"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us> wrote in message
news:afl5j1lqts9m6pohoeg92phjmjqvggn036@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:11:03 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I don't have much time to debate this stuff, so I'll limit my comments
> to direct questions.
>
>>Hmm....You're asking users to take alot on face value/show leaps of faith
>>in
>>Google.
>
> Yes. I already do that with various ISP's, hosting services, cellular
> providers, and telco service providers I deal with. When you're in
> business there's an assumption of trust that has to be there or
> nothing ever happens. The Japanese have developed this to a fine art
> in that they will not do business with anyone they even suspect is
> potentially untrustworthy. I've been running my own businesses long
> enough to know that it's much easier and better to treat ones
> customers and vendors as trustworthy, than to initiate some type of
> adversary action. I tend to trust everyone and treat them
> accordingly. Yeah, I get burned on occasion, but the greatest
> majority of the people I deal with a honest and trustworthy. I think
> Google qualifies.

I hope they do. The Japanese ethic is spot-on, but that trust element is
arguably the toughest to hold on to.
I guess that's one reason why the suicide rate in Japan is always so high.
Trust means different things to different people and if you get burned once
too many times, it can lead to you seroiusly
questioning the very reason why you do what you do. Meaning of life n' all
that.

>
>>Therein lies the point - not so much what Google are setting up, but why
>>are
>>they doing it ?
>
> Well, I can only guess as to why their stockholders want Google to
> make money. Perhaps it's because they expect a return on their
> investment?

Perhaps.

>
>>I mentioned previously about mass-market data collection, what is
>>statistical study if it doesn't involve mass-market data collection ?
>
> Most ISP's generate statistics on their overall customers traffic
> usage and patterns. This is commonly deemed acceptable. It only
> becomes an issue the traffic and use patterns are traceable to
> individually identifiable customers.
>
> Incidentally, Google currently sells keyword lookup use patterns,
> click thru counts, and statistics to their advertisers. How else
> could one know which search terms to "buy" and how effective the
> advertising. However, none of these are traceable to individual
> users.
>
>>Do you think if GMail was the only existing Web-based
>>mail reader, Google wouldn't be tempted to charge for it ? The larger the
>>user-base, the more the argument to charge for it comes into effect.
>
> The could use the Yahoo and Hotmail examples and only charge for
> premium service. I think a better example will be Microsloth
> Anti-Spyware Beta 1. Currently it's free until the end of the year.
> Nobody knows if they're going to charge for it. Tradition has it that
> once something is free, chargeing for the same thing results in
> massive user alienation and eventual collapse of the marketing plan.
> Let's see if MS is going to charge for their Anti-Spyware service.

Well it ain't theirs exactly. Sorry that's wrong - it is theirs now.
The usual product rebadging exercise.

>
>>> I didn't ask they could afford to do
>>> it. I asked precisely how they would impliment such a spy system?
>>> Hint: Have you ever tried to sniff gigabit ethernet? Think of it as
>>> drinking from a fire hose.
>>
>>You asked that because you probably know I couldn't answer it.
>
> No, I asked a rhetorical question because I knew that if you thought
> about it, you would see the problem with Google sniffing traffic.
> There's just too much of it. It's also somewhat tricky with gigabit.
> I'll spare you the details because I'm a bit busy today. If you want
> some real entertainment, try sniffing a single session extracted from
> a multiplexed fiber link. Unfortunately, there are commercial
> products designed to do exactly that, so we can assume that someone is
> sniffing telco mux traffic. Probably our trustworthy government
> fighting terrorism or something.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least.Unofortunately I don't currently have
access to that kit at home. Got a toaster though ?

>
>>Do you think the same set of circumstances will exist in 5/10 years time ?
>
> Of course not. I expect the volume of traffic and ubiquitous
> encryption to make it even more difficult for Google to sniff your
> traffic.

Betya' sniffing technology will have come on leaps and bounds though.
Take with pinch of salt.

>
>>Or the second-leading (Connectix for example when VMWare told em' to get
>>stuffed).
>>You're telling me MSs attempts at a Search Engine/Virtual Earth aren't
>>attenpts to follow/compete with Google then ?
>
> I'll keep it short. MS has tired to get out of the product biz and go
> into the service business many times. MSN is the closest
> approximation to a successful attempt. They've tried to turn their
> software business into a rental business. Almost everything they seem
> to be planning is drifting in the ASP (applications service provider)
> direction despite massive resistance from the customer base. When you
> think of such services as large database cartography, think of it in
> terms of what direction MS is trying to move the customers.

Yeah, I know they've been going on about the software as a service model for
years for fairly obvious reasons.

>
>>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
>>
>>I'm not interested in what they're collecting now - that's potentially a
>>constantly moving playing field anyway. I am interested in why they're
>>collecting it ?
>
> Then post a question on their weblog asking exactly what they plan to
> do with all the information they may or may not be gathering via their
> VPN client or server. Go directly to the source and see if they can
> answer your concerns.

May do. If I ask them I expect they can only answer in respect of current
projections.
No one really knows what the future holds. I guess Google are in the same
boat as the rest of us.

>
>>Very true. If everything in life was free, we'd all be poor though I
>>guess.
>
> One of my sidelines was reviewing business plans. Most sounded like
> science fiction. The really entertaining ones were those that plan to
> make money by giving something away. It's kinda difficult to eat
> "market share". Since the dot com meltdown, most of the free
> everything plans are gone.

The Chinese Govt do like Opensource, which is still free last time I looked
though. I guess that's more an anti-MS statement than
anything else.Getting Linux is a bit like getting a car with no petrol
(sorry gas). Until someone puts some gas in it, it ain't going nowhere.

>
>>What about the "Garbage bin" sniffing by both MS and Oracle in the past ?
>
> Sorry. I have no idea what you're talking about. Almost every
> company that could gather statistics in the past have attempted to do
> so. That was when the acceptable limits of such behavior had not been
> established. The music players were logging what songs you played or
> downloaded. Web portals were collecting URL's viewed. MS was
> collecting installed software lists. Ad nausium. Most of these
> companies still do that with one difference. The data is no longer
> traceable to individual users. Is that acceptable to you?

True but MSs recent WPA does log more machine details than I care to see.
They aren't naming the user, but they are naming location/IP/installed
OS/certain hardware items PID etc..., which is arguably more valuable than
user
info anyway..Just MS playing the numbers game again.

>
>>Huge Corps- makng lots and lots of money resorting to "dumpster-diving" I
>>believe you guys call it and paying third-parties to do the dirty work for
>>em'.
>
> Oh that. That's called espionage and is far more common than you
> would expect.

I can easily "expect" how common it is.

Much of my early education in telco practices came from
> fishing BSP's (Bell System Practices) out of the dumpter at telco
> training offices. Some of my best souse code finds came from dumpster
> diving. I fail to see the connection between such practices and your
> suggestion of Google's potential breaches of privacy.

Behavioural pattern. To me the practice of "dumpster-diving" is completely
unethical and only exists because those that choose to do it can get away
with it.
Ok, so that's gone on probably in one form or another since the beginning of
time, but it still stinks. Nobody ever hear of shredders in Silicon Valley ?

>
>>When you see Corps acting like that is it any wonder the individual
>>perspective is "Why should I trust them when that's what they get up to ?"
>
> Sorry. I guess you can't trust me because I do dumpster diving.

I'm guessing you don't need to do it anymore ?? As before doing the diving
isn't really the issue, it's what you do with what you find that's probably
more important.
Some elements of Silicon Valley behavour shall we say I'd rather steer clear
of.

> Might as well add that the first thing I did on a new design was
> reverse engineer the competitions. Of course prying information
> during interviews from employees of competitors was unethical.
> Hanging around a Silicon Valley bar (and I'm a non-drinker) just to
> pry rumors from the competition is also unethical. Of course, trading
> customers should be banned or made illegal. Surely, I'm more evil
> than a mere dumpster diver.

No you're just a product of the modern-age ;)
As Client Eastwood once said "Every man's got to know his limitations". For
some they just stretch further than others.

>
> Hint: I you ever decide to go into business for yourself, you'll
> probably find yourself doing many things that are marginal. It's a
> constant problem and bugs me as I don't have any built in sense of
> ethics. I learned mine by working for companies of various sizes and
> paying attention to how and why they do such things. If you expect
> everyone in business to be squeaky clean and ethical, you're in for a
> rude suprise. Some are more ethical than others and I consider Google
> to be among the best.

We finally get down to it. One man's pleasure is another man's poison.
Don't think my career's been as varied as yours, but I have dealt with those
I wouldn't rather have dealt with.
I learned I'm not the success at all costs type even though what I've seen
has probably been produced by those of that "Vintage" shall we say.
Corny as it sounds I value my soul ! I've got no wish to be reincarnated as
Steve "Developers..developers..developers..." Ballmer.
What the **** are you going on about Mr Sweaty ?

>
>>Besides, the service is either securable end-to-end or it isn't.
>
> Great. None of the local ISP's offer VPN termination services to
> non-commerical customers. But, you want end to end so that would
> required that all server farms switch to accepting only SSL secured
> web browsing. Not this week.

That's fine. I'll just avoid it then.

>
> The immediate problem is the wireless link. It's just too easy to
> sniff or spoof. The minimal solution is to encrypt just the wireless
> part of the puzzle. That's good enough for the casual user. You can
> solve the security problems of the internet another time.

If the user doen't give a stuff about where it's going then yeah that's ok.

>
>>> I only care about the quantity. One Bitorrent user can hog the entire
>>> system. I don't care if he's downloading movies, cd images, or porno,
>>> he's history if I catch him.
>>
>>Oohhh the power !
>
> Oh, the responsibility. I have to justify my actions when the irate
> customer calls up and complains, or when the hot spot refers them to
> me. I blocked a laptop user at a local hot spot last week because he
> had an active spam bot running on his laptop. The bozo called me at
> home and demanded to know why I had the "right" to block him. He knew
> about the spam bot and was going to do something about it when he got
> to work, but needed to do something on the internet first. I asked
> for the name of his employer and he hung up on me. Fortunately, that
> only happens about every other month so it doesn't bug me much. Try
> some power or responsibility some day. You probably won't like it.

I did and you're right I didn't. When people start to realise the truth of
the information age it ain't a pretty sight.
Started to realise that years ago when I got involved with some Compuware
products - and I thought "Jeez - this stuff's awesome"..So much potential
and alot of dev work going into products that most will never hear about. Ok
so even they nicked (sorry acquired) the flexlm licensing componants from
Globetrotter at the time, but hey welcome to Corp land.
Unfortunately I was working with a manager at the time. You know the type
"My Boss likes me cos' I get stuff done" blah..blah... and we go out for
drinkies etc..
Oh yeah ? What just you ? On the backs of others ? What you talking about
here ?
Needless to say, I left, guy was a (control) twat. What they needed to get
done was never going to get done - frankly the talent/incentive just wasn't
there. Oh well, c'est la vie. Another potential promising career bites the
dust before it even starts !

>
>>Thanks for that - I've seen too much not to necessarily trust what I look
>>at.
>
> Fine. What have you seen Google doing that offends you? There have
> been some pissing matches with the Scientology mob and battles with
> hit counter enhancing utility vendors. Same with tricky web pages
> intended only to be first on the searches. However, I don't recall
> anything that would constitute a breach of trust by Google. What did
> they do to make you not trust them?

Absolutely nothing ( the more MS employees they can nick (minus the court
cases) the better, but dump the MS practices before you go and get back to
being genuine people eh ?? )
I've just got this niggle with giving control to Corps when I don't have any
clear visibility as to what they're going to do with it. Bugs me no-end.
I'm still sitting here thinking Google, Where are you really going with this
???

Anywayz, many thanks for the input Jeff, it was educational to say the
least.

Rgds, S

>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Liebermann jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
> 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
> Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
> Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558