4 ms·

Andrew is the reason I stopped reading The Register, about ten years ago, due to his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to

Andrew is the reason I stopped reading The Register, about ten years ago, due to his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate.

andybak 10y ago
Oh, he's always hated Google. During the original Oracle vs Google case he was shilling so hard I just assumed he was getting brown paper packages full of cash from Larry. Of course some of his criticisms are valid and Google is guilty of some of the accusations he levels - but there is zero attempt to provide any context let alone any balance.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. Second, we passed the point of "balance" long ago. A balanced take could be made when you could conceivably avoid being tracked without Herculean effort. This is no longer really possible and even the slightest consumer pushback results in articles with titles like "Do Consumers Have A Right To Opt Out Of Advertising?" [1]. We're so far into extreme privacy invasion territory that a sane "balanced" take would still be a rollback to early 2000s adtech. Edit: the pot is boiling and you're saying that the balanced response is asking that it be turned down to a simmer. We're getting cooked either way! [1] http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-opt-advertising/ http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-...
  - andybak 10y ago
    > First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. The distinction is very subtle in their home page layout. It's formatted exactly like a story - it's listed under 'Top Stories'. Other than the content (which is typical Reg fare) the word 'Comment' is the only indicator that it's allowed a free pass on basic journalistic practice. The Skyhook stuff is curious. He intentionally muddles up the facts in that case (which was mainly about anti-competitive behaviour and over-aggressive protection of their business model) with the Street View 'over collection' - which was fairly heinous but a matter that I still tend to suspect was more likely to be cock-up than conspiracy. That section of the article doesn't really state it's conclusion which is fortunate as all it aims to do is create a sense of paranoia in the reader. > Android phones now examine your location and invite you to rate the cafes you’ve been to. Most of the guesses are correct. This issue is fairly murky as you can tell by following the Twitter conversation: https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo/1 https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo... See this response in particular: https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 I'm not terribly surprised if an app that is granted location permissions can use my location. The person who tweeted that seemed to think that uninstalling Google Maps should somehow prevent location tracking. I agree most people won't think to turn off this tracking, and there is a place in the market for a phone that has 'privacy as a default' but I personally (and many others) would still continue to use other devices because I am currently happy with the tradeoffs. That doesn't mean I'm not cautious and fairly vigilant. But this frog hasn't yet felt the need to leap out of the pot.
    - andybak 10y ago
      EDIT - re-reading the above I realise my overall point isn't clear. The Orlowski piece is based on a lot of fairly unrelated snippets and doesn't really make a clear coherent argument that one can really engage with. I would agree there is cause for concern and a reason to be vigilant but this kind of writing doesn't raise the level of debate or help anyone form a clear view on current dangers. I usually react negatively to any Orlowski piece as I've seen what he is like on matters where I do have some existing views and a certain degree of background knowledge. (previous commenter mentioned his anti-Wikipedia crusade but also his obsession with defending strong IP laws - google for 'freetard orlowski'). In short he has some axes to grind that align nicely with the PR aims of various companies with deep pockets.
- Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
  > brown paper packages full of cash from Larry Had to pause for a minute and work out which Larry you meant.
  - andybak 10y ago
    Good point. I hadn't thought of that. The one with the yachts...
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-founder-Larry-Page-buys-193-foot-yacht-45m-second-hand.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-found... http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html Which Larry with yachts?
AlexandrB 10y ago
Is he wrong though? Google is trying to collect basically everything. I still haven't heard a substantive argument about why this is ok.
- MarkMc 10y ago
  What is wrong with the argument that says it's OK because they require your permission to collect anything?
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    They never asked for permission before collecting and aggregating everyone's web activity with GA.
  - imh 10y ago
    They don't ask permission. They offer a cool service don't tell you what they'll use that information for. Go through [0] and [1], and you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into. That fits my definition of not requiring my permission. They have to ask. [0] https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ [1] https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity
    - MarkMc 10y ago
      > you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into Didn't you explicitly agree to Google's privacy policy [1] when you created an account? Are you saying Google is using your data in a way that is not described in their privacy policy? [1] https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/
- on_and_off 10y ago
  It felt really one sided. No mention of the fact that from what I have seen Skyhook solution was beyond shitty and absolutely drained the battery (I had the pleasure to test a Samsung phones using their services a while ago) . No mention either of the wifi snooping being seemingly a mistake : Google wanted the wifi hotspot id but took too much data by capturing longer data packets than necessary. That's why IMO they only got a slap on the wrist. I stopped reading the article after that.
raverbashing 10y ago
He seems to also have an pro telecom company agenda, given his rants about Tom Wheeler and the poor companies that can't abuse their position...
pjc50 10y ago
For me it was the pro-copyright anti-GNU advocacy. But fundamentally the Register is a tabloid newspaper; occasionally funny, always sensationalist, and ridiculously prejudiced.
119127911 10y ago
Given that the mission of the register is "biting the hand that feeds IT", I would not see this as hate but rather as an opinion that is unpopular among programmers (see corn-pone opinions).
andygates 10y ago
Oh lord, it's Orlowski? That explains the shrill hyperoblic tone and fact-free environment (for a comparison, he's a shrill, hyperbolic climate denier too). His writing drove me off The Reg entirely: if the editors endorse that level of rubbish, the whole site is suspect.
a3_nm 10y ago
> his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate. Wikipedia is not a corporation.

Andrew is the reason I stopped reading The Register, about ten years ago, due to his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate.

andybak 10y ago

Oh, he's always hated Google. During the original Oracle vs Google case he was shilling so hard I just assumed he was getting brown paper packages full of cash from Larry. Of course some of his criticisms are valid and Google is guilty of some of the accusations he levels - but there is zero attempt to provide any context let alone any balance.

AlexandrB 10y ago
First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. Second, we passed the point of "balance" long ago. A balanced take could be made when you could conceivably avoid being tracked without Herculean effort. This is no longer really possible and even the slightest consumer pushback results in articles with titles like "Do Consumers Have A Right To Opt Out Of Advertising?" [1]. We're so far into extreme privacy invasion territory that a sane "balanced" take would still be a rollback to early 2000s adtech. Edit: the pot is boiling and you're saying that the balanced response is asking that it be turned down to a simmer. We're getting cooked either way! [1] http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-opt-advertising/ http://adexchanger.com/data-driven-thinking/consumers-right-...
- andybak 10y ago
  > First, it's an op-ed, it doesn't have to be balanced. The distinction is very subtle in their home page layout. It's formatted exactly like a story - it's listed under 'Top Stories'. Other than the content (which is typical Reg fare) the word 'Comment' is the only indicator that it's allowed a free pass on basic journalistic practice. The Skyhook stuff is curious. He intentionally muddles up the facts in that case (which was mainly about anti-competitive behaviour and over-aggressive protection of their business model) with the Street View 'over collection' - which was fairly heinous but a matter that I still tend to suspect was more likely to be cock-up than conspiracy. That section of the article doesn't really state it's conclusion which is fortunate as all it aims to do is create a sense of paranoia in the reader. > Android phones now examine your location and invite you to rate the cafes you’ve been to. Most of the guesses are correct. This issue is fairly murky as you can tell by following the Twitter conversation: https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo/1 https://twitter.com/musalbas/status/775261347122671616/photo... See this response in particular: https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 https://twitter.com/fpgeek/status/775301036823150592 I'm not terribly surprised if an app that is granted location permissions can use my location. The person who tweeted that seemed to think that uninstalling Google Maps should somehow prevent location tracking. I agree most people won't think to turn off this tracking, and there is a place in the market for a phone that has 'privacy as a default' but I personally (and many others) would still continue to use other devices because I am currently happy with the tradeoffs. That doesn't mean I'm not cautious and fairly vigilant. But this frog hasn't yet felt the need to leap out of the pot.
  - andybak 10y ago
    EDIT - re-reading the above I realise my overall point isn't clear. The Orlowski piece is based on a lot of fairly unrelated snippets and doesn't really make a clear coherent argument that one can really engage with. I would agree there is cause for concern and a reason to be vigilant but this kind of writing doesn't raise the level of debate or help anyone form a clear view on current dangers. I usually react negatively to any Orlowski piece as I've seen what he is like on matters where I do have some existing views and a certain degree of background knowledge. (previous commenter mentioned his anti-Wikipedia crusade but also his obsession with defending strong IP laws - google for 'freetard orlowski'). In short he has some axes to grind that align nicely with the PR aims of various companies with deep pockets.
Doctor_Fegg 10y ago
> brown paper packages full of cash from Larry Had to pause for a minute and work out which Larry you meant.
- andybak 10y ago
  Good point. I hadn't thought of that. The one with the yachts...
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-founder-Larry-Page-buys-193-foot-yacht-45m-second-hand.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346157/Google-found... http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html http://www.superyachtfan.com/superyacht_musashi.html Which Larry with yachts?

AlexandrB 10y ago

Is he wrong though? Google is trying to collect basically everything. I still haven't heard a substantive argument about why this is ok.

MarkMc 10y ago
What is wrong with the argument that says it's OK because they require your permission to collect anything?
- pdkl95 10y ago
  They never asked for permission before collecting and aggregating everyone's web activity with GA.
- imh 10y ago
  They don't ask permission. They offer a cool service don't tell you what they'll use that information for. Go through [0] and [1], and you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into. That fits my definition of not requiring my permission. They have to ask. [0] https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ https://myaccount.google.com/privacycheckup/ [1] https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity
  - MarkMc 10y ago
    > you'll probably find at least one thing you didn't explicitly opt into Didn't you explicitly agree to Google's privacy policy [1] when you created an account? Are you saying Google is using your data in a way that is not described in their privacy policy? [1] https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/ https://www.google.com.au/intl/en/policies/privacy/
on_and_off 10y ago
It felt really one sided. No mention of the fact that from what I have seen Skyhook solution was beyond shitty and absolutely drained the battery (I had the pleasure to test a Samsung phones using their services a while ago) . No mention either of the wifi snooping being seemingly a mistake : Google wanted the wifi hotspot id but took too much data by capturing longer data packets than necessary. That's why IMO they only got a slap on the wrist. I stopped reading the article after that.

raverbashing 10y ago

He seems to also have an pro telecom company agenda, given his rants about Tom Wheeler and the poor companies that can't abuse their position...

pjc50 10y ago

For me it was the pro-copyright anti-GNU advocacy. But fundamentally the Register is a tabloid newspaper; occasionally funny, always sensationalist, and ridiculously prejudiced.

119127911 10y ago

Given that the mission of the register is "biting the hand that feeds IT", I would not see this as hate but rather as an opinion that is unpopular among programmers (see corn-pone opinions).

andygates 10y ago

Oh lord, it's Orlowski? That explains the shrill hyperoblic tone and fact-free environment (for a comparison, he's a shrill, hyperbolic climate denier too). His writing drove me off The Reg entirely: if the editors endorse that level of rubbish, the whole site is suspect.

a3_nm 10y ago

> his incessant rambling about Wikipedia. Shocked to see he's found a new corp to hate. Wikipedia is not a corporation.