<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:osnews="http://www.osnews.com/rss2#">
	<channel>
		<title>OSNews: </title>
		<link>http://www.osnews.com/story/25720/Google_faces_new_EU_US_privacy_probes</link>
		<description>Exploring the Future of Computing</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams</copyright>
		<webMaster>adam+nospam@osnews.com</webMaster>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 18:36:04 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		
		<item>
			<title>bah</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?510925</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?510925</guid>
			<description>i can understand going after a company that makes something essential, but google doesn't.  google makes some good products, but honestly - not a single one is a necessity.  people who don't like their products can stop using them anytime.  whether google's practice here is justified or not - well, the government needs to have some consistency in their prosecution - not just go after rich companies.</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 04:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (zhulien)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE: bah</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?510940</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?510940</guid>
			<description>&quot;for bypassing the privacy settings of millions of users&quot;<br />
<br />
I am not saying that money isn't a reason, but what is wrong with going after them for this behavior?</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 09:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (avgalen)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>Comment by Soulbender</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?510947</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?510947</guid>
			<description><div class="cquote">But it's important to remember that we didn't anticipate this would happen </div><br />
<br />
No, I am sure you didn't expect to be caught.</description>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 10:54:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (Soulbender)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[2]: bah</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?510974</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?510974</guid>
			<description>if apple didn't want it to be bypassed, they wouldn't have coded it to be right? ( after all apple is the bees knees <img src="/images/emo/tongue.gif" alt=";)" />  to a lot of people, i mean their products now matter how crappy they are, get sold in the millions to people who trust apple to do the privacy part right )</description>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (zhulien)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>

		<item>
			<title>RE[3]: bah</title>
			<link>http://www.osnews.com/thread?511023</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.osnews.com/thread?511023</guid>
			<description>Wow! That argument would work as well as ...<br />
<br />
'If they didn't want to be robbed in the middle of the night the should have had a flawless security system, right?'</description>
			<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:28:00 GMT</pubDate>
			<author>donotreply@osnews.com (kristoph)</author>
			<category>Comments</category>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
