Google to create new Chrome OS

[localzuk]

The Dixons Stores Group repos (till) system is entirely written in Java - It never worked properly from day 1. But thats due to very poor implementation rather than problems with Java IMHO. Also they use Open Office 1 on the desktop, which I'm sure also relies very heavily on Java.

 

Precisely - don't blame a language for bad implementation. Unless it is VB of course, as that encourages poor implementation.

[mpe]

I read the BBC article.

 

Its basically a bootable browser, with all apps running on googles server farms and so requires a internet connection to function.

 

So more aimed that the home user than "enterprise" (which includes schools)

 

Based on those facts, and the obvious nature in which google uses such stored information to push adverts and gain financial reward from the data stored on its servers I think I have made my mind up.

 

Questions such as Will sims run on it? Is the data security acceptable etc are a joke.

One thing often overlooked with the whole "cloud computing" idea is the issue of data protection laws. Companies such a Google are already based in countries with weak data protection laws. Such systems are also very likely to be targeted by both government snoops and organised crime (in some parts of the world these may be the same people).

[mpe]

Plus CRM, data analysis (corporate data, not the kind you want google to have), and a hundred other applications which you don't want to be indexed by a disreputable advertsising company.

Which is worrying enough even if your data isn't covered by the DPA, thus has no business being within a few thousand km of Google.

 

Also when you trust any company with your data you are also trusting anyone they trust and anyone who has sucessfully infiltrated them.

[localzuk]

Which is worrying enough even if your data isn't covered by the DPA, thus has no business being within a few thousand km of Google.

 

Also when you trust any company with your data you are also trusting anyone they trust and anyone who has sucessfully infiltrated them.

 

Please read up on 'SafeHarbour'. Export.gov - Safe Harbor

 

It means that exported data is covered to the same standards as the EU, otherwise exporting that data would actually not just be an issue, but would be illegal.

[mpe]

Please read up on 'SafeHarbour'. Export.gov - Safe Harbor

 

It means that exported data is covered to the same standards as the EU, otherwise exporting that data would actually not just be an issue, but would be illegal.

 

Not only is there no enforcement behind this the whole thing is "self certify" with a modest fee.

[localzuk]

Not only is there no enforcement behind this the whole thing is "self certify" with a modest fee.

 

Yes, but when they break the rules, and the EU complains at them, do you think they'll do nothing about it?

[somabc]

Yes, but when they break the rules, and the EU complains at them, do you think they'll do nothing about it?

 

They can give an $11,000 a day fine, which is actually not that much.

 

Export.gov - Safe Harbor Enforcement Overview

 

Federal and State "Unfair and Deceptive Practices" Authority and Privacy

 

This memorandum outlines the authority of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 41-58, as amended) to take action against those who fail to protect the privacy of personal information in accordance with their representations and/or commitments to do so. It also addresses the exceptions to that authority and the ability of other federal and state agencies to take action where the FTC does not have authority.(1)

 

 

FTC Authority over Unfair or Deceptive Practices

 

 

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act declares "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" to be illegal. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). Section 5 confers on the FTC the plenary power to prevent such acts and practices. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(2). Accordingly, the FTC may, upon conducting a formal hearing, issue a "cease and desist" order to stop the offending conduct. 15 U.S.C. § 45(b). If it would be in the public interest to do so, the FTC can also seek a temporary restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in U.S. district court. 15 U.S.C. § 53(b). In cases where there is a widespread pattern of unfair or deceptive acts or practices, or where it has already issued cease and desist orders on the matter, the FTC may promulgate an administrative rule prescribing the acts or practices involved. 15 U.S.C. § 57a.

 

 

Anyone who does not comply with an FTC order is subject to a civil penalty of up to $11,000, with each day of a continuing violation constituting a separate violation.(2) 15 U.S.C. § 45(l). Likewise, anyone who knowingly violates an FTC rule is liable for $11,000 for each violation. 15 U.S.C. § 45(m). Enforcement actions can be brought by either the Department of Justice, or if it declines by the FTC. 15 U.S.C. § 56.

 

 

FTC Authority and Privacy

 

 

In exercising its Section 5 authority, the FTC takes the position that misrepresenting why information is being collected from consumers or how the information will be used constitutes a deceptive practice.(3) For example, in 1998, the FTC filed a complaint against GeoCities for disclosing information it had collected on its Web site to third parties for purposes of solicitation, and without prior permission, despite its representations to the contrary.(4) The FTC staff has also asserted that the collection of personal information from children, and sale and disclosure of that information, without the parents' consent is likely to be an unfair practice.(5)

 

In a letter to Director General John Mogg of the European Commission, FTC Chairman Pitofsky noted the limitations on the FTC's authority to protect privacy where there has not been a misrepresentation (or no representation at all) as to how the information collected will be used. FTC Chairman Pitofsky letter to John Mogg (September 23, 1998). However, companies that want to avail themselves of the proposed "safe harbor" will have to certify that they will protect the information they collect in accordance with prescribed guidelines. Consequently, where a company certifies that it will safeguard the privacy of information and then fails to do so, such action would be a misrepresentation and a "deceptive practice" within the meaning of Section 5.

 

 

As the FTC's jurisdiction extends to unfair or deceptive acts or practices "in or affecting commerce," the FTC will not have jurisdiction over the collection and use of personal information for noncommercial purposes, charitable fund-raising for example. See Pitofsky letter, p. 3. However, the use of personal information in any commercial transaction will satisfy this jurisdictional predicate. Thus, for example, the sale by an employer of personal information on its employees to a direct marketer would bring the transaction within the purview of Section 5.

 

Export.gov - Safe Harbor US Letter on Privacy and FAQs

Edited July 9, 2009 by somabc

[enjay]

If each day of a continuing violation is a new violation (the second bold bit in your quote), surely that means that fines would stack up very quickly into a real number, even to someone with Google's bank balance.

 

Day 1 = $11000

Day 2 = $33000 (day 1's $11k, day 2's $11k plus $11k for a new violation)

Day 3 = $66000 (day 2's $33k, plus $22k for another day plus a new violation)

and so on.

[jamesb]

If each day of a continuing violation is a new violation (the second bold bit in your quote), surely that means that fines would stack up very quickly into a real number, even to someone with Google's bank balance.

 

Day 1 = $11000

Day 2 = $33000 (day 1's $11k, day 2's $11k plus $11k for a new violation)

Day 3 = $66000 (day 2's $33k, plus $22k for another day plus a new violation)

and so on.

 

Not quite, it looks like the maximum fine is $11000 per violation, so each day would increase the total by only $11000.

 

Of course they do mention that each breach of any individual rule is a separate violation, so the fine could work out being several times $11000 each day.

[localzuk]

Not quite, it looks like the maximum fine is $11000 per violation, so each day would increase the total by only $11000.

 

Of course they do mention that each breach of any individual rule is a separate violation, so the fine could work out being several times $11000 each day.

 

Exactly. So, if they breach that rule with 1000 people's identities, does that not mean they have a $1.1m a day fine?

[CyberNerd]

Exactly. So, if they breach that rule with 1000 people's identities, does that not mean they have a $1.1m a day fine?

 

As well as being sued for breach of contract, investigated for corporate espionage and the resulting loss of business from that press.....

[enjay]

Exactly. So, if they breach that rule with 1000 people's identities, does that not mean they have a $1.1m a day fine?

 

No, worse than that. Day 1 would incur a fine of $1.1m, but day 2 would bring another 1000 violations, meaning that the day 2 fine would be $2.2m, plus the $1.1m they still owe from day 1. Day 3 would have a total of 3000 violations (or possibly 4000?!) at $11k each, plus the previous fines (and interest?!).

[sparkeh]

I read that it won't be supporting third party web api's - so no flash, java, silverlight, etc. All apps must be AJAX.

 

Google has announced its hardware partners and thats its working with Adobe - so we will probably see flash

Clicky

[tmcd35]

Interesting. Certainly would make sense to support flash like technology. Still it at odds with the article over at Anantech, Linky, which suggests

 

Developers would be limited to AJAXy technologies, with no Adobe Flash to back them up. For the most part, developers would be looking at abilities below what Flash and Java are capable of, so not everyone would necessarily be happy about working with a limited toolkit.

 

Still, it's very very early days without even sign of an Alpha release let alone production betas, etc. Certainly will be interesting over the next few months as more details come to light on what exactly it is Google are planning - and Microsoft response/counter attack.

[matt40k]

I read the BBC article.

 

Its basically a bootable browser, with all apps running on googles server farms and so requires a internet connection to function.

 

Based on those facts, and the obvious nature in which google uses such stored information to push adverts and gain financial reward from the data stored on its servers I think I have made my mind up.

 

Questions such as Will sims run on it? Is the data security acceptable etc are a joke.

 

Even netbooks have a use off the internet. With no central management I can imagine only a small minority being interested in such a beast. With the various flavours of linux available I think even this minority being well catered for.

 

When I saw the headline I was expecting so much more, and image Microsoft laughed their socks off when they heard this ground trembler of a story break.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Charge of Google's light brigade

 

Assuming there is an offline mode (ie not connected to Google HQ), you'll be ok.

 

SIMS will run as a cloud application, ie SLG2. Or run via Tsweb (over HTTPS)

[Ric_]

@matt40k: I was thinking just the same thing about running applications... many business have been using Citrix products to run their applications for years. The Java client for XenApp works rather well too.

 

As for things like CRMs, there's many that are web-based and the shiny-AJAX in modern collaboration suites make them easily usable through a web browser.

 

I don't think that the Google OS will be terrible and there's no way they can tie you in to their services. Treat it like anything else - a tool that will serve the purpose for certain jobs. If it doesn't do what YOU need, don't use it - why does everything need to do everything?

[jamesb]

I don't think that the Google OS will be terrible and there's no way they can tie you in to their services. Treat it like anything else - a tool that will serve the purpose for certain jobs. If it doesn't do what YOU need, don't use it - why does everything need to do everything?

 

I'm not concerned about it doing everything, I'm concerned about Google's lack of any respect for user's privacy.

 

I'm also concerned that they appear to be delusional - talking about creating an OS which won't need any anti-virus or even carry any security risks - Google Oompa-Loompas dream of virus-free OS ? The Register.

 

They succeeded so well in making Chrome secure after all (ignoring the security vulnerabilities in it, and its tracking back information straight to Google HQ).