[LINK] Federal police asked to probe Google

[Richard Chirgwin]

Jan Whitaker wrote:
> 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.
>   
A plea of mitigation might be valid, even if it doesn't change the fact 
that a law was broken.

RC
> 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
>
> _ __________________ _
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>