In the news: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
--[[User:Nsiemaska|Nsiemaska]] 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Nsiemaska|Nsiemaska]] 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8533695.stm Google bosses convicted in Italy] | |||
This article is very relevant to the themes we've discussed in the course, including governing the Internet and criminal liability. Any thoughts? | |||
([[User:Kaurigem|Kaurigem]] 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 20:55, 24 February 2010
Here is an interesting article that appeared in the New York Times last week. [1] Google has chosen to partner with the N.S.A. (rather than the DoHS) to investigate recent attacks that "breached the company's cybersecurity defenses."
Is this "cooperative research and development agreement" between Google and the N.S.A. really going to "impact the privacy of millions of users of Google's products and services around the world" as Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center suggests?
I think not. If the technical assistance provided by the N.S.A. focuses on technology, and not content, the relationship should not impact the privacy of Google users. My concern would be, how much does Google know about the attacks they are not sharing. What "goods and services" were compromised? What information was actually accessed?
--Charlesscott 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I read this article in the New York Times earlier this morning and immediately thought of the discussions we've been having in this class. Very good to read. [[2]]
--Nsiemaska 22:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Google bosses convicted in Italy
This article is very relevant to the themes we've discussed in the course, including governing the Internet and criminal liability. Any thoughts?
(Kaurigem 19:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC))