On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:38:53 GMT, "Steve Berry" <reachnet@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> 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.

Can you offer any other reason why people invest in Google?

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

I beg to differ. Features, functions, and bandwidth consumption are
growing almost exponentially. At best, diagnostics, bug fixes, and
usability are growing linearly and are well behind the curve. I see
nothing that will change this. When you get gigabit fiber to the home
handling ALL your communications services, it will be even more
difficult to troubleshoot and sniff.

>>>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/
>
>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.

No one knows for sure, but there are plenty of people that get paid
substantial amounts of money (like me) to calculate and guess what's
going to happen, what disruptive technologies are going to emerge, and
what political influence is going to appear. Very few of these people
operate in a vacuum as you seem to be doing. They ask, they listen,
the analyze, and they sometimes guess. You might try asking Google
before you start guessing.

Incidentally, Google Wi-Fi privacy policy:
https://wifi.google.com/privacy-policy.html

>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.

China has never had much interest in paying software licenses. Most
modern software sends tokens via the internet back to the mother ship
when someone fires up the software. I have access to some of the
statistics for a few products. I think China is the current leader in
running cracked or stolen software.

>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.

I would love to debate the merits of Open Source versus the software
license models. However, that has little to do with Google Wi-Fi and
your evaluation of their privacy issues.

>> (...) 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.

Hint: Every document you create with MS Office is tagged with machine
details including the SID and MAC address. That's how they found the
author of the Melissa worm.

>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.

Oh, but they are. See:
| http://virtualearth.msn.com
and try the "Locate Me" Active-X control. You'll find that it's
amazingly accurate.

Also, how about MS Location Finder for Wi-Fi?
| http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

Perhaps some products?
| http://www.ip2location.com
| http://www.hostip.info

For Wi-Fi, I've been working with RFC3825 services for VoIP E911
location:
| http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3825.html

There was also a web site that would give your IP address, but also
quite a bit of information that it could suck out of your browser. I
can't seem to remember the URL. You want anonymity and privacy? Good
luck.

>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.

That's fine. The moral high ground is always best and easy to take.
Let me know when you have a family to feed, bills to pay, and a bunch
of employees that depend on you. Methinks the moral high ground is a
suitable and lofty goal, but which tends to fail badly when faced with
the necessities of doing business.

The dividing line between ethical behavior and acting like evil rotten
scum is rather poorly defined. For example, what the difference
between a bribe and a commission? Answer... when its paid. Otherwise
they're the same. In many cultures (i.e. middle east), only a fool
takes a commission. Why would you want to risk your profits by
getting paid after the deal is done? It's more than a behavior
pattern. It's an ethical and cultural exercise that varies radically
in different parts of the world. The limits of ethical behavior also
vary depending on the participants. What's unethical for you and me
may not be a great idea for a politician or public personality.
Martha Stuart comes to mind.

>> Sorry. I guess you can't trust me because I do dumpster diving.
>
>I'm guessing you don't need to do it anymore ??

Correct. I'm 57 years old and find it a bit undignified to do my own
dumpster diving. Smelling like stale pizza ruins my image. So, I
just interrogate vendors, consultants, former employees, and sometimes
hire investigators (financial researchers).

>As before doing the diving
>isn't really the issue, it's what you do with what you find that's probably
>more important.

Really? We're back to ethics again. Do you consider it ethical for
an organization (government or private) to violate privacy laws,
perform illegal evidence collection, and to engage in wiretap-like
activities, if the collective evidence will not be used in court?
That's the current trend in the US.

What I do with my dumper diving and "research" is almost certain to be
used in some way to benefit me and clients. Why else would I bother
to do my "research"? I'm not dumb enough to publish memos on the
internet, but the contents are certainly useful.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/

>Some elements of Silicon Valley behavour shall we say I'd rather steer clear
>of.

I'll resist the temptation to disparage UK behavior.

>No you're just a product of the modern-age ;)

Amazing. In an email message, I was just accused of being a throwback
from another generation and too old to be even capable of
understanding modern youth. Thanks for the reassurances that I'm not
totally obsolete and useless.

>As Client Eastwood once said "Every man's got to know his limitations". For
>some they just stretch further than others.

My "Learn By Destroying" is a way of finding those limitations. The
trick is to do it without creating a problem or getting caught. Every
5 year old will try to push his parents as far as possible to define
those limits. Once established, the kids will push beyond just to see
if the limits have moved. In business, we call that "test marketing".

>> 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 ?

Interesting. You cover quite a bit of ground in one paragraph. I
won't argue with you about your perspective on the world. My only
complaint is that you have apparently labeled Google's entry into the
Wi-Fi market as some type of potential privacy invasion, without the
slightest evidence, history, or logic. Just pure paranoia. Fix that
and you'll probably do fine. What you do with your soul is a
religious issue and not within my areas of expertise. It's also not
my place to pass judgment on Steve Ballmer. I have had some dealings
with MS (under John Shirley) in the distant past and do my best to
avoid them, which is not easy.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ft_Corporation
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ft_Corporation

>> 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.

The user should not need to care about what path their packets follow.
I doubt that most people could do a proper forward and reverse
traceroute (yes, they're different) on their packets to determine the
path. Even so, without source routing, there's little control and
traceroute returns can be spoofed.

One of my better one liners is:
If you have to think about security, then it's not secure.
That means if you have to type in a password, it can be borrowed. If
you have to configure something, then it can be done wrong. If you
have to tinker with a X.509 dongle, then it can be stolen. If you
have to bring your own security (i.e. VPN), then the rest of the
system can be compromised.

Security should be inherent, built-in, part of the puzzle, and NOT
require user participation. Google's VPN is a step in the right
direction but not a total answer. Don't fault them for not being able
to fix the security problems of the internet.

>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.

In every generation since the ancient Greeks started scribbling them
down, there have been prophets of doom and destruction predicting that
the present course of events will lead to the demise of civilization
as we know it. For some unknown reason, these predictions never seem
to come true in their original form.

>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 !

I'm lost. What does your problems in dealing with corporate
mismanagement and marginal managers have to do with Google Wi-Fi and
business ethics? Your manager didn't set company policy. He probably
didn't interface with customers. He didn't make the decisions as to
whether your product would see the light of day or die in the lab.
I've survived similar horror stories, where I busted my ass for
products that were killed immediately after announcement. I was
devastated but I took the time to bug management about why they did
such a stupid thing. After slogging through the diplomatic baloney,
the reason turned out to be quite sound based on the competitive
situation and the financial requirements. Those simple questions and
the interest to know the basis for such decisions is what got me out
of the lab and into management. I suspect you've never managed a
complex project with prima donnas and a demanding upper management.
You should try it some time.

>> 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

Thank you. So, you have no historical basis for assuming that Google
will precipitate a privacy violation using their Wi-Fi service.

>( 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 ?? )

This is about Google, not Microsoft. Nobody has ever suggested that
Google is following or should follow MS business practices.

>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.

That explains quite a bit. You don't like taking orders without
understanding and approving of everything involved including the
implications. That's admirable but impractical. No corporation is
going to disclose their corporate strategy (assuming they actually
have one) to employees. The best you can do is try to guess which is
what rumors are for. Also, you didn't "give control" to the corporate
executives. The stockholders did that by electing the Board of
Directors. Methinks you might want to limit your expectations and
reduce your involvement into areas that you at least have some control
over. Your former boss, the "control freak", and you have much in
common.

>I'm still sitting here thinking Google, Where are you really going with this
>???

I have no idea. I do not have an agenda to push. I suspect you and
other readers might benefit from the discussion. I wouldn't spend the
time if thought it would be wasted. I've tried to answer some of your
questions and largely satisfied my curiosity as to why you seem to
suspect that Google is evil despite evidence to the contrary. I also
find it fascinating to see how other people think and how their logic
operates.

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

Ye're welcome, good luck, but I gotta get to work now....


--
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