Like me, I believe most people go about their business never to give a serious thought about their assumed private correspondence when using Gmail to email friends, colleagues and business associates.  As it turns out, your daily banter may not be so private after all.  A recent article in Fortune Magazine, “Judge Rejects Google Deal Over Email Scanning” caught my attention and an immediate thought dominated my curiosity…Google email and scanning scam.  

In essence, the article describes Googles’ agreement to change the way it scans incoming messages so that it no longer reads emails while they are in transit, but only when they are in someone's inbox! So, what exactly does that mean? Judge Koh, a San Francisco federal judge, said she's not so sure about that. Her ruling claims the settlement does not provide an adequate technical explanation of Google's workaround, which involves scanning in-transit emails for security purposes, and then later parsing them for advertising data. The judge also proposed a legal settlement to pay $2.2 million to lawyers, but nothing to consumers.

My interest in this story is not so much about the proposed settlements or the specific details about how Google or any of the web giants settle claims based on vague legal language. It is however, more about the naiveté of myself and perhaps many others that never question how the email scanning process really works. I wonder, do most of us really care that Gmail uses contents of our mail to display targeted ads?

Unlike Java, Python does not have a string contains method.  Instead, use the in operator or the find method.  The in operator finds treats the string as a word list whereas the find method looks for substrings.  In the example shown below, 'is' is a substring of this but not a word by itself.  Therefore, find recoginizes 'is' in this while the in operator does not.

s = "This be a string"
if s.find("is") == -1:
    print "No 'is' here!"
else:
    print "Found 'is' in the string."
    
if "is" in s:
    print "No 'is' here!"
else:
    print "Found 'is' in the string."

#prints out the following:
Found 'is' in the string
No 'is' here!

It is hard not to wonder how current technology would have altered the events surrounding the tragic death of John F. Kennedy. On the afternoon of November 22, 1963, shots rang out in Dallas, TX, taking the life of JFK, one of the most beloved Americans. Given the same circumstances today, surely the advances in IT alone, would have drastically changed the outcome of that horrible day. Would the government have recognized that there was a viable threat looming over JFK? Would local and government agencies have been more prepared for a possible assassination attempt? Would the assortment of everyday communication devices assisted in the prevention of the assassination, not to mention, provided greater resources into the investigation? With all that the IT world has to offer today, how would it have altered the JFK tragedy?

As many conspiracy theories have rocked the foundation of the official story presented by government agencies, realization of the expansive nature of technology provides equal consideration as to how the event would have been changed had this technology been available during the time of the shooting. There were T.V. cameras, home 8mm recorders, even single shot-hand held cameras snapping away as the car caravan approached. Yet, there remains little documentation of the shooting and even less information pertaining to the precautions taken by officials prior to JFK's arrival. Theorists consider these possibilities along with how the world would have turned out had the great John F. Kennedynever been assassinated on that day.

When asked for my pearls of wisdom on this topic, I was tempted to respond with the excuse: "Sorry, can't comment. My asbestos underwear is out for dry-cleaning."

It seems both the emotions and mis-information surrounding HTML 5 run high.

And some information is just plain scary. Consider this direct quote from the W3C.

"The following elements are not in HTML5 because using them damages usability and accessibility: