Quotulatiousness

September 28, 2013

Google is “fighting stupid with stupid”

Filed under: Business, Law, Technology — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:54

In Maclean’s, Jesse Brown looks at the rather dangerous interpretation of how email works in a recent court decision:

Newsflash: Google scans your email! Whether you have a Gmail account or just send email to people who do, Gmail’s bots automatically read your messages, mostly for the purpose of creating targeted advertising. And if you were reading this in 2005, that might seem shocking.

Today, I think most Internet users understand how free webmail works and are okay with it. But a U.S. federal judge has ruled otherwise. Yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled that Google’s terms of service and privacy policies do not explicitly spell out that Google will “intercept” users’ email (here’s the ruling).

The word “intercept” is crucial here, because it may put Google in the crosshairs of State and Federal anti-wiretapping laws. After Judge Koh’s ruling, a class-action lawsuit against Google can proceed, whose plaintiffs seek remedies for themselves and for class groups including “all U.S. citizen non-Gmail users who have sent a message to a Gmail user and received a reply…”. Like they say in Vegas, go big or go home.

[…]

An algorithm that scans my messages for keywords like “vacation” in order to offer me cheap flights is not by any stretch of the imagination a wiretap.

But Google has taken a different tack in their defence. If, they’ve argued, what Gmail does qualifies as interception, than so does all email, since automated processing is needed just to send the stuff, whether or not advertising algorithms or anti-spam filters are in use. This logic can be extended, I suppose, to all data that passes through the Internet.

You might call it fighting stupid with stupid, but I think it’s a bold bluff: rule us illegal, Google warns the court, and be prepared to deem the Internet itself a wiretap violation.

This is what democracy looks like – Indian voters can now vote “None of the above”

Filed under: Government, India — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:40

Alex Tabarrok links to a Wall Street Journal article (paywalled, unfortunately) about the Indian court decision that will allow Indian voters to cast their ballots against all the candidates on offer:

Excellent news. Bear in mind:

    Nearly a third of the members of the lower house of Parliament are facing criminal charges, according to the Association for Democratic Reforms, a New Delhi-based advocacy group for transparency in governance.

Even if that were not the case, however, one of the problems of democracy is that there is too little feedback and information transmission, due both to rational ignorance and the bundle nature of politics. Allowing for “none of the above” provides, not a panacea, but a little bit more feedback. Many people vote but have to hold their noses to do so. Many others don’t vote but do they not vote because they are satisfied or dissatisfied? None of the above gives the dissatisfied a chance to reveal their views and in so doing it may encourage more and better candidates.

At present, voting none of the above is just informational, i.e. none of the above is never “elected” even if it gets a majority, although the option to vote NOTA may change the outcome of the election. In the future a NOTA majority might signal a new election.

There have been a few elections here in Ontario I’d love to have had the option of voting “None of the above”.

Christian Ponder’s injury and the Vikings’ QB decision

Filed under: Football — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 11:12

As mentioned the other day, the Vikings have named backup quarterback Matt Cassel as the starter for tomorrow’s game in London against the Pittsburgh Steelers. 1500ESPN‘s Judd Zulgad makes the case that the decision was driven less by Ponder’s actual injury than by the team’s need to spark something by making the change at QB:

A fractured rib means the Minnesota Vikings don’t have to face the reality of the Christian Ponder situation for a few more weeks.

Obviously, the general public doesn’t know the extent of the injury to the Vikings’ first selection in the 2011 draft, but for now the team is well within its rights to sell us on the fact that a quarterback change to Matt Cassel has been made for injury-related reasons.

Eventually, however, the Vikings almost certainly are going to have to come clean and admit that Ponder has been benched. What makes this so intriguing is that many in the organization privately have to be holding out hope that soon a day will come when that admission can be made.

That’s because if Cassel plays the way that coach Leslie Frazier, offensive coordinator Bill Musgrave, wide receiver Greg Jennings, running back Adrian Peterson and many others are hoping he does, Ponder won’t see the field again this season.

And that’s not being overly dramatic.

The quarterback play hasn’t been anything like the only issue the Vikings have faced this season, but it’s the one that attracts by far the most attention from fans. The backup quarterback is pretty much always the most popular player on a football team (well, one that isn’t winning consistently, anyway), and Matt Cassel got a relatively big contract to come to Minnesota for two years (second year voidable by the team or by Cassel). Tomorrow is his big test to find out if he’s really the answer for the Vikings.

For now, Frazier is downplaying any potential quarterback controversy and Ponder is saying all the right things about playing against the Panthers. What else would you expect anyone to say?

But if Cassel gets on a roll we all know he will start for the Vikings coming out of the bye and we also know he will have a good chance to remain in that role the following week against the Giants.

Eventually, the Vikings are going to have to take Ponder off the injury report and admit he’s healthy. The second they do that, and he still doesn’t play, the admission will have to be made: Christian Ponder has been benched.

The only question then will be if he will get one last chance to try to get his job back – that might not be until training camp 2014, if Cassel stays healthy – or if he will go down as one of the Vikings’ most disappointing first-round picks.

“Stoking the star maker machinery behind the popular song”

Filed under: Humour, Media — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 10:51

QotD: Sir Humphrey Appleby on discrediting an expert report

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Humour, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:01

Sir Humphrey: There is a well established Government procedure for suppress… deciding not to publish reports.
Jim Hacker: Really?
Sir Humphrey: You simply discredit them.
Jim Hacker: Good heavens… how?
Sir Humphrey: Stage one, you give your reasons in terms of the public interest. You hint at security considerations — the report could be used to put pressure on government and could be misinterpreted.
Jim Hacker: Anything could be misinterpreted. The Sermon on the Mount could be misinterpreted!
Sir Humphrey: Indeed — it could be argued that the Sermon on the Mount, had it been a government report, would almost certainly not have been published. A most irresponsible document. All that stuff about the meek inheriting the earth could do irreparable damage to the defence budget.
Sir Humphrey: In stage two you go on to discredit the information you’re not publishing.
Jim Hacker: How, if you’re not publishing it?
Sir Humphrey: It’s much easier if it’s not published. You do it by press leaks. Say it leaves some important questions unanswered, that much of the evidence is inconclusive, that the figures are open to other interpretations, that certain findings are contradictory and that some of the main conclusions have been questioned.
Jim Hacker: Suppose they haven’t?
Sir Humphrey: Then question them. Then they have.
Jim Hacker: But to make accusations like that you’d have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb.
Sir Humphrey: Nonsense — you can say all that without reading it. There are always some questions unanswered.
Jim Hacker: Such as?
Sir Humphrey: The ones that weren’t asked.

Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, “The Greasy Pole”, Yes, Minister, 1981-03-16

Powered by WordPress