my guess is
He doesn't view the NSA as a competitor …
Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has taken to Twitter and labelled Google worse than the NSA. Here's The Dirty Digger's missive: NSA privacy invasion bad, but nothing compared to Google. — Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) August 17, 2014 Murdoch and Google have history, with the former accusing the latter of stealing his …
...he hasn't seen his own NSA file... ;-)
Murdoch's not a part of that debate. His preferred Twitter style is to fire off something nasty, then disappear for a few days
... just like 90% of the people that use Twitter.
I thought it was more to fire something trivial off, then disappear for 5–10 seconds?
Isn't he the guy who quickly closed an outfit because it would have had to pay out gazillions to people whose private live they spied on? Is there a version of the pot & kettle expression involving THREE parties? I guess he's just jealous.
Your grammar is too good.
Murdoch worse than ebola.
In other news, the Reg commenter Khaptain has had a charge of libel filed against them by a Mr. Ebola Virus. In a brief statement to the press Mr. Ebola vehemently denied being anything near as bad as Mr. Murdoch and vowed to pursue the case to the fullest extent of the law.
Ebola Murdoch is
Need we Yoda icon!
>Murdoch is Ebola.
Murdoch is the human fly; climber of walls; spoiler of picnics.
It's perfectly possible to be an arsehole and right.
.. but it's much easier (and more common) to be an arsehole and wrong. In Murdoch's case, QED.
The "truth", in this case, is riding into town on the back of a vested interest. A little bit like what's currently happening in Oz with the broadband rollout. Trouble is people like Murdoch are greedy, grasping bastards, they want it all and will never stop trying to get it, usually at any cost. There's no attempt to forward mankind, it's purely about the dollars.
Murdoch is a cranky old coot who, whatever his achievements in life and business, is simply incapable of understanding - much less relating to - ordinary people.
This is the only mitigating factor; he is so out of touch that he seems genuinely not to realise just how poorly his conduct and opinions accord with those of the common folk.
For one , I got to agree with Rupert. Google opens every email and checks them , They collect all your searches ever , they know more about anyone and everyone than we care to know.
The NSA don't resell their users .Google and Facebook do and are the two worse enemies of privacy liberty and freedom ever.
"The NSA don't resell their users"
Yet... or even "As far as we know!" given their secretive nature with absolutely everything.
Wait till the Utah datacenter is built and fully utilized before we jump to conclusions, eh?
The NSA is several orders of magnitude worse than Google, as nobody is forcing you to use Google services. You can adblock *doubleclick.net for example and you are also not forced to email *@gmail.com domains or even use YouTube.
However, the NSA is completely unavoidable unless you don't use a computer, Telephone, Fax machine, Mobile phone, or any device capable of remote communication.
The NSA don't resell their users
They most certainly do.
The Snowden documents show situations where an evidence trail has been fabricated becasue someone actually got caught through an NSA snoop, with the data then (unlawfully) being passed on to DEA or similar.
It is alleged - and unproven, naturally - that snooped data is also passed onto US businesses to give them a competitive edge.
So the NSA is certainly reselling data - I just don't yet know how much I care about that.
"However, the NSA is completely unavoidable unless you don't use a computer, Telephone, Fax machine, Mobile phone, or any device capable of remote communication."
By which time they would be very interested in you , since you must have something to hide if you....etc...
NSA does flog their wares too...
be afraid, be very afraid.
And they don't sell them, they trade them with other spies. They want to collect the whole set.
You don't even get free email or cat videos how can you be a user?
... because you are on the right track, IMHO.
"The NSA don't resell their users .Google and Facebook do and are the two worse enemies of privacy liberty and freedom ever."
The insidious act here is not collecting data but rather "front running" personal information.
It rate of collection depends only on the hardware infrastructure. The NSA, Google and Facebook have these resources in megamultiples of you and I.
Be afraid of the NSA because their minions might act in haste - and irreversibly - on noise.
Be afraid of Google and Facebook (et al.) because they sell back doors and faster access to the noise product if you are a front runner with lots of cash.
Things could get worse if the NSA were to behave like Google, Facebook, et al..
The only way things get better is to fine the bejesus out of spam enablers.
@ AC: They have to finance Obama Care somehow and they can't squeeze the middle class for any more taxes.
A worrying amount of those ordinary people seem to buy his papers.
The scousers are the only ones with any integrity in that matter.
While the the NSA may not directly sell their [information on] users, they most definitely pass it outside of their organisation and - worse - outside of the legal remit under which it was collected.
The NSA is collecting information they shouldn't be collecting, using it for purposes it wasn't intended for, disclosing it to agencies and (if the leaks are true) commercial entities that aren't supposed to see it, hiding it from the public and lying about it all to congress.
And you agree with Uncle Rupert that Google is worse than the NSA . . .
You've got to understand a fundamental difference, which is that Google scans your e-mails (and is up front about it) to better sell you advertising. The NSA scans your e-mails to find key words and phrases and then uses those as justification to compile phone records, car GPS data, full Internet browsing history, and will do so for your friends, family and co-workers as well. It might then choose to forward that information to the DEA or the IRS.
That's not conspiracy theory time - that's actually what's happening.
BTW - apologies for the "FAIL" icon - I truly didn't mean it and don't know what happened. Maybe an errant mouse-wheel flick or something.
I don't think your comment 'FAIL[s]', I just disagree.
"I don't think your comment 'FAIL[s]', I just disagree."
I think the FAIL icon is quite fitting for his comment, actually.
Especially in light of the recent Snowden-gate / NSAgate news.
>NSA does flog their wares too...
>be afraid, be very afraid.
Mossad isn't bent on world domination. They can be very forceful when protecting their interests but they don't define their interests as "ruling the world."
I feel much safer with them than with the US.
I think discussion like he's trying to start here should be left to grown ups.
Unfortunately it'll be parrotted out by the editors of all his newspapers soon enough. Still, it makes a change from him having a go at all his competitors (BBC, etc), either directly or by proxy.
I prefer to hear about the various missives of the Dirty Digger and all Murdocracy concerns by reading Private Eye...
Actually, it won't be a change at all because he doesn't have a go at competitors, specifically.
Murdoch is one of those people who firmly and genuinely believe that it is his right to earn as much money as humanly possible. His newspapers therefore go after anyone and everyone that form a barrier to the pursuit of that money.
Murdoch's newspapers have always been notable for how utterly in sync they are in pushing whatever objective is handed down. Anyone in Australia during the last election cycle couldn't fail to notice it, with the numerous papers Newscorp owns relentlessly attacking Labor while praising the character of the Coalition.
He does the same thing in the UK, and the US of course though the near-blanket coverage he has here makes it particularly obscene.
For those in the UK, there was the support for Thatcher and the Tories, who in turn helped rush through his takeover of the Times, which then was used to support Thatcher all the more strongly, helping her to another election win. She then supported him through his fights with the unions, both politically and by promising strong police support, a link that has been pointed to as the starting point for the hacking scandals.
Thatcher later repaid Murdoch's continued support further by helping bring about the merger of BSB and Sky to make BSkyB.
His turn to support 'New Labour' and Tony Blair was to put pressure on him in regards to the impending cross-media ownership laws as well as regulations to restrict the predatory pricing he was employing to drive his competitors out of business. At least some of his ongoing unholy alliance with Blair is now well known thanks to the Leveson enquiry (which also brought out some of the Thatcher dealings) and they continued right up to Blair's resignation (and beyond).
After that he switched again, supporting the Conservatives, who were helping him with his bid to take full control of BSkyB - a move that only failed due to the eruption of the phone hacking scandal.
In Australia he played much the same game, jumping from Labor to Liberal as his needs dictated, supporting Whitlam then helping to bring him down. Supporting Hawke and Keating, who helped him takeover several local tabloids and thus attain dominance over the state-based presses but then backing Howard (again with cross-media ownership laws on the table). After that it was back to Labor for Rudd before the most recent and overt support of Abbott and the Coalition.
At each stage, he has bargained his support to earn more money - whether it was in helping smash the unions, getting huge subsidies on prime real estate (Fox Studios, say), enabling him to buy more than he should have been allowed to or to head off laws and regulations that would potentially collar his papers. Some believe that his support of Abbott and the coalition owed much to the scuppering of the NBN as he saw it as a threat to his cable television interests.
So that is Murdoch - someone whose only desire is for more money and power and who will opportunistically support whomever he has the most to gain from.
Dealing with opinions of Murdock and his warped views of the world. You have had a few but my opinions of the duffer run along the lines of:
Murdock is worse than plague
Murdock is worse than ISIS
Murdock is worse than Al-Qa'ida
Murdock is worse than your worst nightmare
Murdock is worse than a gang of drug crazed muggers
He ruined the print media, he ruined television, now he wants to wreak the internet.
Can the devil please come back out of retirement and swap roles back with him so letting the poor demented fool fester in peace somewhere.
But remember Murdock was imprisoned for a crime he didn't commit.
No he wasn't! He was committed. The other three were sent down...
"He ruined the print media, he ruined television"
You forgot FOOTY. Glad to know there are no Sky subscribers here. No RegReader would be so duplicitous?
"He ruined the print media, he ruined television"
You forgot FOOTY.
Even the very worst of us gets things right occasionally... :-)
"You forgot FOOTY. Glad to know there are no Sky subscribers here. No RegReader would be so duplicitous?"
Yeah, because not everyone lives in a Virgin Media Cable network you insensitive clod.
So yes, I do have Sky until Virgin cable gets here, I won't be holding my breath for that.
Go on hating.. At least I don't buy NewsCorp rags.
Looking at my trusty ghosetery - just by looking at EL Reg google tracks me (google analytics)
I go to say TED.com - oh look google analytics again
A List Apart - google analyitcs again
Rapid Elearning Blog - google again
Adobe TV - doubleclick (aka google again)
Australian Bureau of Meterology - oh look a google
There is of course a spectacular own goal - the News Ltd Herald Sun (Australia) - Adsense, analytics AND custom search
These site are in my bookmarks so I don't just "google" them
Err, umm, what are you saying? Google did this? PMSL!
These site are in my bookmarks so I don't just "google" them
I wonder then, what else do you do them?
[ giggling like a little grrl ]
Let me draw a picture for you then ...
I go directly to sites without using google that have absolutey nothing to do with google - but I have little option (unless I have ghostery) to hand over my browsing history as google have infested nearly every freaking site on the interwebs - i really don't see anything funny about that.
Yes the sites decide to opt in, but if I want to access anything at all there is the F!@$~!@%$%@#4 google tracker watching watching watching...
And the citicism of Murdoch I see here is typical of lefties - play the man, not the argument. Yes he may not be a nice man or have the policies you agree with but that does not mean he doesn't have a point.
"And the citicism of Murdoch I see here is typical of lefties - play the man, not the argument."
This "rightie" also thinks the man is a hypocritical arse, jealous of the virtual monopoly created by Google, angry that his own attempts to do the same amounted to little.
You should install a little thing like no-script. Its a bit of a faf at first to set up the permissions how you want them. But after that, google analytics and google-anything is blocked from running.
It's an opt-in internet if you redirect all of that google analytics, doubleclick ad ware to 127.0.0.1. Makes everything run so much smoother ;-)
"You should install a little thing like no-script. Its a bit of a faf at first to set up the permissions how you want them. But after that, google analytics and google-anything is blocked from running."
Unless the site you want that has the oh-so-exclusive content runs an ad-blocker-blocker, detects you block all the Google stuff, and gives the ultimatum: Allow all the spam stuff or you don't get our content.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018