textjunky: or Details of security breaches of Gmail user accounts textjunky: or What you keep private from the majority, becomes Power, in the hands of the few who breach your privacy textjunky: textjunky: so .. for the sake of yourself AND the majority, guard what you choose to keep private, well ... textjunky: or ... Don't use Windows textjunky: it would be interesting to have more detail on how google determined that unfiltered search is an appropriate response to hacking from China ... did they already have a communication from the govt admitting that the hacking was a sanctioned and purposeful program? and even if so, how not filtering results at all corresponds ... just what are they filtering? can google perhaps provide that information to the rest of the world? textjunky: not that filtering is a good thing (tm) ... but i have a hard time believing that google doesn't step on any results at all for western govts ... textjunky: if google is alleging chinese govt acting illegally, that's a international diplomacy level response, people start wars with that level of engagement ... so just how sure are google of the sources of the attacks and of the publications they help to suppress ... and the link between those things textjunky: and .... otoh its hard to see an illegal hacking program as anything other than an activity of a criminal gang, and if chinese govt is perforated with criminals, that is probably no different to other govts, so ... ??? complex ... but ... are the alleged human rights infringements result of official govt policy resulting from genuine civilian mandate (self-contradictory in some ways, right), criminal subversives, external influences... textjunky: in most countries i think systematic human rights abuses from govt staff would be seen as treason, irrespective of other crimes which might be associated textjunky: ... i guess i'm trying to say that linking hacking with censorship is a pretty hard sale, i think google are using this as an excuse to reverse a decision they regret, which really they need no excuse to reverse, in my own worldview, and they should reverse it without linking it to some shady hacking textjunky: but since they have linked it, they should put some hard info on the table, and we should expect (whether we like the idea or not) to see diplomatic/law level responses around the same specific issue ... even if its a response (perhaps a lie even) that just says 'oh yeah google were a bit ott and the hacking isn't really that big a deal' textjunky: remember: in china, must always preserve face
