MrKurtz

7 ms·

31.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
There is no proof that the visit was due to her googling anything: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6142238
32.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
The claim is that the visit was due to her googling, which isn't proven. I want them to investigate the actual reasons instead of dealing with hearsay.
33.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Why not? are you satisfied with speculation as an alternative to the truth? is this an excuse to not even ask questions?
34.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Yes, someone should get to the bottom of this, but no one has, they are busy running speculative link bait.
35.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
There is no actual proof that this was due to web searches, also the picture the atlantic is using is misleading and terrible, and the article was silently changed after someone else pointed that the alleged visit wasn't actually from
36.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
You're right the slides are pre default HTTPS gmail (2007/8). But even then gmail is the only webmail service that offers server-to-server encryption, so data can still get intercepted when communicating with someone using yahoo m
37.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Actually it's: "There is no free-for-all, no direct access, no indirect access, no back door, no drop box." http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google... And I tend
38.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
My understanding is that internet firms enjoy slightly more leverage, and that is why in contrast to telecos they are now petitioning the courts to reveal the scope of the orders.
39.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
You seem to forget that they are replacing AT&T. I guess being cynical is understandable but you shouldn't over do it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/jun/19/google...
40.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Why would Google (or anyone) link to them directly? with fiber no less! this stuff is alarming enough no need for FUD. This XKS business seems about intercepting non-encrypted traffic as the references to HTTP payload quoted in the article
41.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
They are hardly even a broadband player, their coverage in miniscule. Google Fiber is an experimental / policy altering service, its TOS as this point in time is inconsequential.
42.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
I'm not sure I understand the tone of that piece, it strikes me as yet another attempt at vilifying Google for the most trivial and altogether invalid reasons. Google offers gigabit speeds in very select areas; coverage-wise they are h
43.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
I think he's being cute. For me this quote sums up what PRISM is really about: "Nobody wants a box in their network...[Companies often] find ways to give tools to minimize disclosures, to protect users, to keep the government off
44.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
The folks at Android Police posted about it weeks ago: http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/07/11/second-all-access-ap... It also was already patched. Good write up though.
45.
State AGs Ask Congress to Gut Critical CDA 230 Online Speech Protections(eff.org)
54 points by MrKurtz 13y ago|19 comments
46.
by MrKurtz 13y ago
Treehouse's comment is included in the post: We teach Android at Treehouse as well, but Apple has refused to let us release the app while including Android content. At the time of review several other applications in the App Store inc