Comments on: Google vs. Stephen Conroy

By: JJ Fiasson

JJ Fiasson — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:46:32 +0000

Conroy looks more and more pathetic every time he opens his mouth. I’ve written up a piece on the damage he’s doing the Labor party’s re-election chances, here: http://dailybludge.com.au/2010/05/conroys-got-to-go/

By: banistersmind

banistersmind — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:09:41 +0000

Does Stephen Conroy have a Facebook? For some reason, I thought it was a pre-requisite for membership to the ALP.

By: Scott Ewing

Scott Ewing — Wed, 26 May 2010 04:51:53 +0000

Is it just me or does it look a little like the AFP putting pressure on google to employ a retired AFP officer (the dedicated Australian law enforcement liaison officer previously employed by MySpace was ex-AFP)

By: Andrew McIntosh

Andrew McIntosh — Wed, 26 May 2010 04:00:10 +0000

Google or Conroy - not much of a choice. But Conroy’s efforts to curry favour with the public and push his stupid filter through are much more transparent at the moment.

By: Michael James

Michael James — Wed, 26 May 2010 03:27:24 +0000

Slight correction Ruth, the word preceeding means to ‘proceed ahead of’. Your examples are all examples of Goggles’s name following or being preceded by vs.

Might sound like nit picking to some, but clarity of thought and expression is supposed to be stock in trade for all who deal in communication (well, politicians get a ‘get out of jail free’ card in this area).

By: Syd Walker

Syd Walker — Wed, 26 May 2010 02:50:20 +0000

Altakoi sums it up perfectly.

By: Sancho

Sancho — Wed, 26 May 2010 02:49:01 +0000

I’m deeply suspicious of Google, but right now it’s less of a threat to free communication than Conroy.

By: TheEvilOne

TheEvilOne — Wed, 26 May 2010 02:17:36 +0000

The fact is their are such things as public wireless internet access points which are meant for use by all and sundry and it makes perfect sense for Google to record and publish their locations. Unfortunately there is a problem that many naive users have not secured their wireless networks against use by random people nearby with a wireless equipped laptop, this means that Google would have to verify that each such is actually meant for public access. I suspect that the ones where the door is unintentionally left open far outnumber those intended for public use. Thus I think Conroy’s attack on Google is unfair and anyway is probably driven by ulterior motives.

I enjoyed being one of the voters who threw John Howard out in 2007, but I am extremely unimpressed by Conroy’s internet censoring antics, the very wishy washy carbon trading scheme and the canceling of the same when bluffed by Tony Abbot. thus I think I will vote against labour at the next election.

By: Socratease

Socratease — Wed, 26 May 2010 02:11:32 +0000

Nothing Google does is accidental, and it doesn’t remedy its cavalier actions until after it is forced to.

Conroy is off the planet, but Alston was evil.

By: bsg

bsg — Wed, 26 May 2010 01:52:12 +0000

At least Google respond to criticism. And dont throw tantrums. And frankly they show far more accountability (to their users, and their shareholders) than Conroy ever has.

They apologize, issue clear, transparent and open statements regarding the issue, change their polices, and inform the public. All of which is completely foreign to Conroy.

Msg to Conroy: A good defense of policy (“evidence based policy” that is - ROFL) is not an offense.

You actually think Google wanted to grab random snippets of wifi traffic for…. what? What possible use could Google use these random bits of data for? Your attributing malice where error is far more likely.

It almost makes me wish for Alston to come back.

By: Poseidon Burke

Poseidon Burke — Wed, 26 May 2010 00:54:48 +0000

“A corporate giant who is answerable to no one and motivated solely by profit making the rules on the internet, or a democratically elected government with all the checks and balances in place?”

At least the corporate giant would be required to demonstrate a business plan and a prospectus when it proposes to spend $43 billion of shareholders equity

By: jacksont

jacksont — Wed, 26 May 2010 00:31:00 +0000

As usual Conroy uses his time at senate estimates to attack opponents of the internet filter rather than answering the long list of questions Australians have been asking him for the past 2 years.

I would trust Google over Rudd and Conroy any day, at least Google aren’t having there communications and technology policies dictated by the religious right!

By: Altakoi

Altakoi — Tue, 25 May 2010 23:08:49 +0000

Multi billion dollar corporation at the heart of the internet vs marginally lucid politician from the ineffectual government of a mid-sized country. Its a close call.