I read 'em yesterday, when the story broke. And yes, they're asking for web addresses. Random web addresses. As in, 'we originally wanted all valid web addresses, but we can't count to a trillion so we'll just take a million and use that as a sample.' Actually, I don't object to the government's request for that information at all.
Bush Wants YOUR Google Records
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
I am similarly underwhelmed... Mark is doing his usual Daffy-Duck as chicken-little routine...but it's cute...keep it up man!
-z
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
They are asking for web addresses (URLs) that are searchable by google.
They are not asking for e-mail addresses.
I think manny is arguing more that you don't know what you're talking about, rather than that ABC is lying.
Google says that information would be in the data; read the subpoena. The Government disagrees. Guess who I find more credible? The people who actually have the data.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
They subpoenaed the search data for the dates June 1, 2005 till July 31, 2005.
Still, have fun.
Google's web log -- or any web log for that matter -- contains IP addresses which can identify users in some instances.
I am similarly underwhelmed... Mark is doing his usual Daffy-Duck as chicken-little routine...but it's cute...keep it up man!
-z
No problem. Some of us have to be concerned about our liberties, no matter which party is in the White House.
And I am hardly alone on this one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1691273,00.html
Btw, making an argument against my position---based on my avatar!---is pretty lame. Is that really the best you can do?
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
1) Google's case isn't in the subpoena. Why would I find google's argument there?
2) So you agree that manny wasn't accusing ABC of lying, then?
Which is what I tried to point out earlier...but some just don't want to hear that.
You didn't read the entire document. Big surprise.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Too bad that the IP addresses are superglued in there. I guess there's nothing to be done.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Don't be surprised. As you said, there are quite a few pages. If you care to prove your point, just quote the relevant material.
Also, please answer my question.
Thanks
Correct. However, the government is not requesting that information. Nor is it requesting what websites were returned as a result of a search string, which data Google has, nor the number of hits, which Google also has. They're just asking for the search terms and the random list of URLs.
I've read it. Google says no such thing. Indeed, Google says the information the government seeks from the random list is available from archive.org. Google does say that some identifiable information might be in the other part of the subpoenaed information -- the queries. And that's true, to some extent. People who search on their own names, for example. But that's the part of the subpoena to which I object.Mark said:
Don't comment on what you have not read. I can't copy and paste it because it is a pdf document...you'll have to actually make the effort to read it yourself. Which you won't...not that that will stop you from commenting on it.
Manny either accused ABC of lying or being incompetent. Never mind the fact that many news organizations have commented on it. Probably all part of the liberal media conspiracy.
I think Google, AOL etc should hand over the lot.
Everything.
Every email address, dirty picture download, text message, forum post, advert tittle and spam.
Twice a day.
By direct electronic transfer.
Everyone should keep backups. Let the government do it.
At least you'll know your tax dollars are doing something useful.
And I bet I know who cries "uncle" first.
Everything.
Every email address, dirty picture download, text message, forum post, advert tittle and spam.
Twice a day.
By direct electronic transfer.
Everyone should keep backups. Let the government do it.
At least you'll know your tax dollars are doing something useful.
And I bet I know who cries "uncle" first.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
Thanks for the advice.
You and manny are directly disagreeing about Google's claim, and you've both read the document. Since manny's says that google doesn't say what you claim anywhere in the document, it seems your next step is to show that they do. If you can't be bothered to type the section out, perhaps you can tell us the paragraph and page number.
Golly. Someone who doesn't know how to c & p from a PDF is gonna lecture me on the subtle and sublime capacities of the internet. There's something I never would have expected.
Mark, you can pull copy from a PDF. Open Acrobat and look in the upper left of the menu bar for a type cursor. That's the "select text" function. Once it's active, you can copy to your heart's content.
If it helps any, I salute Google on pure principle. The less the government knows about people the better. However, that doesn't change the fact that as far as privacy issues go, this is a non-starter for a whole host of reasons already given.
On principle, the feds should get stuffed. As a practical matter, it doesn't amount to jack squat, though. Sorry.
I don't know about direct electronic transfer of such a large amount of information. It's inviting large scale data corruption. Better make it paper hard copy just to be on the safe side.
