From: idle on
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:43:52 -0300, Shadow wrote in alt.comp.freeware:

> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:03:38 -0500, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote:
>
>>Shadow wrote:
>>
>>> http://fffff.at/google-alarm/
>>>
>>> not tried.
>>> []'s
>>
>>fffff.at = 69.163.224.99
>>69.163.224.99 = apache2-linus.budapest.dreamhost.com
> The story I read:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/06/google.alarm/index.html
> []'s

So, then Van's sayin;

Shadow Shuda wrote:
http://fffff.at/google-alarm/
not tried.
The story I read:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/06/google.alarm/index.html

[]'s


--
idle
8/9/2010 1:48:23 PM
From: Shadow on
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:43:44 -0500, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote:


>But I did make a mistake. In my reply, I should've added spaces to make
>the link unclickable to prevent someone else from accidentally visiting
>that site. Did it this time.
I probably should have done that too. Bad day today.
The other link is a "clean" CNN one. It is what I read about
google alarm.
The report sounded innocent enough....
So ...sorry.
[]'s
From: VanguardLH on
Shadow wrote:

> The story I read:
> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/08/06/google.alarm/index.html

There are so many web analytic services out there that it seems unfair
just to single out Google. In fact, just singling out Google means
users of this add-on think they're protecting their privacy regarding to
where they browse but instead they are still getting monitored by
hundreds of other analytic companies. Plug one hole. Leave all the
others open. Still drafty inside.