Microsoft is selling "Scroogled" mugs and T-shirts

[coip]

a) If you broadcast data over open, unencrypted Wifi you should have no expectation of security. That is like using a megaphone in Times Square and then getting angry that people heard you.

b) That it was an accident rather than a planned occurrence is denoted by the triviality of the fine - clearly the AGs knew they didn't have much of a hope of winning and so settled for the ridiculous amount of $7m.

c) Canada and Europe found that that data was not used, was not even looked at. How much data do you think it is possible to capture driving through a street? Not like they stood outside houses for hours on end recording stuff.

d) Explain how Google made "personal profit" out of fragments of millions of unrelated Wifi packets. Hardly like they need to steal your online banking password and get to the few thousand in the current account...

a) That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard and I know of no modern judicial system with such a stupid tenet. No, that would be like someone standing in Times Square holding a $100 bill that consequently gets stolen but you think it's okay because he shouldn't have held it in front of other people. Is it stupid to have unsecured WiFi networks? Yep. Is it stupid to wave a $100 bill around Times Square? Yep. Is it okay to steal either of them? No. Stealing is stealing. Don't be obtuse

b) An accident!? Nobody accidentally harvests a plethora of sensitive data from civilians. Don't be na?ve.

c) It doesn't matter if they used the stolen data or not. Kevin Mitnick stole a **** ton of data, never used the data even once. Just collected it. He spent years in prison. How much data is possible to capture driving around? A boat load of data. Ask Max Butler how much data he got from driving around in cars stealing data from unencrypted WiFi networks. Oh wait, you can't; he's in prison. Just like Google should be.

d) No one knows what they did with the data or how they profited from it. It doesn't matter either way. What they did was criminal and hypocritical. Why you are trying to defend such egregiously unethical behavior by a corporation that repeatedly preaches a Do-No-Evil mantra is beyond comprehension.

 

[Premium1]

And MS wonders why Google doesn't want to put any of its apps on WP. Not to mention love the jab google so subtly took at MS with the comment about the space for wearables heating up... Maybe next time MS lol

 

[Reflexx]

And MS wonders why Google doesn't want to put any of its apps on WP. Not to mention love the jab google so subtly took at MS with the comment about the space for wearables heating up... Maybe next time MS lol

Because Google was being great to MS before, right?

Google's hate for MS is nothing new.

And notice how their "response" didn't deny anything MS accuses them of. They just hope that you buy their wearables so they can collect even more info about you.

 

[ag1986]

a) That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard and I know of no modern judicial system with such a stupid tenet. No, that would be like someone standing in Times Square holding a $100 bill that consequently gets stolen but you think it's okay because he shouldn't have held it in front of other people. Is it stupid to have unsecured WiFi networks? Yep. Is it stupid to wave a $100 bill around Times Square? Yep. Is it okay to steal either of them? No. Stealing is stealing. Don't be obtuse

b) An accident!? Nobody accidentally harvests a plethora of sensitive data from civilians. Don't be na?ve.

c) It doesn't matter if they used the stolen data or not. Kevin Mitnick stole a **** ton of data, never used the data even once. Just collected it. He spent years in prison. How much data is possible to capture driving around? A boat load of data. Ask Max Butler how much data he got from driving around in cars stealing data from unencrypted WiFi networks. Oh wait, you can't; he's in prison. Just like Google should be.

d) No one knows what they did with the data or how they profited from it. It doesn't matter either way. What they did was criminal and hypocritical. Why you are trying to defend such egregiously unethical behavior by a corporation that repeatedly preaches a Do-No-Evil mantra is beyond comprehension.

Your analogy is flawed. Think of a situation where, say, you write your PIN code on your ATM card and lose it. You tell the bank. The bank laughs and says haha, your fault. The guy who stole the card and misused it may be arrested and rightly convicted, but the bank isn't going to give you your money back.

Dafuq? Mitnick and Butler of all people?

Mitnick was convicted for unlawfully accessing DEC's systems (hacking here is a misnomer since he admitted all his access codes came from social engineering) and copying their IP. That is hardly comparable. His conviction and prosecution as well - it was 1988 and the laws were not really set up to handle that sort of case. And Butler? Really? He stole 2 million credit card numbers using a security flaw in frakkin Internet Explorer!.

 

[Premium1]

Because Google was being great to MS before, right?

Google's hate for MS is nothing new.

And notice how their "response" didn't deny anything MS accuses them of. They just hope that you buy their wearables so they can collect even more info about you.

I just find it funny that everyone acts like MS does nothing of this sorts. Sadly they all do this. All of these huge companies it seems like are in the news for some sort of lawsuit for "doing something wrong" MS just seems like the upset kid on the playground who isn't getting their way so they run around trying to talk bad about everyone else, even when they are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.

*And by no means am i sticking up for what google is doing*

 

[Reflexx]

I just find it funny that everyone acts like MS does nothing of this sorts. Sadly they all do this. All of these huge companies it seems like are in the news for some sort of lawsuit for "doing something wrong" MS just seems like the upset kid on the playground who isn't getting their way so they run around trying to talk bad about everyone else, even when they are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.

*And by no means am i sticking up for what google is doing*

Example please.

MS doesn't search or store your personal data without your knowledge.

 

[coip]

Your analogy is flawed. Think of a situation where, say, you write your PIN code on your ATM card and lose it. You tell the bank. The bank laughs and says haha, your fault. The guy who stole the card and misused it may be arrested and rightly convicted, but the bank isn't going to give you your money back.

Dafuq? Mitnick and Butler of all people?

Mitnick was convicted for unlawfully accessing DEC's systems (hacking here is a misnomer since he admitted all his access codes came from social engineering) and copying their IP. That is hardly comparable. His conviction and prosecution as well - it was 1988 and the laws were not really set up to handle that sort of case. And Butler? Really? He stole 2 million credit card numbers using a security flaw in frakkin Internet Explorer!.

a. Uh, actually, your new analogy, if you revise it so it actually makes sense, just further proves my point. The guy who steals the card (Google in this sense) is the one committing the illegal act, and therefore also the one who has to pay restitution. As is your claim that my claim that the bank is at fault and should pay restitution is wrong: I never said that. Same with your claim that the customer is at fault (he isn't). The thief is the only person who is wrong.

b. I noticed you didn't respond to my point that illegally harvesting sensitive data from people is never an accident and always illegal. You can't defend Google on this one. They broke the law all the while breaking their own "Do No Evil" mantra. Hypocrites.

c. You have to actually read the examples and see their purpose. You're misinterpreting them. The Mitnick example was to show you how unfairly individual white-hat hackers were treated (i.e. incarceration) in comparison to Google's hacking, where no one served jail time (but they should've). (Also, yes, Mitnick was a social engineering master--which is just as illegal, by the way--but he also was a technical master too: his hacking attacks would've gone nowhere without his technical capabilities too). The Butler example was a rebuttal to your claim that you can't get 'useful' data by driving around in a car and harvesting data from people's unsecured WiFi networks. He showed that you sure as hell can.

I just find it funny that everyone acts like MS does nothing of this sorts. Sadly they all do this. All of these huge companies it seems like are in the news for some sort of lawsuit for "doing something wrong" MS just seems like the upset kid on the playground who isn't getting their way so they run around trying to talk bad about everyone else, even when they are doing the same thing. Pot meet kettle.

*And by no means am i sticking up for what google is doing*

Two things: 1. Microsoft never did anything as egregious as driving around and harvesting non-customers' passwords from WiFi networks; 2. Microsoft has not, since their inception, repeatedly sprouted out the same hypocritical "Do No Evil" mantra like Google.

Their response to Microsoft now selling Scroogled products isn't witty; it's an attempt of diversion. They engage in unacceptable behavior, someone points it out, and their response is to divert attention away from their behavior.

 

[Premium1]

a. Uh, actually, your new analogy, if you revise it so it actually makes sense, just further proves my point. The guy who steals the card (Google in this sense) is the one committing the illegal act, and therefore also the one who has to pay restitution. As is your claim that my claim that the bank is at fault and should pay restitution is wrong: I never said that. Same with your claim that the customer is at fault (he isn't). The thief is the only person who is wrong.

b. I noticed you didn't respond to my point that illegally harvesting sensitive data from people is never an accident and always illegal. You can't defend Google on this one. They broke the law all the while breaking their own "Do No Evil" mantra. Hypocrites.

c. You have to actually read the examples and see their purpose. You're misinterpreting them. The Mitnick example was to show you how unfairly individual white-hat hackers were treated (i.e. incarceration) in comparison to Google's hacking, where no one served jail time (but they should've). (Also, yes, Mitnick was a social engineering master--which is just as illegal, by the way--but he also was a technical master too: his hacking attacks would've gone nowhere without his technical capabilities too). The Butler example was a rebuttal to your claim that you can't get 'useful' data by driving around in a car and harvesting data from people's unsecured WiFi networks. He showed that you sure as hell can.




Two things: 1. Microsoft never did anything as egregious as driving around and harvesting non-customers' passwords from WiFi networks; 2. Microsoft has not, since their inception, repeatedly sprouted out the same hypocritical "Do No Evil" mantra like Google.

Their response to Microsoft now selling Scroogled products isn't witty; it's an attempt of diversion. They engage in unacceptable behavior, someone points it out, and their response is to divert attention away from their behavior.

If they really wanted to "divert" it like you claim they could have done much more than come up with this witty little saying. But apparently all of these awful things google does must not be hurting them too much since they continue to have people use their services.

 

[Reflexx]

If they really wanted to "divert" it like you claim they could have done much more than come up with this witty little saying. But apparently all of these awful things google does must not be hurting them too much since they continue to have people use their services.

Google did divert by trying to change the conversation. They steered the conversation away from their unethical practices and instead focused on how MS isn't as cool as them in tech wearables. Whoopie. Consider yourself successfully diverted.

 

[Premium1]

Google did divert by trying to change the conversation. They steered the conversation away from their unethical practices and instead focused on how MS isn't as cool as them in tech wearables. Whoopie. Consider yourself successfully diverted.

"cool" has nothing to do with it, believe me if it was about being "cool" google could have used something else. I think google was more hinting at innovation and how MS isn't really doing anything in that regard.

 

[Reflexx]

"cool" has nothing to do with it, believe me if it was about being "cool" google could have used something else. I think google was more hinting at innovation and how MS isn't really doing anything in that regard.

MS is iinnovating like mad right now.

 

[smoledman]

#1 - I really wanted the coffee mug but it's out of stock.

#2 - People use Gmail because it's a simple, clean, feature-packed UI that innovated web-email at a time when Hotmail/Yahoo were stagnant. That's why everyone switched back in 2006/2007. I really like the look of Outlook.com, but it's missing several key features which prevent it from becoming my primary web-email account.

 

[smoledman]

MS is iinnovating like mad right now.

Yup, I'd definitely consider XBox One, Surface and the unification of Windows Phone/RT to be very innovative things. 2014 will see WP8.1 bringing near feature parity with iOS/Android along with Cortana which will be a cross-platform service(XBox, Windows, Phone). Will Google still be laughing in 12 months?

 

[Premium1]

MS is iinnovating like mad right now.

Such as?

 

[Reflexx]

Such as?

Windows Phone and Windows 8's UI is a completely new way of interacting with a mobile OS. Task-centric vs app-centric.
A game console that is the media hub of your home, controlled by voice and gesture.
The process of turning the biggest office suite in the world into something that can be touch-centric.
Unification of the phone, tablet, and desktop operating systems.
They've been a leader in integrating voice controls into car systems.

But they're missing glasses. Ooohhhj

 

[tgp]

Will Google still be laughing in 12 months?

Probably. The guys in Google's marketing department will be laughing hysterically for the foreseeable future as they come up with witty responses to Microsoft's Scroogled campaign.

 

[squire777]

The more that people know of Google's underhanded ways the better. It's about time that the general public realized that Google isn't this unicorns and rainbows company that many people think it is. At the moment it's like, "OMG the Google doodle has Dr. Who!.. this company is so great"