http://www.osnews.com/story/23817/Skyhook_Google_Wanted_Access_to_Our_Data Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 21 May 2013 02:37:09 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread?441550 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441550 Discusses the only requirements around location Fri, 17 Sep 2010 23:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tedmorgan) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441554 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441554 It seems to me that Google is like the darling of the tech industry, but articles like this make me nervous. With as much effort as it has taken to try and put Microsoft in its place, how much harder is it going to be with Google, once their transition to the dark side is complete? Sat, 18 Sep 2010 00:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (WorknMan) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441557 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441557 I'm wondering should the Google corporate moto be updated.

"Google: Be evil"

It sounds so much cooler. Sat, 18 Sep 2010 00:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Nicholas Blachford) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441559 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441559 Thanks Thom for this great piece. This is why I keep coming back to OSNews time and time again. Sat, 18 Sep 2010 01:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (asharism) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441565 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441565 i bet the worst thing about this for guys at both companies is waking up on a Sunday morning and hearing the kids playing and staring at a 3' high stack of black legal binders before you even sip a cold bit of joe ;(

well.. at least its not another patented troll! Sat, 18 Sep 2010 02:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (noschool) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441576 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441576 So...they previously lost one big mobile player and now another. and all of a sudden there's legal proceedings abound. Wow, what a coincidence, eh? Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441577 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441577 I have a hard time feeling sorry for corporate lawyers. Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441584 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441584 those who can do, and those who can't, sue. Sat, 18 Sep 2010 03:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bannor99) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441590 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441590 Google will be the next Catholic Church

Soon it will be claimed, asserted, demonstrated and defended that there is and can be no knowledge without them.

Time for someone to nail a new 95 Theses to Google's home page on the intrinsic and sacrosanct value of the relationship between the individual and his or her Information.

No Googlery!!!! Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (orfanum) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441591 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441591 What makes you think the Lutheran church is any better? Sat, 18 Sep 2010 06:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441594 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441594 I am saying - let's reinforce the concept of individual conscience, if you like, as the agent, not the corporate body. Even Cardinal Newman said:

"Certainly, if I am obliged to bring religion into after-dinner toasts, (which indeed does not seem quite the thing) I shall drink to the Pope, if you please, still, to Conscience first, and to the Pope afterwards"

So, I say, "I drink to unconstrained Information and knowledge first, Google's global needs second (if at all)" Sat, 18 Sep 2010 07:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (orfanum) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441595 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441595 So this is not true anymore?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/password_reuse.png Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (qroon) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441597 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441597 I second that, this is why no other site compares! Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (eml.nu) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441611 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441611 Well done, my dear Watson. Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (aargh) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441613 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441613 Good analysis, Thom. You've isolated the key point that all the other articles seemed to have missed. Data is gold, and Google wants it! Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (benali72) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441617 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441617 I have some questions after reading your article Thom. How can an agreement be a secret agreement if you haven't seen it yet? Unless you mean its between Google and third parties, but not Skyhook. In which case, how do we really know it exists? Lets face it. Google owns Android. It can do what ever it wants with it. While the software may be open, the branding is NOT. Just like Red Hat. Just like Fedora. Now, we KNOW that other services can be used on these phones. The real question is: Does Google treat everyone the same? If so, then Skyhook hasn't got a chance. Google doesn't own a monopoly in the phone space, so its not like Skyhook had to go with Google in the first place. Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TechGeek) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441640 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441640 I can understand if Google didn't allow Motorola et al to use Skyhook instead of Google's location services: it would break third party apps relying on it. Then you'd have an actual problem of fragmentation instead of just the usual FUD. Google would have a lot of unhappy customers downloading apps they couldn't use. Yes, Google's services are tightly integrated into the platform.

Now, if Skyhook's tech was supposed to be an addition to Google's, on the other hand, then that's a different story. But that doesn't seem to be their complaint. Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (No it isnt) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441793 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441793 I give up. What is the serious grammar mistake? Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (zebrandao) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?441933 http://www.osnews.com/thread?441933 Me too.

Sorry, I mean: I do too.

Oops, I mean: So do I. Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (KLU9) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?442081 http://www.osnews.com/thread?442081 A second seconding here.
Thanks Tom! This is the best story I've read on OSnews. Very articulate. I'm impressed. Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vodoomoth) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?442083 http://www.osnews.com/thread?442083 This scared me when I saw it a few days ago. I started wondering what proof do we have that by entering our passwords in browsers, we are not unknowingly surrendering control of parts of our lives?

I mean, I have 170+ secondary email addresses on my Yahoo account. This means at least as many registrations on websites, forums, etc. But I only have three passwords. A weak one I really don't care about, that I use on all secondary addresses, another one for my PC accounts and a third strong one for my main email accounts. In case I have other passwords, I just send myself an email with the website, username and password.

I thought about all that while reading the comic strip and it was... unsettling. Wed, 22 Sep 2010 17:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vodoomoth) Comments