I think "it's opt-out" is a very poor excuse. When something of this type is going to be implemented, opt-in should be the default. If you can't convince the people who will be affected by this that they are going to want it, then you are probably in the wrong.
This has nothing to do with Google's "business model", search is about relevance and despite the practices of these sites, I'm sure you can see how their content might be relevant and interesting to visitors. Those who processed the payment were the ones at fault since they were directly facilitating the blackmail.
First of all let's not confuse the issues here, the one in question is about tagging visitors with cookies, and the one you link to is a terrible decision by a judge about the nature of data processing in the cloud with the potential to adversely affect all tech corps and startups and further enrich leech trial lawyers. Here are some opinions by those who know the law much better that myself:
Back to the cookie thing, the technique described is not exclusive to national agencies, any black hat with gumption can manage it (although the NSA taps teleco traffic which makes it much easier for them) the attack vector in this case is a vulnerability in the Tor browser that ought not have been there in the first place (rather than any data analysis) and I'm guessing it was already patched seeing as the documents describing it are a bit dated.
It’s not a kickoff point to philosophise about the merits of free services and the legality of hadoop. Also "companies like Google" aren't the ones that came up with terrible laws nor should they stop building stuff because of them.
It's why the word Incognito in Chrome for iOS has an asterisk next to it:
"On Chrome for iOS, due to platform limitation regular and incognito* tabs share HTML5 local storage, which is typically used by sites to store files on your device (client-side caching) or to provide offline functionality. This means the same sites can always access their data in this storage in both regular and incognito* tabs. Incognito* tabs will still keep browsing history and cookies separate from regular tabs, which are cleared once those tabs are closed."
SELinux default policies are usually written per distribution, by their maintainers. It's widely used and peer reviewed (Fedora, Red Hat) I'd trust it over any less involved attempt at emulating it.
No. For the same grammatical reasons and for the more important fact that they don't sell data or information, they sell ad placement that get populated with relevant ads determined by analysing said data. Advertisers don't buy the data, they aren't exposed to it, they are exposed to dashboards, aggregates, and abstractions, e.g "I want this product advertised to 18-35 year old males" then don't get to personally know their demographic.
One: he's not just a "top guy at Google" he's Vint "I invented the internet" Cerf.
Two: the headline is highly paraphrased, which I guess you know since you've read the whole thing. Also sociologically speaking even that warped baiting headline is technically correct.
So, again since you actually read the piece, you'd agree that the point he was making is that "privacy", important as it is, is a subjective and evolving concept thus society shouldn't use it to dismiss or outright ban certain new technologies.
Publishing a transparency report is an excellent step and it doesn't deserve this sort of comment. Government surveillance is a policy issue first and foremost, concentrating on consumer tech companies is but an attention seeking techniques to make the news more palatable to casual readers, if corporate compliance bothers you then telecom companies ought to top of the list seeing as they never even mounted a single challenge, nor did they seek transparency.
If your reasoning is that they're not lobbying against this, then you're wrong. You can't expect people not to use the Facebooks or Apples, it's a policy issue. Pressure the government, vote for the right people.
Perhaps, I doubt the change was as dramatic though, considering it's not just the app itself that underwent transformation but also browsers and the web platform as a whole. But then again we're talking about spreadsheet software.
As the original article shows, it has a long way to go. I mean, Google Sheets is nice for many things, but to even try to replace Excel it needs to increase functionality tenfold - even LibreOffice isn't really there yet after all these years. And packing it with everything would likely make it a worse product for the actually intended Google Sheets audience due to more complexity.
Of all the 100 excel features everybody needs 3-4 - but each needs a different one, so you have to cover all of it to be an acceptable replacement. The original post is one example of such feature that apparently is 'must have' for someone. Database/sql integration for someone else. Solver functionality for yet other people. And so on.
> I mean, Google Sheets is nice for many things, but to even try to replace Excel it needs to increase functionality tenfold - even LibreOffice isn't really there yet after all these years.
Excel is a moving target. Nothing is ever going to "replace" Excel by simply chasing after it and trying to do everything Excel does in the way most comfortable to existing Excel users. Anything that's going to succeed as an Excel replacement will do enough of what Excel does in a way convenient to existing users and offer some compelling features that Excel doesn't have.
And there are always going to be people complaining about any replacement not mimicking some feature in the way they'd most prefer; even after a replacement succeeds -- it happened with WordPerfect users complaining about Word long after Word displaced WordPerfect and acheived dominance.
Oh and Apple already deployed an identical ad id a while ago.