Realistic PDA/smartphone choices?

[Jim K]

go on Steve flatten him with your unassailable ripost.............eh? we're waiting (still)

[Steve Firth]

It would have saved you time to type "yes you were right". Shame you can't grow those balls yet, eh?

Where did I say that?

No, you're telling a lie.

The bollocks is what you are writing to dig yourself out of another hole that you dug.

[somebody]

Back in January google applied for a patent on the very techniques they used to capture this data, but they now claim that the data capture was an accident, caused by one rogue engineer. I find that claim somewhat tenuous to say the least.

[Andy Dingley]

"details of my WiFi including passwords"

Which is presumably not to be interpreted as passwords to your gmail, but passwords to your WiFi itself

[Steve Firth]

i.e. I didn't say it at all. Nor did I say that phrase that you have claimed is a quote from me. I made no mention of "set out to break wireless networks". Harvesting traffic including passwords is not the same as breaking wireless networks, and I've never made the claim that it is. You've also had to eliminate the context in order to put your peculiar spin on what I said since:

At least so far Apple haven't tried to photograph my bare arse in my garden or record the details of my WiFi including data traffic and passwords.

makes it clear that I specifically referred to Google recording the details of WiFi including data traffic and passwords and made no mention of them trying to break WiFi as you claim.

Your "quote" above isn't even a quote and you even snipped words from the middle of the phrase without marking that fact.

It's to be interpreted as a dishonest claim by you, as comparison of what you claim I have said and what I actually said shows.

[Huge]

I'm just glad that I live down a sufficiently long private drive that all that can be seen on StreetView is a distant shot of my roof, and good luck picking up my wifi ...

[Steve Firth]

True for one house, but that has a detailed aerial view on Google. The other is from an era when houses were built close to the road. The cases in question were, however people who presumably thought that their two-metre security fences provided an element of privacy. I note that Google has tried to claim that it's to be expected that someone would drive down the street with a camera on a pole. As they have also claimed that everyone should have expected someone to snoop on their WiFi.

[Huge]

Oh, you'll get no dispute from me that Google have definitely strayed into "evil" territory.

[stuart noble]

But is there a government anywhere that is really going to oppose this kind of intelligence gathering? These days it seems we cannot afford to have anonymous bods roaming about under the radar. Google just happens to be very good at it.

[Tim Streater]

Are you quite sure you want to go down that path? The last lot brought in laws preventing you doing all sorts of things that, to the man on the Clapham omnibus, would seem entirely reasonable. [1]

[1] actually perhaps not as he would never have seen a digital camera :-)

[Huge]

I trust Governments even less than Google.

[Andy Burns]

Bit of a delayed response, but just been looking at alternatives and noticed that Virgin Broadband2Go is available in Canada, via "The Source", might be of interest ...