[LINK] Federal police asked to probe Google

[Jan Whitaker]

At 09:39 PM 6/06/2010, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>A "payload" frame, however, has the destination address set. An
>interface with the wrong address, upon receiving that frame, is supposed
>to drop it (a behaviour that's been in Ethernet forever - the old coax
>networks behaved like this). Sniffer software ignores what is an
>explicit part of the standard - "drop frames not addressed to you". So
>it's at least tenable to argue that anyone who captures frames not
>addressed to them *is* breaching the TIA, irrespective of whether or not
>the payload is encrypted.

Could this be a case of the programmer not paying attention to the 
standard? Google said whoever wrote it was 'experimenting' or 
something similar, part of their 'innovation' thing. If there were 
whiz kids writing code for them without proper training, that could 
happen. It could be a case of wow, neat, I wonder if I can bypass 
this or get that data without the sender knowing? If the coder had no 
sense of compliance requirements, it could easily happen out of pure 
ignorance. Doesn't excuse google from knowing what their code does, 
but I can see how it could happen.

Jan



Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _