Google in China, Badware, Pixney, Sun and more...(The Dan and David Show)

Google in China, Badware, Pixney, Sun and more...(The Dan and David Show)

Summary: In this latest episode of the Dan & David Show we cover a variety of timely topics. Google refuses the U.

TOPICS: Oracle

In this latest episode of the Dan & David Show we cover a variety of timely topics. Google refuses the U.S. government's subpeona for search logs but agrees to censor material deemed objectionable to Chinese authorities--the company that will do no evil faces some tough, politically-charged choices. We also discuss the Disney/Pixar union (Steve Jobs' third coming), the new "Badware" coalition that hopes to battle spyware and other cyber maladies, Intel iMac performance, Sun's future, PeopleSoft founder Dave Duffield's new venture and the fate of the BlackBerry. The podcast can be delivered directly to your desktop or MP3 player if you're subscribed to our podcasts (See ZDNet’s podcasts: How to tune in).  For more the topics covered during the show, search our blog

Topic: Oracle

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Horsepucky

    I've never seen so much pure horsepucky in one place at one time as I have in our Government. For over 20 years the U.S. government has been actively encouraging U.S. based corporations to move their operations to low wage countries such as China, in the processs decimating the U.S. workforce they are supposed to be representing, and now they have the unmitigated gaul to complain because those same companies agree to follow the laws of the country they have been encouraged to move to??

    If our "so called" elected representatives don't like the laws in China mabe they shouldn't have encouraged companies to move there.

    • Closer to 34...

      Nixon went to China - and not for humanitarian reasons, he's no "liberal".

      Carter signed China up as a MFN in 1980 (Reagan took office in 1981...) Of course, was Carter trying to do the right thing - or did he foresee the future and the decay of America's decency and morals?

      Reagan took full advantage of all that and lots more (google up "Loral Reagan" and see how Reagan had no qualms, during the Cold War, allowing a corporation to sell some real nasty things to a COMMUNIST ENEMY)

      Don't worry: Clinton not only renews Loral's contract for China (and that was when the republicans decided it was time to say something was wrong, but not for the previous years), he renews China's MFN status too. Also add in DMCA, NAFTA, COPA, and a slew of other things and Clinton was obviously the best president republicans ever had.

      This "globalization" stuff is a load of horsebuckets too. Other economies are prospering because the wages being paid grossly exceed cost of living. Meanwhile, Americans' jobs are vanishing or being lowered in value. With cost of living expenses rising, the imbalance more than speaks for itself. I don't mind being paid $5/day. Just so long the cost of living, et al, are comparable to what India and China offer. (pardon me while I go laugh somewhere...)

      All I can say is: Nothing is one-sided and I am pro-America. Supporting one's enemy, as our corporate elite have been doing, is an act of treason. And over the last 25 years, gave China our manufacturing base and are giving them our engineering and information bases too.

      Just like how Japan used to take our goods, dissect them, and make cheap imitations. Now it's the other way 'round. They make the top goods; we have those dismantled and copied... in China.

      Question is, once the US economy breaks, what happens to Americans who aren't the corporate elite? These other countries will be fine; the elite operate over there and may as well live over there and stop taking our tax money, but I digress.

      So, what's our fate?
      • Nixon wasn't

        That conservative. He did start the EPA, who is not exactly right wing to say the least. I think everyone is headed there because of the unions, in actuality it's not that cost effective. A lot of CEO's have discovered that, but are too embarassed to admit it. Even though it's a whole lot cheaper to pay people in India, it's more expensive. Because the American worker is five times more efficient, plus the rising costs of shipping, up like 1000% in the past six years, you really don't save much. Unless it's union wages we're talking about. Then it's much cheaper. Even in Europe they're realizing this.

  • Another tought choice for Google - Free Muni Wifi that is not traceable

    Google created their own problem by collecting this information in the first place....Will they repeat their mistake as they create Municipal Wireless solutions for Mountain View and probably San Francisco?

    In an attempt to rollout a Citywide Wireless Internet plan (TechConnect) two major approaches being considered by San Francisco which may significantly encroach on the public's privacy. The two options are a for-profit solution which will finance the solution by monetizing the public's privacy or grants from Homeland Security. This occurs in the context of elected officials and city administrators patting themselves on the back for what the voters approved (2004) in a watch law ordinance that makes Patriot Act requests difficult for the Federal government to pursue in San Francisco.

    The targeted advertising solution (google and others) would track all the email and surfing habits of any user. This information could be used as in Gmail and Amazon to send specific advertising. It is of course, also available for National Security Letters and other legal methods which would not be presented within the legal context of San Francisco - avoiding the Watch Law. While networks can be created that do not track a user's private information (no server logs, no click streams etc) that is not a method being promoted publically by vendors like Google and in fact is partly the reason the Justice Department and Google are now fighting over production of user's search records - Google can't say they just don't have the information. While there are questions about Privacy in the RFP, they were specifically written as Open Ended rather than as Minimal Standards. Public Advocates and Organizations like ACLU, and have all written and some have spoken about their concerns with this approach Before the RFP was created and released - yet no changes were made. Also SF/DTIS has the ability to waive any RFP requirements in the contract negotiation process anyhow.

    The other funding concept that is being quietly discussed as a mechanism for the San Francisco Municipal Wireless solution is Homeland Security Grants - the calendar image below is from the city official Chris Vein who is in charge of the RFP process which requires bid submittals by 2006/2/21 - See Below

    Washington Post: 2006-01-19 Fed Grants (Homeland Security) for Surveillance Cameras for Small Towns .. this seems related to Municipal Wireless funding efforts as well in San Francisco

    The Homeland Security funding option: "Motorola?s proposal suggests that the city pitch the project as a public safety issue, and capitalize on grants from government organizations such as the Department of Homeland Security. They suggest that the network would help law enforcement by enabling the SFPD to put wireless cameras across the city cheaply, and that the signal from a particular camera could be routed wirelessly to officers in their cars as they approached the scene." (thanks to for summary)

    Combined brief ACLU, and

    SF Watch Law Re Patriot Act
    • *DING* *DING* *DING* We have a winner!

      "Google created their own problem by collecting this information in the first place...."

      Why are they collecting information at all? To sell to others for top dollar; it's a big-booty marketing gimmick; pun intended. And we're the booty. On both counts. And you bet they've got the addresses to track everybody down with; it's only logical, especially when you see pop-up ads that seem to be related to your interests...

      And the government has no right to it. Not if the Constitution is to be upheld.

      If Google has reasonable cause, it'll do what it thinks is right.
  • Google is sinking

    Google just got from top of the top to the lowes rank possible. it is simply a mistake to comply with a gorverment that is not even legitimate. Any goverments that restrict so openly civil liverties in any way as simply no place on a civilized earth.