I previously reported on how Microsoft got angry with Google over the creation of the Google Chrome Frame plug-in, which it accused of being a security risk.

At the time Microsoft called the plug-in a ‘a risk that it would not recommend our friends and families take’, while Google hit back saying it was a way to bring Google Chrome’s security features into the Internet Explorer browser.

Now Mozilla vice president Mike Shaver has put his two cents in, by claiming the plug in doesn’t really help in the aim of Internet Explorer developers having the capabilities that they have in the other browsers.

He said: “Running Chrome Frame within IE makes many of the browser application’s features non-functional, or less effective. These include private browsing mode or their other security controls, features like accelerators or add-ons that operate on the content area, or even accessibility support.”

Shaver said that the user’s understanding of the web security model and their browser behaviour is seriously hindered by “delegating the choice of software to the developers of individual sites they visit.”

He’s seen the problem with plug-ins like Flash, Silverlight and Java and did not want it to be repeated under the “HTML 5 banner”.

He says: “It would be better for the web developers who want to use the Chrome Frame snippet simply told users that their site worked better in Chrome, and instructed them on how to install it.”

“The user would be educated about the benefits of an alternate browser, would understand better the choice they were making, and the kudos for Chrome’s performance would accrue to Google rather than Microsoft,” he added.

It wasn’t really that important enough for a news story we believe (even though the Telegraph and the Washington Post covered it) - but Google headquarters in Victoria burned! - well for about an hour.

Just rang the Google press office where the lady told me that there was an incident on the roof terrace where a fire started, it was connected to a barbecue, and the Fire Brigade were called in. Staff were evacuated, and it was all sorted out in an hour.

Like usual nowadays Twitter was the first to report it. First I heard of it was in the process of researching a security story about Twitter funnily enough - from this blog post.

That’s it really. I do have a number of questions though. Having a barbecue in the middle of the day? - lucky for some. I thought Google had things to do, like you know, work. (Although I do understand its work/ play ethos).

And, well… I thought Google had some of the brightest minds in the world. They hire the best and brightest, but yet, they couldn’t handle a barbecue? Or at least do one without burning a building.

They should have got my dad. Or any dad for that matter, they are all pretty good at making a few burgers and sausages. Nothing like a good charred piece of meat.

I was reading a blog post from our very own security expert Davey Winder about the recent incident where Twitter documents got published by the US website TechCrunch.

He made the very valid point that this wasn’t actually Twitter which got hacked this time - it was an employee’s Google Docs account!

However, like Davey says PRs and the press seems to got into a tizzy about Twitter security when in fact this time it had nothing to do with it!

It was the security of Google Apps that this time is in question. But then is it really?

It looks like the problem was actually a password. An employee was silly enough to use one which was guessable  - one non-unique password on multiple services.

That’s a web wise problem - not necessarily the fault of the companies.

Depending on your point of view, you’re going to find this either morally reprehensible, or absolutely hilarious.

As part of ‘Porn Day’, members of the 4Chan message board have claimed responsibility for uploading thousands of sexually explicit videos onto YouTube.

They managed to do this by hiding the porn with child-friendly and innocent footage of celebrities like squeaky-clean Hannah Montana, and famous virgins the Jonas brothers.

According to the BBC,  many people (most likely sweet and innocent kids), started with footage of children’s videos and then started seeing adults performing hardcore sex acts.

Probably understandably, many viewers added these movies to their favourites and rated them highly.

OK - first time I read this story I couldn’t help smiling. I’m a libertarian at heart and I like a joke (especially on big corporate monoliths like Google and YouTube) and thought it was one of these rickrolling type pranks.

But then the mature old man in me kicked in and I thought maybe it wasn’t the best thing in the world for kids to flick on a Hannah Montana video and suddenly see people doing things illegal in some US states and world countries.

(Although the kid in me thought that if a tween was watching Hannah Montana or the Jonas brothers - they deserved everything they got).

Like a Warner Brothers cartoon I have an angel on my left side shaking his head and a devil on my right side going “hehehe”.

To be honest kids know about sex and need to learn about at some time - perhaps not in the way that these videos are showing - but hopefully a talk with the parents can sort out any strange thoughts they are having in their minds.

And the internet is like this - it’s wild, untamed and full of people wanting to be naughty - but kids educated and well versed in the ways of the world can hopefully navigate some of the difficulties.

I wouldn’t imagine any kids would be too corrupted by this.

Before Google came and dominated search, I remember using Jeeves. Back in the days when I used search engines like Alta Vista and Yahoo (Showing my age there).

So why have Ask.com brought the quintessential English butler back? Is it a sign of desperation? Google are now so far ahead of the pack its untrue, so I guess its fair that Ask had to do something about it.

He’s filled out since I last saw him. He’s gone all three dimensional for one thing, kind of like a Sim.

Jeeves says that he popped out three years ago in a search for knowledge and returned to good old Blighty armed with answers. Cos he’s like, a real person. He’s also got all social networked on on Twitter and Facebook.

Three years is a very long time in IT, and although they may pick up traffic based on the whole retro ‘I remember him’ aspect, the fact is that its just a computer program made out to be a personality. It’s not going to touch Google - nothing like that will. There’s nothing new.

What they should have done is create a virtual Stephen Fry, who played Jeeves in the series Jeeves and Wooster. I for one would love to ask him questions and see him pottering around on my desktop doing Stephen Fry things.

But then again what would be the point? We have the new hot thing Twitter - I can see Mr Fry day to day, minute  to minute.

And that’s the problem with bringing Jeeves back. There’s no change, there’s no new technology, he’s just doing the same thing he always did - answer search queries in an inferior way to Google.

Google Street View has come to the UK, and the IT PRO team has already been playing around with it.

First up I did what everybody does - look up our houses and places of work. Then I tried to see if the cars whizzing around London with Google cameras managed to pick up interesting stuff. Our ex-editor Chris Green was doing the same thing -  he managed to find himself on Google Street View!

I decided to have a look around the web and see if there was anything else interesting that Google Street View may have caught.

 1 Woman decides to flash the Google camera car in Chicago

It’s pretty self-explanatory. Hopefully it will a van will never catch me when I’m in weekend drunk mode…

2 A sign that makes no sense in Washington

I guess the only reason why this sign would be up was due to there being a school for deaf children or something.

3 Plastering a car with post-it notes in Florida.

Admit it. This is cool. If I had that many post-it notes I would be all up for doing this.

4 Someone peeing into bushes in Paris.

You would have to zoom in to see this properly. I guess at least he wasn’ t doing a number two. These sightings are probably more common than you might think.

5 Somebody giving the Google Street View car a taste of its own medicine

Say cheese!

6 Another French man peeing in Lille.

Told you. Wonder if French men like being caught peeing by speeding cars with big cameras on its roof.

7 A dead cat

For those Google Street View surfers of a more morbid nature.

 8 A house flipped upside down

My brain is melting…

9 An incredibly skinny Spanish guy

I’m sure this is simply a trick of the camera. Got a frame like one of those Indie dudes I see in Shoreditch with the stupid hats.

10 A French prostitute in Paris

Well I think she’s (or he?) is a hooker with those clothes and the gold boots.

Was also kinda glad that she wasn’t having a pee.

We’ve been looking at the UK crime map -

I was sent a great link to a great column by Charlie Brooker yesterday.

And sadly - I felt myself nodding in agreement to much that he wrote.

As a two year old website, we are very reliant on Google News as we know it is a launching pad for stories to get hits and find readers who wouldn’t normally come to our site by themselves.

Today’s an example - I wrote a follow up story to the Dutch Oyster Hack, with news that it was going to be revealed to the public.

Now the thing about online journalism is that it doesn’t pay to be the first to have it. It’s a complete opposite to newspaper journalism where the first to have the story out wins.

No, now you have to get it Googled and be picked up on Google News. If you notice my story and the first paragraph, I have links to all the main websites (London underground, Oyster etc) - I’ve written it short and concise and also dotted around some words which I know the bots would pick up.

I also put ‘free travel’ in the headline because its the sort of thing Google picks up.

Yes its very cynical.

But that’s online journalism. Or journalism in itself. Its not necessarily what you have in there, but sometimes just the way you present it. (Although I put some good stuff in there, as well as a statement from NXP which many of the sites didn’t get hold of - I’m hoping the Google bots take that into account.)

The thing is - it worked, and is one of the most popular stories today.

However unlike Charlie, I understand it perfectly because this is the way I was trained… Rather than having to change my way of thinking I’ve been brought up with doing things this way.

But that’s Google. Its dominance means there’s not much point fighting against it. And its no great secret anything I’ve said.

But how come I feel a bit dirty for attracting the Google love?