google and the government

[imprint]

hi, everybody! i hope you guys dont mind the a new member giving a quick shout. it is really nice to see a forum that hasnt been completely overrun with leftists. even if there are some here, it looks like they at least listen sometimes. (sometimes. you know how it goes!) i really love some of the posts here and i hope everyone continues to exercise their mind in debates about current events in the media!

this evening i would like to discuss google and tell you that it isn't a good idea to be using it. why? have a glance.

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebu...ap2465446.html

google is actually being cheered by many for their refusal! i can't believe it.

"Sure, the more intrusive the government becomes, the more potential crime it can solve,"

daniel solove is absolutely correct despite the true intent of his argument. all the FBI wants to do is stop illegal pornography and stop child rapists on the net. so what do the liberals of our country claim? "invasion of privacy." please, there is no intrusive side to this simple request. no where in the constitution is it ever mentioned that we are entitled to privacy. besides, how many of you care if your internet searches are seen by the federal government? you shouldn't! the old saying still sticks: "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

i ask all of you to please begin using yahoo or msn searches. you'll be helping Attorney General Gonzales in his quest to make our country a safer place.

http://www.yahoo.com/
http://www.msn.com/

[busterb]

And just why should I support the bush !@@#$$ wetback AG? We REALLY need more low cost labor here. In two words fuck you!
Ba humbug. Hey LJ test time.

[Rock Steady]

As a search engineer that has looked at search logs and summaries, I don't think this particular set of information is problematic. Privacy is not an issue here; read your T&C's for the phrase "in aggregate". Since it is date specific, it will reveal how news and events triggered search requests.

This is just Google grandstanding to grab ever more headlines - to keep the egalitarian image while filtering people's messages like Big Brother gone commercial. "Do no evil" looks like Nixon saying "I'm no crook", stamps GUILTY right on the forehead.

This is not a liberal/conservative issue. Perhaps I am an odd one, liberal capitalist pig entreprenuer. More reason to skip the personal labels and get to the issues. Google filters the text people write. They are installing free WiFi in Mountain View and are trying to get into other cities including San Francisco.

Big Brother lurking in WiFi, mobile services

I have built, deployed and sold competing internet-based text-filtering software, and I know exactly what such software is capable of doing. Corporate espionage is a common application.

Originally Posted by imprint

it is really nice to see a forum that hasnt been completely overrun with leftists.

It WAS really nice to have a forum where the collective IQ was more than 2 digits. The bar around here seems to have been lowered lately. Case in point:

Originally Posted by imprint

no where in the constitution is it ever mentioned that we are entitled to privacy. besides, how many of you care if your internet searches are seen by the federal government? you shouldn't! the old saying still sticks: "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about"

Apparently, you are as ignorant of Constitutional Law as you are of global economics. Try reading some besides the label of your can of Coors. The 9th Amendment might prove entertaining for you during one of Rush Limbaugh's commercial breaks.

What IS it about you types who squeal about "big government" while happily allowing Big Brother to legislate morality and peer over your shoulder into all aspects of your private life and everyone else's? If I have done nothing wrong, I still have plenty to worry about from those who are seeking to find a way to wrong me.

[Happy Monkey]

Thumbs up for Google. Privacy issues aside, there's nothing good the government can do with that information.

[WabUfvot5]

Originally Posted by imprint

no where in the constitution is it ever mentioned that we are entitled to privacy.

Sweet!
*goes back to watching you undress with hidden camera*

[fargon]

I am about as far to the right as one can get, and I do not want the *&%$#$% gubbamant poking around in my mail or phone calls.

[Kitsune]

Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is counted wise.

Ah, many would appear wiser were they to follow the bible.

Anyways, it should be noted Google didn't turn over their data because they can't, not because they intend to stand against the order. They can't get their stuff straight in the given time, so they told the DoJ to find someone else to bother.

Even in the initial request there was no requirement to know what user/IP/ISP the search came from, nor what website was linked to by the search, nor what URL resulted from the search. They simply want 1 million random user entered search terms from one week and one million random URLs from one week. What any of this does in the "war to save the children" is beyond me.

Oh, does anyone remember when Google used to have a page that would show you what was being searched for at the time you hit the page until it became to difficult to manage? It was kind of cool.

This is not a big deal, but this still scares me. A lot. I just can't pinpoint why.

[BigV]

Use Yahoo because it helps AG Gonsalez make our country a safer place? You're cracked.

I don't use Yahoo because Google is superior in every way for my purposes. I **DON'T** want my search history available to the government on demand, in aggregate form or not.

I cheer Google for their refusal.

I cheer them for the same reason that when the police come knocking on my front door, I go outside to continue the conversation. No warrant, no invitation.

The prospect of preventing crimes is very attractive, but we've reached the threshold where the diminishing returns on "preventing crime" are far outweighed by the cost of the "prevention". In fact, as it stands now, the illegal and unfruitful searchs for evidence of a future crimes IS ITSELF A CRIME; witness the growing scandal this administration has caused itself by spying on Americans without following our laws. "We're just looking to prevent crimes." Pah!

Hey, how would you respond if the AG sent you a letter and said, "Hey, imprint, I'd like to have all your bank records, a detailed log of all the conversations you've had, including a time/date/location record of all your movements over a given thirty day period. I'll pick the month, you just be ready to deliver. What? No, you're not suspected of any crime, we just want to observe the effects of some law on your behavior and actions. You're no perv, of course. But somebody you talked to or walked with or shopped in the same store as or asked directions of or attended the same church as or drive the same color car as, etc etc etc. is just the kind of **potential** threat to America we're looking for. And if you resist us, you're obviously a collaborator. You're one of them or at least a sympathizer and that's just an ace away from being one of them. Now just shut up and hand it over." Or words to that effect.

Feeling, um, cooperative? I didn't think so.

[wolf]

I think the 4th and 5th amendments are more specific as to privacy, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

Imprint, do you use EZPass?

[xoxoxoBruce]

The administration is pushing back hard, defending its surveillance as helping to protect the nation from terrorism and, to a lesser extent, shield minors from pornography.

When they know their on thin ice they always fall back on "It's for the children, think of the children".

"We are trying to gather up information in order to help the enforcement of a federal law to ensure the protection, quite frankly, of our nation's children against pornography," Gonzales said in Washington on Friday.

Again.

"The American people want us to do everything in our power to prevent attacks," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday.

Which American people? 50%? 75%? 99.999999%? It doesn't fucking matter. We are a country of laws.... laws that everybody is supposed to follow, public and private, or suffer the consequences. If "The American People" want this, then change the law. No ignoring, no circumventing, change the damn law. If it doesn't pass constitutional muster, forget it, or change the Constitution. Good luck with that.

[Tonchi]

OK, you know right from Hello. Anybody who begins their first post with "I'd like to give a shout out to...." ain't gonna like it here. We do not have an MTV bleachers section, sorry.

[Undertoad]

I deleted this person's first post. It was identical to this one. Identical. Consider what that indicates: they have the text ready, composed off-line and cut and pasted. (Including the bit about what the forum is like.)

I did it because the registration process specifically says you aren't supposed to post a link on your first post. 99.999% of the time such a post will be spam, or someone trying to propagandize.

The registration process specifically says single-issue whores are going to be treated poorly here and possibly banned because they are not community-oriented. Despite all that, this person posted away and did not take the hint about the first deletion.

You have to wonder, you REALLY have to wonder about someone who is law -n- order oriented, but fails to comprehend or follow the simplest of instructions.

[Elspode]

Next, we're going to need to rummage through your closets to make sure you don't have any kiddie porn or WMDs. This is just to keep you safe, nothing to worry about. No freedoms infringed here...nothing to see...move along like good little drones...good, good...2+2 is 5. Wrong is Right.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

We do not have an MTV bleachers section, sorry.

Iwas thinking Howdy Doody's Peanut Gallery.