Swine flu: there is no escape.

(Source of photo unknown).

However, as this article suggests, as is also the case with most Google services there are hidden catches which most users should, but probably won’t, be aware of.  I’ve written about EULAs before, and the Chrome EULA is a cracker.  The main issue is this clause:

7.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of the Services, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (see http://www.google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.

To understand what this clause is saying, we need to understand what “Services” and “Content” are in this agreement. Services are defined in clause 1.1 to include:

Google’s products, software, services and web sites

So Services would include Google’s web search, Picasa, Google Maps, and the Chrome browser itself.

Content is defined in clause 7.1 as follows:

all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services

Content would arguably include any websites or images you access via Google search, and anything at all that you access using Chrome as your browser.

Let’s assume, as seems to be the case, that the purpose of the majority of Google’s “Services” is to provide access to information in the form of “Content”.  The sting of clause 7.3 is in the following: Google “reserves the right … to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service.“  This is an extremely broad clause, and legitimises any number of actions Google might elect (at its discretion) to take with respect to “Content”.  In particular:

• “pre-screen” suggests that Content may be subjected to certain criteria before it is provided;
• “review” suggests that Content may be scrutinised after it has been accessed by a user;
• “flag” is one of the more disturbing words used, and is clearly not limited to flagging particular issues to the user – it could also quite reasonably be said to include flagging certain content to Google or to the authorities;
• “modify” suggests that Content may be manipulated from its original state (without the user necessarily being aware of that fact) before being provided to the user;
• “refuse” suggests that Content may simply not be provided in some circumstances; and
• “remove” indicates a degree of intervention in Content which has already been accessed.

On a generous reading of the intention behind this clause, it might be concluded that Google wishes to protect itself from lawsuits in circumstances where it, for example, does not transmit viruses or other malicious software to users, or where it automatically provides optional content filtering against porn and the like (e.g. “moderate safesearch”, which is turned on by default in Google Image Search).

However, a generous reading of intention does not limit the rights that you confer on Google when you agree to the EULA.  If you use Chrome as your web browser, then based on the clear terms of the agreement, you have agreed that Google has the right to:

• monitor what you are or have been looking at on the web and store that information (‘review’ or ‘pre-screen’);
• transparently alter websites or other information you access using Chrome so that you are in fact viewing a modified version without knowing it (‘modify’);
• report you to the authorities if you access specific content, identified solely according to Google’s own policies or arrangements with said authorities (‘flag’);
• make it appear that websites or other information is unavailable when in fact it is being filtered (‘refuse’); and
• delete information from your web browser (e.g. cookies, bookmarks, history) or arguably even from your computer (content downloaded via Chrome) at its discretion (‘remove’).

So, to put the foregoing in the form of tangible (but purely hypothetical) examples, by agreeing to the EULA you have agreed that if Google wanted to, and so long as you are using Chrome, it could:

• prevent you from accessing information about euthanasia or abortions;
• prevent you from accessing the websites of specific political or social organisations;
• report you to the police if you access particular kinds of pornography;
• report you to anti-terrorism authorities if you are doing research into islamic terrorism;
• silently modify statistical or factual data on a website you are accessing;
• silently doctor photographs or maps;
• prevent you from accessing websites critical of Google (like this one, I suppose!);
• store everything you look at and mine it for commercial or personal data at a later date; or
• delete bookmarks of websites of Google’s competitors from your browser .

I am happy to admit that Google probably won’t do any of those things, at least in the West.  It would be commercially foolish at best.  But Google already has a track record of cooperating with nasty totalitarian governments in censoring the Internet.  So it should at least be assumed that Google might do some or all of the above.  It is also known that Google stores and mines all of your email sent or received via Gmail (don’t email me from Gmail addresses, god damn you) for its own commercial purposes, as well as storing it in random places where it may be subject to warrants or government spying.

There’s a simple solution, of course: don’t use Google Chrome.  When you have the choice of using a web browser which definitely won’t do any of the above, it would be insane to use one which exposes you to even a slight possibility of any of those things occurring.  Ideally, therefore, you should use Firefox or even Internet Explorer in preference to Chrome.

If you care about your privacy and having unfettered access to information, I would suggest that steering clear of Gmail, Google Web Albums and any other service where you actually upload or download data using Google products is a good idea.  If you use Firefox, you may also like to use the excellent CustomizeGoogle plugin to control how much information about you Google is actually collecting.

Until Google learns to totally respect its users freedom to access and use third party information anyway they see fit and without corporate oversight, they do not deserve your business, even with respect to their “free” browser.

Clinton and Bush had the same experience (scroll down here).

Possible causes:

• no longer has to dye hair in order to look younger than John McCain
• following Bush Administration’s introduction of everyday use of ‘signing statements‘ to alter reality, now simply orders all Americans to regard his hair as black not grey rather than actually implementing black hair policy
• can’t stop re-reading article about how the odds of his own bloody murder have shortened from 16-1 to 12-1
• has undergone the introductory CIA orientation video, “covert alien control of Earth and you: a beginner’s guide to puppet leadership”

1. Bush family cat dies (possibly of shame); Bush’s nickname for cat is “Kitty”.
2. Cats commence takeover of worldwide news media with German putsch; weatherman demonstrates excellent comprehension of cat psychology.
3. Nick Cave outed as fan of cat-related artwork; meanwhile artist’s cat gives him schizophrenia and causes him to start painting demon cats.

It’s easy to be offended by this stuff, but I would like to see these groups taking a more creative approach to fighting back. They still have the common law legal system at their disposal – they just need to use it.

Specifically, I would like to see them obtain undertakings, warranties or other legally binding statements or agreements from participants in their groups in order to give them some leverage when it is discovered that someone is a spy.  In particular, some form of token contract comes to mind – the organisation could contract with each member that in exchange for $1 from the group, the member agrees not to spy on it for the duration of their membership.

Strictly speaking a contract cannot contain an enforceable penalty clause which is disproportionate to any real loss suffered by one of the parties upon a breach by the other. For example, in theory when a bank charges you an ‘administration fee’ for overdrawing your account, they are only allowed to charge you the actual cost to them of any administration or other real costs (obviously this is not enforced much as people don’t tend to go to court over $40, although the world might be a less annoying place if they did).

On the other hand, it is not impermissible to include a clause for special damages, that is, losses which might not ordinarily be said to flow from a breach of the contract, but which both parties agree are in contemplation should a breach occur. So for instance, each member of a group could be asked to sign an agreement not to conduct any covert spying (defined somehow) while they are a member of the group, and to further agree that if they breach that term then the damages which flow from it include the costs of legal representation for the group in relation to that spying, the costs of media publicity to counter-act the negative consequences of the spying, the costs of losing new members who will be scared off, et cetera.

Another option would be to bind someone with a confidentiality agreement, which is a different creature altogether but effective in some circumstances.

All of this would have to be done in a way that wouldn’t seem insulting or frightening to legitimate members of your group.

There are other problems – you would have to find some basis for there to be a contract in the first place (i.e. some kind of bi-directional exchange of value). You would have to be able to quantify the damages referred to above somehow (although a court will not reject a damages claim just because it is difficult to quantify). There might be other issues depending on the particular legislation which apparently empowers the police to do these things in the first place.

That’s enough rambling: my main point is that groups like these in Australia might do better to think of creative solutions to these problems, rather than relying on the generally apathetic Aussie public to rise up in anger at the governments which permit these things to happen.

Admittedly looking quite intimidating (see link), the jacket does not in fact come with a mind control device to turn its wearer into a shoplifting criminal maniac at this stage. Nevertheless, the usual brilliant minds (business groups, populist politicians, and the “think of the children” lobby) have immediately suggested that:

• the jackets are “inciteful, provocative and sinister”
• they are a tool for “hooligans”
• they are “almost Klu Klux Klan”
• they should be banned in order to stave off a descent into anarchy

Needless to say, none of these critics has stopped howling for long enough to wonder whether Britain’s pervasive surveillance culture, with 4.2 million CCTV cameras, has anything to do with the popularity of a garment which allows one to remain anonymous in a public space.

For the cops, APEC is a vision of the world as it should be. Expanded powers, new equipment, media support, and maybe a chance to try out new toys like the water cannon.

If the allegations in this article are even close to true, then that sounds pretty accurate:

• cutlery on outdoor tables removed as a security threat
• people told not to look at passing helicopters
• journalists having their notes checked by police

Of course this is all unsubstantiated and we’re reassured by vague statements from Those In Charge about the fact that all of the above would be too much, tut tut, but of course there’s no sign that the claims will be investigated or any action taken if they prove correct.

The politics of APEC and protests aside, when our leaders live in this much fear of the people it’s hard to escape the conclusion that something is fundamentally wrong with the relationship between government and the governed.

LE points to this article about the amazing death-predicting cat, a story which has also come to our attention around these parts.  We have a more rational explanation than some supernatural feline power to predict an imminent demise, however. 

What would you think if a human was mysteriously present shortly before a long string of people died?  Especially if that human had unfettered access to patients’ rooms in a medical facility full of people too weak to defend themselves?

That’s right… applying Occam’s Razor, Oscar the death “predicting” cat is clearly a serial killer. 

(or just carrying disease around frail old people.)

If you are the somewhat paranoid type, at least when it comes to governments, why not scare the hell out of yourself and read this little piece by Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration) which attempts to answer the riddle: with George W Bush’s popularity sinking ever lower, why are senior Republicans allowing him to push on with ever crazier and less palatable plans?

If you can get past the somewhat dubious 9-11 conspiracy stuff (or even if you can’t), Roberts’ piece is a chilling thought experiment if nothing else:

Once the US experiences new attacks, Bush will be vindicated. His voice will be confident as he speaks to the nation: “My administration knew that there would be more attacks from these terrorists who hate us and our way of life and are determined to destroy every one of us. If only more of you had believed me and supported my war on terror these new attacks would not have happened. Our security efforts were impaired by the Democrats’ determined attempts to surrender to the terrorists by forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and by civil libertarian assaults on our necessary security measures. If only more Americans had trusted their government, this would not have happened.” And so on. Anyone should be able to write the script.