[LINK] 'creepy' Google
rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au
Wed May 26 07:15:57 AEST 2010
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
If we end up stuck with a filter, it will be partly because the
organised opposition are not good at politics.
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
>> 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....
More information about the Link