On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:00:38AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am confused here, which is not at all unusual. did the chinese get
> any data which google does not give to american LEAs in answer to an
> administrative request, i.e. not even a court order?
You mean why didn't they just ask for it
i am confused here, which is not at all unusual. did the chinese get
any data which google does not give to american LEAs in answer to an
administrative request, i.e. not even a court order?
randy
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:31 AM, Anthony Uk wrote:
The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from
their inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
I'm not Chinese, but putting myself in their position...
I would be surprised if they were trying to determine
The Google Spokesperson I heard on the radio yesterday evening said
that they had not yet stopped censoring, and declined to give a date
when they would. His point was that the clock is ticking and Google
can see it.
On Jan 13, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Jérôme Fleury wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at
On 1/14/10 12:31 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the picture
to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies the common
community the recipients belong to. I
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the
> > picture to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies
> > the common community the recipients belong to. It's pretty straight
> > forward.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: more news from Google
>
> I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
> position/postings
> havin
On Jan 13, 2010, at 5:26 PM, mshel...@cox.net wrote:
> From a single detection of one hostile email you can often expand the picture
> to many mail recipients. A little open source research identifies the common
> community the recipients belong to. It's pretty straight forward.
>
The magic
nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: more news from Google
Sent: Jan 13, 2010 12:53 PM
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: more news from Google
>
> It's not cle
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
>
>> "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
>> attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
>> activists. "
>
>> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gma
Joe Abley wrote:
> On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
>
>
>> The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from their
>> inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
>>
>
> It's arguably something that gmail users consent to when they give Google
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: more news from Google
>
> It's not clear to me you have to read any e-mail to figure out that
> "help
In a message written on Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 05:31:44PM +0100, Anthony Uk wrote:
> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gmail does, and often look
> at their mailboxes (with their consent, of course), but I still couldn't
> tell you the political position of any of them (apart from the pol
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
> "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
> attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
> activists. "
> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gmail does, and often look
> at their mailbox
It was to others :) But in the process of troubleshooting, an admin
may come across something say by looking at a bounce message or other
statistics such as which domains the user sends to on a regular basis.
cPanel even comes with Eximstats which does some of that for you.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010
On 2010-01-13, at 14:51, Ronald Cotoni wrote:
> You should most likely read their terms of service and that would
> actually answer this instead of guessing.
I've read the terms of service. I may be interpreting them incorrectly, sure,
but I'm not guessing.
If your comment was not directed at
You should most likely read their terms of service and that would
actually answer this instead of guessing. Also, if your reading your
own employee's email, that is most likely perfectly legal.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
>
>>
On 2010-01-13, at 11:31, Anthony Uk wrote:
> The ability to automatically discern users' political positions from their
> inbox is not one that any email provider reasonably needs.
It's arguably something that gmail users consent to when they give Google
rights to index and process their mail,
On 13.01.2010 06:24, Ken Chase wrote:
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure out their /ANGLE/. :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
Well played, google?
/kc
From the artic
Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: more news from Google
>>
>> I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
>> position/postings
>> having read this article.
>&
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
>> breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
>
> OT.
> Please don't say "joo-joo" every time the TechCrunch folks see that
> they get diarrhea
That is a horrible name for a product. J
> You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly breaking
> a law is bad joo-joo.
OT.
Please don't say "joo-joo" every time the TechCrunch folks see that
they get diarrhea
Cheers
Jorge
PS what about all the property and copyright laws being supposedly
broken over there ?
Jérôme Fleury wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 17:14, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was
very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results, although I can
unde
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 17:14, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
>
>> I for one would be really happy to see them follow through with this. I was
>> very disappointed when they agreed to censor search results, although I can
>> understand why they did s
orporate equivalent of recalling your
ambassador.
Regards
Marshall
You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
--
TTFN,
patrick
-Original Message-
From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 1
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
> You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
> breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
I think we all consider their approach to copyright law refreshing and
useful, so there are certainly laws worth breaking. 8-)
ilto:m...@sizone.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: more news from Google
>>
>> I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous
>> position/postings
>> having read this article.
>>
&g
On Jan 13, 2010, at 2:18 AM, Benjamin Billon wrote:
> Seems logical, after all.
>
> Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China compared
> to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't change a bit
> in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing
Seems logical, after all.
Considering the (bad) performances of Google search engine in China
compared to Chinese competitors, and considering the fact that wouldn't
change a bit in the future, closing offices wouldn't be a bad thing.
That doesn't mean closing R&D centers.
Ben
Le 13/01/2010
ical if they'll go through with it...
Stefan Fouant, CISSP, JNCIE-M/T
www.shortestpathfirst.net
GPG Key ID: 0xB5E3803D
> -Original Message-
> From: Ken Chase [mailto:m...@sizone.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 12:24 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: more ne
I must say I'll have to take a step back from my previous position/postings
having read this article.
I just can't figure out their /ANGLE/. :)
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
Well played, google?
/kc
--
Ken Chase - k...@heavycomputing.ca - +1 416 897 6284
31 matches
Mail list logo
