[LINK] 'creepy' Google

[Richard Chirgwin]

Thanks, Rachel.

Since I'm on the record before with this, I won't do myself any *more* 
harm by saying that many of the filter's opponents are politically 
naive. This makes them very susceptible to distractions, and Conroy 
provides plenty.

If we end up stuck with a filter, it will be partly because the 
organised opposition are not good at politics.

Cheers,
RC

grove at zeta.org.au wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2010, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>
>> Swimming against the tide...
>>
>> Without reigniting the whole flamewar, Google was after all in the 
>> wrong.
>>
>> More importantly, a whole heap of people conflate "the filter" and
>> "Senator Conroy". They attack Conroy when he says something not
>> associated with the filter - regardless of whether he's right (partly,
>> in this case; not the biggest privacy invasion, but a privacy invasion
>> nonetheless, and personally I found Google "creepy" long before Conroy
>> did), and regardless of whether their responses gain them anything in
>> the filtering debate. It's bad tactics. If Conroy's off-topic (so to
>> speak), then the best thing to do is ignore him.
>
> Thanks for saying that.   I actually don't mind Conroy.  He is across 
> things far more than people think.  He's an intellectual and takes 
> interest in IT matters far more than any of his recent predecessors 
> did, although Kate Lundy would be a far better choice....
>  I do not agree with his filter in principle and so take no interest 
> in it on any technical level, so I just ignore it!   I doubt the "The 
> Filter", no matter what govt is in power, will ever become more than 
> vapor.   It gives the hypochristians something to believe in, one 
> might say....
>
>
> rachel
>