Theirs no need for Google to apologize for this. Google did nothing wrong in this case, these people used/have unsecured WiFi networks and where sending there into across unsecured channels (aka NON SSL/TLS/etc). It's no different that had these people just been in there front yard and screamed out there info and a passing car OR person wrote down or even recorded what they said. 

People forget that WiFi signals radiate out from there devices in a growing circular wave  like a ripple in water after a object has just fallen into it. So for all those people out there that are using the "Lock your doors". Your comparing the wrong things. As in these case Google NOR anyone one else would have (or did) to come into your house and take the info. These people using all these WiFi & using all non encrypted means of sending data GAVE (yes they GAVE IT to) Google and anyone else to wanted the info. As your devices SEND OUT the info and they merely just collected.  

I was asked the question about why there has to be ~2 AC3 tracks on all Bluray Discs with TrueHD. And the answer was simple, yet as I thought about it I found the answer every aggravating.

Heres the answer:

 I think they do all this to because of old school thinking and the Film industries constant fight against real change. I fell that both TrueHD and DTS-HD are pointless, they're both technically lossless yet both still coexist and do the same thing with there own ADDED changes. It's like the going to differnt gas stations, The gas it self is all the same. The only thing different what additives are in this "brand" of gas. And because they both coexist good hardware needs to be able to handle both, thus making the receivers (alone) more complex along with more expensive. I understand the need for backwards compatibly, I truly do. But if industries really took the time the to look for the "right" way to progress. They would have found better and cheaper ways to do things.

Lets stick with the lossless track ideas. Now had the industries really looked and cared about giving there consumers lossless, why did not look to a already existing technologies. Or really for that matter why bother with any other Lossless format other then raw ? As I've yet to see any Bluray movie fill a complete disc they could easily just include a copy of Linear PCM and both a normal DTS & AC3. I mean why change anything if your going to make your changes so constrained. Look at the lastest "big" movie Avatar.

Heres what can get for just 43.7 gigs.

You'll note that in that file I have all of the fallowing, 1 FLAC stream created from the DTS-MS, 1 DTS-MA stream, 1 Real DTS stream, 2 AC3 streams (I have 1 more real AC3 640 kpbs I made from the FLAC file which is about ~700MB. I made by own as I found the includes AC3 tracks (there are2 of them). Both where under 640 kbps... hell one of them was only encoded for 2.0 (yep a 20 ac3 stream on a bluray).. again for no reason. All AC3 decoders are required to beable to output a down converted 2.0 form the max 6 channel of a NORMAL AC3). I just forgot to add my AC3 file in there). Now It all seems like a waste to put this all in there, but i did it to prove a point. And that is there is so much wasted space on these discs that it's sad. 

** I give props to HD-DVD spec/setup for 1 thing and really one thing only. They set a standard and gave the finger to every one else. It specs requires that there can only be a decode uncompressed linear PCM, Dolby Digital AC-3, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, Dolby Digital Plus E-AC-3 and Dolby TrueHD as the MAIN stream. Now it also allowed for LPCM and DTS-HD stream as addons, but it wasn't required ! Which meant all HD-DVD receivers   really only had to deal with 2 types of streams and really only had to beable to decode 1 of them. 

Now lets move on to the video streams. Again using the above as an example. you'll see there is about +6 gigs free. Now lets factor in some trailers and padding. That leaves up with just about ~3+ gigs of free room (again remember all the extra streams I have in my file). Why did they just waste all that space. Sure 3 gigs might not add in any noticeable, But who cares. It's not going to cost them any more money (even the burn times wouldn't change as they would still need to finalize the discs.). And damn it don't we deserve the highest quality possible ? Isn't that what HD all about ?? Hell I'm not even sure why they have screen and video stream specs. I mean the specs allow for just about any ratio (which leave us all with back bars on are wide screen "HD" TVs) and 3 completely different video codec. those being  MPEG-2 Part 2, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and SMPTE VC-1. I mean MPEG 2, seriously... Why ? For backwards compatibility of what. The f'in bluray still needs to go into a BLURAY player. It's not like you can stick it in a DVD player. So what does it have to be backwards compatible with !?!?! And even still if this whole HD ideal is about "better quality" and you can get about twice the quilty out of a H.264/MPEG-4 AVC. Why would you even consider allowing and inferror codec be part of your "NEW" setup ??

And lastly how about the notion of HD it self and how they are cramming it down are throats like it's something new and white light holly. 1st off it's not new, but it is new consumer  TV resolution seen. Because from a monitors stand point 720 and even 1080 are really low. Hell I've got a old 19" CRT that will do well over 1080, sure it's not widescreen. But it's not like guaranteed your not going to have those damn black bars on a new HD tv ;)

From my own experiences in life I've learn this: Anyone, and do mean anyone who fallows the K.I.S.S method for do anything and everything. Weather your a manufaturer, inventor, programmer, Stay at home mom/dad, wife, husband, kids or what ever. You will always come out a head in the end.

** K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid