Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Google.......not gonna do it

by JP Bill / January 19, 2006 12:33 PM PST
Google Rebuffs Feds on Search Requests

SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine ? a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance

Why don't they just "google it"?
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Google.......not gonna do it
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Google.......not gonna do it
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
There's the Bush Administration in action again
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / January 19, 2006 12:39 PM PST

-- they never met a privacy claim they weren't willing to subvert in the name of "national security," or in this case "law enforcement." When I heard this tonight, I was literally screaming at the television -- they want to bring the police state NOW, never mind the "slippery slope!"

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
yup never know
by Mark5019 / January 19, 2006 12:51 PM PST

what collage proffesors hide:)

Collapse -
Sure you were concerned
by duckman / January 19, 2006 7:56 PM PST

when 700 FBI files "accidentally" were placed in the White House

Collapse -
First, that WAS an accident -- NO evidence to the contrary
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / January 19, 2006 9:20 PM PST

has ever been produced, DM. Second, if you really can't see the difference between demanding personal and private information on the web-surfing (or library reading) habits of a million random Americans vs. 700 former government officials (presumably already security-cleared) whose names were left over on a list from the previous Administration, then you really aren't nearly as smart as I've always thought you are.

This is the same issue as with those kids strip-searched in a Florida school last week when a teacher's I-pod went missing: the Fourth Amendment bans random searches without probable cause to believe that an INDIVIDUAL PERSON has been acting illegally. Those who believe in a police state think that anyone who COULD have committed a crime should be treated like a criminal -- and that's the general attitude of the Bush Administration, and the Nixon Administration before it. This view is completely and totally contrary to both personal liberty and the US Constitution -- but the Bush Adminsitration doesn't appear to have much respect for either, oaths and rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) BULL FLOP
by duckman / January 19, 2006 10:26 PM PST
Collapse -
Considering the level of certainty ...
by Evie / January 19, 2006 10:30 PM PST

... with which you make your assertions, perhaps you can tell us who hired Craig Livingstone.

Collapse -
After he tells you that,
by duckman / January 19, 2006 10:49 PM PST

perhaps he can tell us how the Rose Law Firm documents were found in the Whitehouse living quarters.

Collapse -
Or why she should have them in the first place ...
by Evie / January 19, 2006 10:50 PM PST

... it is HIGHLY unusual for anyone to have the billing records for any firm/company in their personal possession!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Surely you understand that
by duckman / January 19, 2006 10:47 PM PST

The Constitution protects citizens from the Government, not private citizens or other private entities. And even if you do the consider the public (or private) school system as a de facto branch of the government, minor children don?t have all of the rights as adults, if the school system does a strip search that?s not illegal, if the cops do it, it might be illegal. I am unaware of the strip search case you mention, but it has nothing to do with the Feds wanting JUST statistical information from Google. As far as the 700 files, if that?s the fairy tale you want to believe, enjoy.

Collapse -
Sorry Duckman, but I strongly disagree, and so do the courts
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / January 21, 2006 7:38 AM PST

While children may not have the same First-Amendment rights as adults, and locker searches don't require a warrant, a child's person is just as sancrosanct as an adult, and the "guilty until proven innocent" policy doesn't apply to children any more than it does to adults. And personally, I think that many of the decsions constraining older students' rights more than adults are wrong-headed, because they simply teach children about the possible abuse of authority. Of course, with the current bunch now in ower, that actually may be an important lesson for the to learn!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
Remember Billy Dale?
by duckman / January 19, 2006 11:07 PM PST

Are/were you screaming at the televison when you heard about that?

Collapse -
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....STOP IT! You're killing me
by Kiddpeat / January 21, 2006 1:21 AM PST

An ACCIDENT! Riiggghhhhttttt! Monaca was also an accident, Riiggghhhhttttt? At least the stained dress part.

Hmmmmm, I see a LOT of difference between anonymous search records, and 700 FBI files on political enemies. The fact that you think the former reflects a POLICE STATE, and the latter an administrative oversight shows just how jaundiced your vision is. My guess is that you wouldn't be able to accurately describe reality if it jumped up and bit you in the butt. You'ld blame either George Bush or the Republican Party in that order.

Collapse -
Sure you were also concerned
by duckman / January 19, 2006 7:59 PM PST

when authorities went on a "fishing trip" on Rush's medical records

Collapse -
Wasn't it YOU ...
by Evie / January 19, 2006 10:12 PM PST

... that called for violating the law on FBI background searches for gun sales post 9-11?

If you were literally screaming at the TV over this Dave, you should consider therapy for your BDS.

Collapse -
Given their purpose, Evie,
by Dave Konkel [Moderator] / January 19, 2006 10:35 PM PST
In reply to: Wasn't it YOU ...

buying a gun (particularly in an urban area) is a lot more suspicious behavior than reading a book or surfing the web. And I'll bet a MUCH higher percentage of guns than library books end up hurting or killing someone!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
i wonder how many died because of
by Mark5019 / January 19, 2006 10:42 PM PST

the muslum bible?
or the christian bible?

Collapse -
The point is ...
by Evie / January 19, 2006 10:45 PM PST

... that you favor a police state when it suits your bias. People who submit to the background checks to obtain firearms legally are probably less likely to do harm than the average library-using public. Think about it.

Collapse -
Not so sure...
by EdH / January 19, 2006 11:26 PM PST

Why did Yahoo and MSN not have a problem with it?

Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren't identified.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."


I'd like to hear the other side. I am kind of suspicious of points of view and kneejerk reactions from certain sources.

Why doesn't the IRS outrage you? Single worst violator of our rights by far.

BTW I yell at the TV too-- when liberals come on.

Collapse -
Something comes to mind, Dave...
by J. Vega / January 20, 2006 12:48 AM PST

Dave, this brings something to mind. First I thought of the government's trying to get a handle on how much betting may be going on on the internet, but then a better subject came to mind - online sales of cigarettes by companies located on Indian reservations.
Allow me to explain why. Sales by reservation companies ''beat'' state and/or Federal taxes. I have seen numerous stories about this on the news media and a number of them mentioned online sales. The question of how much of this goes on arises. A study of a random week's searches for the number of searches for things like ''Indian reservation cigarette sales'' might give an idea whether or not there may me a lot of such online cigatette sales. Such an inquiry wouldn't mean ''police state'' in my opinion, but an attempt to estimate if something might or might not be something that is common enough to warrant further investigation.
Remember way back before the ''internet days'' and the point shaving scandal in college basketball? Was the government looking into betting trends at Nevada casinos just before certain games acting as a police state or just seeng if unusual patterns stood out?

Collapse -
That wasn't difficult
by Diana Forum moderator / January 19, 2006 1:43 PM PST
Collapse -
for people with "nothing to hide"
by JP Bill / January 19, 2006 8:58 PM PST

go visit some websites that are on a "hitlist" and see if you attract anyones attention.

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) aluminum stocks are up jp
by Mark5019 / January 19, 2006 10:09 PM PST
Collapse -
I have
by JP Bill / January 19, 2006 10:20 PM PST

more money in oil, and I'm hoping for a cold winter.

But, I do have some ALCOA

Thanks for the tip though, you're not an inside trader, are you?

Collapse -
Interesting use of technology
by Steven Haninger / January 19, 2006 10:37 PM PST

and the article suggests Yahoo did cooperate.
Now, let's say the government wanted to find a way to look for unusual patterns of shipments/deliveries of ammonium nitrate. How would they do this? I'd think they would first need to establish what normal patterns look like.. and so would need data. They would then need to monitor for changes and evaluate possible causes...so more data would be needed. Where would they get the data?. I wonder what the rules would be in this game....and if the rules would change if another federal building went down while hands were tied.

Collapse -
You make a great case for
by Dan McC / January 19, 2006 10:55 PM PST

taggants.

Dan

Collapse -
I didn't know a case needed to be made for those.
by Kiddpeat / January 21, 2006 1:27 AM PST

News flash: They're already in explosives, gunpowder, and other such substances. No 'case' is needed.

Collapse -
And....now wait a minute....does this mean that Google
by Steven Haninger / January 19, 2006 10:57 PM PST
Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote.

might be harvesting user information without a user's knowledge? Perhaps this is their bigger problem.
Collapse -
We Shouldn't Be Surprised By This...........
by Sasha Tee / January 20, 2006 6:56 AM PST

latest invasion of privacy... Nothing is sacred, private or secure on the net. Our only decision is whether we continue to use our computers for business, entertainment and pleasure or return to snail mail and the phone........ooops how secure are they????? We receive our neighbors' mail by mistake and our mail often ends up in their mailboxes. Our phones can be tapped and if we walk down certain streets we're videotaped. Nothing is safe from scrutiny - not even our trash.

Collapse -
You're right and.....
by lylesg / January 21, 2006 12:16 AM PST

we allow the invasions to continue, but maybe there's not much to be done about that at this point. Stand strong, google!

Collapse -
Whose privacy is being invaded?
by EdH / January 21, 2006 12:36 AM PST

I think if you really look into this story you'll realize that no one's privacy is being invaded at all. Even Google admits that the government is NOT asking for names or anything like that; only trying to determine the patterns of searching.

Maybe not very smart or effective, but the kneejerk reactions are silly to say the least.

No big deal. Google is NOT a big hero.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?