swaps and other financial derivatives ought to be traded on an exchange and hedge funds that get big enough to pose risks to the financial system should be regulated.[...]

http://www.usnews.com/education/articles/2009/01/05/manager-of-yale-endowment-funds-blames-regulators-for-financial-crisis

America’s economy is an object. An easy way, perhaps, to destroy an object is to take away those features that define the object. Modifying those features happens and could be considered “upgrades”. But removing critical constraints placed in the object’s definition, may be inviting trouble.

The neocons removed critical constraints(de-regulation) from a HUGE financial market and the results were disastrous. Some of the Western world’s economies came tumbling down. And the neocon’s “damage control” leaped into action: “They sold your mortgage to a less qualified minority” cried one voice that was placed into America’s CURRENT EVENTS newspool.

We need to balance the budget cried the neocons who should have known better: but then, maybe they were directing their wisdom toward those 42 million adult Americans who cannot read.

Just give us 9 years to balance the budget said the neocons. The neocons already had twenty-some-odd years to balance the budget but they didn’t – however; give them 9 more years and they will. Makes one think that their targeted audience must have been those 42 million adult Americans who cannot read.

A recession should not be used as a budget balancing tool. Balancing a budget is good management practice but more often than not – it is triggered by the calendar – not recessions. The neocons used a recession to trigger budget balancing. That put the focus on labor and away from the neocon’spolitical base.

The financial derivatives market is a HUGE market. Making a “crap-shoot” out of such a market would likely cause a GREAT RECESSION for the masses. But some BIG PEOPLE will likely get richer.

The Cause of The Great Recession – Hypothesized

Searching for the cause of America’s December, 2007 great recession can easily start with economic data surrounding the great recession. What was America’s economy like, for example, in 2003? Why 2003? Because that was the year that America’s government focused on the economy. That was the year that President George W. Bush decided to fix America’s economy.

Let us visit a 2003 description of America’s economy. This description comes by way of the INDIANA BUSINESS REVIEW. The website is a dot edu website.

The title of the article is, “The U.S. Economy” and it was written by Willard E. Witte - Associate Professor of Economics, Indiana University, Bloomington. Here is his introduction:

The U.S. economy during 2003 has been an exercise in cognitive dissonance. By most measures, the economy has performed quite well (and quite close to the outlook we presented a year ago). Yet the “man on the street” by most reports believes that things are not going well. In this national overview, I will first look at the good news from last year and dissect the fly in the ointment. Then I will outline our relatively optimistic view of what we can expect in 2004, along with some things that could cause problems during the next year.[...]

http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2003/outlook04/national.html

It is safe to say that America was not in a great recession in 2003. And the prognosis for 2004 was clear of recessions. It is likely possible that, in 2003, no one foresaw an economic disaster of the magnitude of the December 2007 great recession.

In 2003, America was only four years away from something that was going to remind America of the 1929 Great Depression. Could the source of this something be native to America? Did a Western economy – closely related to America’s economy topple causing a rippling effect in other Western economies? The answer is “YES” and “NO”. Yes the “something” could be related to America. No, the “something” was not an outside influence that did a job on America’s economy.

Then what happened in America that could have had a hugely negative impact on America’s economy?

Let’s take a look at excerpts from the Text of President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address:

[...]To bring our economy out of recession, we delivered the largest tax relief in a generation.

(APPLAUSE)

[...]After recession, terrorist attacks, corporate scandals and stock market declines, our economy is recovering. Yet it is not growing fast enough, or strongly enough.

With unemployment rising, our nation needs more small businesses to open, more companies to invest and expand, more employers to put up the sign that says, “Help Wanted.”

(APPLAUSE)

[...]Jobs are created when the economy grows; the economy grows when Americans have more money to spend and invest; and the best and fairest way to make sure Americans have that money is not to tax it away in the first place.

(APPLAUSE)

[...]I am proposing that all the income tax reductions set for 2004 and 2006 be made permanent and effective this year.

(APPLAUSE)

To boost investor confidence, and to help the nearly 10 million seniors who receive dividend income, I ask you to end the unfair double taxation of dividends.

(APPLAUSE) Lower taxes and greater investment will help this economy expand. More jobs mean more taxpayers and higher revenues to our government.[...]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html

Ex-President George W. Bush focused on America’s economy in 2003 and by December of 2007 the economy was in recession.

If a quick response, as some suggest, is critical to recovery from a recession, then America suffered a “double whammy” from the neocons. The neocons denied the recession for almost a year – allowing the recession to become more firmly anchored in America’s economy.

Looking for an answer to a problem means you don’t “cloak” problem components.  If you can’t deal honestly with a problem’s components – you are likely the wrong person to solve the problem. Successful problem resolution means you expose – not hide – problem components. And blaming others, may get past America’s ombudsmen(voters) but reality has a way of coming back to deal with IN-DENIAL.

Solving a Financial Derivatives Problem By “Cutting Labor Expenses” ?

In the magic world of neocon economics, a strange show is now center-stage. VOODOO ECONOMICS is going to solve a financial derivatives problem by cutting labor expenses. Labor expenses are not related to the cause of America’s neocon managed great recession.

How can anyone do that? Anyone can’t – but the neocons will give it a try. And if America’s ombudsmen(voters) are half-asleep – who knows?

Why pick on labor?

Why not pick on labor?

The neocons have already picked on minorities – claimed they caused the Great Recession. So, now it should be an honor to pick on labor as the cure for America’s Great Recession … RIGHT?

And surely, America’s ombudsmen(voters) were wise in picking the political party with the most experience in causing economic disasters to analyze and repair America’s most recent economic disaster … RIGHT?

In an economy managed by neocons and based on “VOODOO ECONOMICS” many financial things are possible – including crashing an economy.

No neocon adventure into problem resolution of economic disasters would be complete without visiting the tool used to fashion a neocon type economy.

That “tool” was called “Reaganomics” or “supply side economics“. Or you could call it “voodoo economics“.

The tools of voodoo economics don’t include “rubber chickens” and “loin cloths”. And no one need dance around a late night fire in the open – while wearing the loin cloth and swinging the rubber chicken, high in the air over one’s head.

Financial derivatives combined with neocons can be a potent economics concoction. But since derivatives have been in the “marketplace” since before Christ, it’s possible that no one would suspect financial derivatives of being capable of being mis-used. However, any tool – in the wrong hands – can be a weapon.

A visit to Wikipedia in search of a definition of Reaganomics shows the four pillars of Reaganomics:

The four pillars of Reagan’s economic policy are:

1. Reduce Growth of Government spending.
2. Reduce Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax.
3. Reduce Government regulation.
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

Joejolly has previously asked – should those 4 steps be seen as a composite or are you free to “pick and choose” which steps you wanted to execute? Picking and choosing is what the Reagan administration did. It made no difference which alias the neocons used, they all failed the very first step of the four pillars of Reaganomics.

Lets look again at the dynamics of the neocons’ failed step # 1. Lets revisit zFacts.com’s website:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

The neocons failed, miserably, in step number one. And after looking at the dedication and energy put into the rest of the Reaganomics’ steps, one might even question the neocon’s “resolve” in step number one.

When it comes to solving problems caused by Reaganomics/supply side economics/ voodoo economics – it is really strange how America’s ombudsmen(voters) could pick neocons.

The neocons are motivated by POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY and there is no political opportunity for the neocons finding fault with their political base. They didn’t find fault with their political base in 1929 and they are not finding fault in their political base in 2011.

To solve the 1929 depression problem, the neocons sought to increase tariffs. Increasing tariffs had worked during the roaring twenties. But there must have been some kind of an economic difference between the roaring twenties and the depression that followed. Tariffs did not work during the depression. After tariffs, the depression became a great depression.

They sacrificed America’s economy in 1929 via tariffs. More problems for America’s economy showed up after tariffs. It seems that other countries decided they were not going to pay for problems cause by the Republicans management of America’s economy. Apparently it was thought that if tariffs went over without a hitch during the roaring twentys, the same thing should happen during the depression that followed.

Today, neocons are not trying to increase income. Today, they are trying to decrease expenses – labor expenses. Notice how, they leave their own political base untouched. They left it untouched in 1929 and they are leaving it untouched in 2011.

In America’s December, 2007 great recession, financial derivatives may have been the “straw that broke the camel’s back”. But financial derivatives are a part of the neocons political base. Labor is not a part of the neocons’ political base.

And if the neocons put a civil war on the table, why not also put the destruction of America’s economy on that same table – before parting with their TAX CUTS or their POLITICAL BASE?

Connecticut Labor Fights Back

Vote By Unions Upends Budget In Connecticut

The New York Times

Labor Savings Rejected – Big Layoff Possible

By PETER APPLEBOME

HARTFORD – Connecticut’s State workers, in voting results announced on Friday, rejected a deal meant to produce $1.6 billion in labor savings over two years, blowing a gaping hole in the state budget, raising the likelihood of thousands of layoffs and threatening chaos in a state that has largely avoided the rancorous labor issues seen elsewhere.[...]

It was the Republicans, using one of their many names – pick one – who caused the Great Recession. It is the Republicans who want labor to suffer the consequences of the Republican’s great recession. The neocons have been “beating” on labor since Reagan’s mass firing of America’s control tower workers. And the neocons have, forever, played negatively with the wages of labor. Perhaps that is about to end.

Perhaps it’s time to force the neocons to solve rather than hide their great recession. It is unfortunate but their recession fighting strategy looks like a page from their 1929 book of solutions.

References:

Applebome, Peter. “Vote by Unions Upends Budget In Connecticut”; New York Times June 25, 2011: Front Page

Attacking Google Is Attacking An Icon of Corporate Social Responsibility

Google takes social responsibility seriously. That is manifest in its mission statement. Google’s mission statement is alive – not just a meaningless “ornament” hung on a wall in a business establishment.

While most, if not all companies, can see human beings as customers, few go beyond that. Over at the Wall Street Journal we see this post:

“The Case Against Corporate Social Reponsibility“

The above title, of course, fits the atmosphere in a country that has been ruled by neocons for twenty-some-odd years. Fascism elevates business to a supreme – almost oracle-like position.

Business, in general, exhibits a “responsible for MY bottom-line ONLY” behavior. While business does organize for its own protection, when it reaches out to the population, it is reaching out to customers – not partners in a social environment. And in today’s business world the customer is more “pawn” than “king”. Customers allowed that to happen.

On the political side, the neocon mentality, while enjoying the benefits of a social environment – takes no responsibility for that social environment. They even go so far as to “stigmatize” the word “social”.

There are multiple reasons why business and others might want to silence Google. Google is humanity oriented. Google is intellectually productive. Google’s competition overwhelms.

Google has not said it wanted to kill another business. Google has not tried to sue a company out of business. Google has not cozied up to government agencies in an attempt to Kill its competition. Google is competitive – from the Internet, to software that drives automobiles, to using satellites to organize and make available views of the world. Maybe it’s “no-fair” to have Ex-Stanford University PHD candidates competing in America’s business world?

Google is Good!

Google is good for you – Google is good for me – Google is good for mankind!

Oracle’s patent claim against Google takes a hit

The US patent office has rejected 17 of 21 Oracle patent claims against Google
By Chris Kanaracus, InfoWorld, 06/23/11

Oracle’s lawsuit against Google over alleged Java patent violations in the Android OS is facing a potential setback, following a ruling by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-06-2011/110623-oracle-patent-claim-takes-a-hit.html