Fine. I’ll do it myself.
That’s the mantra of the I.T. support slave. Basically, it translates as “you are too lazy too type this into google”.
Rudd, afraid of getting another 4.1 for his next high-dive backflip, is never going to allow Conroy to back down before the next election.
Nevertheless he lets the docked staff loose on the morning shows. And someone needs to draft the legislation.
Conroy makes accusations: your passwords, banking details and personal data may have and are still liable to be sucked up by the Google-monster.
Pied Piper deserves a decent score imho.
Right. That’s the allegation. Where is the evidence or the proofing mechanism?
I’m looking for it. I should be in bed. I have a nasty cold. I’m looking for it. Help me out. Post the relevant links.
Let’s start with this $2 de-mystifyer:
Banking transactions conducted over the internet use Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption between web browsers and banking servers
I am radically searching through media to establish that any of the things along the lines that Conroy has insinuated over the last few weeks, but specifically alleged this morning, carry any weight at all.
Show me the mother$%^&ing links. There are none. At least none gaining page rank. Let’s follow this up with a trail of Conroy’s subsantiated bullshit, this man is flogging a dead horse.
Conroy was all about “countering misinformation” (in relation to the govt’s mining tax and the mining sector’s response) when he was interviewed on ABC2′s Breakfast show, June 7.
He’s been perpetrating exactly the same tactics.
According to a report from The Sydney Morning Herald published May 30, 2010, Conroy is quoted as saying, in relation to his Internet filter policy that “this policy has been approved by 85 per cent of Australian internet service providers, who have said they would welcome the filter, including Telstra, Optus, iPrimus and iinet.”
(http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/filter-goes-ahead-regardless-20100529-wmg7.html)
In a statement released May 31, 2010, iiNet clearly states:
“We have been involved in the Government’s consultation process in an effort to at least have some transparency measures introduced. However, any claim that our participation in that consultation process is support for the Government’s policy is an outright lie.”
(http://www.iinet.net.au/press/releases/20100531-iinet-does-not-support-filter.pdf)
Filter this, Conroy.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/security/charges-possible-in-google-wifi-bungle-20100610-y0mt.html?autostart=1
I’m still trying to find an adequate technical explanation of what Google did that was so evil.
So far I have only read and heard misinformed opinions – Conroy’s breakfast TV stunt clearly demonstrated his lack of knowledge on the subject.
I read somewhere today that Google had sucked up 600Gb of data from unsecured WiFi in Britain, highlighting their targetting of open networks. Woot. Someone will need to fork out about $100 for a new hard drive.
Ask CSIRO, the WiFi 802.11 model is based on packet loss. To actually make sense of even unencrypted data transfer is quite futile, but Conroy would have us believe that Google is stealing our banking passwords.
Can someone find me some information on this that avoids hysteria? Maybe it will show up in Wired next month.
This is gold:
http://apcmag.com/how-conroys-daughter-wrecked-his-unsecured-iphone.htm