Bush Wants YOUR Google Records

aerocontrols said:
They subpoenaed the search data for the dates June 1, 2005 till July 31, 2005.

Still, have fun.
Click to expand...

Oops! Have any idea why they want anything between those dates?

Since the impeachment process search won't catch their eye, maybe we could run a Bush + Criminal + Cocaine Google bomb? That would probably be more fun anyway . . .
 
Jocko:

This .pdf is, as many tend to be, a .pdf of a photocopy. You need an ocr program to pull text out of it.
 
Mark said:
Manny either accused ABC of lying or being incompetent.
Click to expand...
No I didn't. ABC (actually, it was an AP story running on ABC's website) accurately reported that the government was seeking 1 million random websites.
 
Mephisto said:
Oops! Have any idea why they want anything between those dates?
Click to expand...

There's nothing special at all about those dates. They're looking for aggregate data to demonstrate a point that the Supreme Court said they hadn't proved in the prior case, instead of looking for personal data so they can throw Mark in jail for mopery with intent to creep.
 
Mark said:
Ever since I read your political view list, I realized we agree far more than we disagree. There is no reality. ;)
Click to expand...
Well, there is reality right now, because I have to get some work done. But you're welcome to come hang out this weekend. You're in a band, right? You should fit right in. :D
 
Mark said:
My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?
Click to expand...
:D I'm sorry Mark. It is a serious matter and I don't mean to bellitle it. You're just funny sometimes.

legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin suspects that the Bush Administration considers the Google search records too important to be left to the decision of a court. He concludes that Google and the government will reach an agreement for sharing Google's records before the court is allowed to create a precedent on the conflict.
Click to expand...
I object Mr. Bush. What you are doing is wrong.

Are you happy now?

Google to Bush: Go pound sand.
 
Jocko said:
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.
Click to expand...


You got me there...I didn't know you could do that with a pdf document. However, since Manny linked to the document, and I had to read the entire thing to find the pertinent paragraph, I suggest you bust his chops. Or read it yourself as I did. If that sounds petulant, it is; I get tired sometimes of being held to a different standard from conservatives.

So read it or shut up about it. That's what I had to do.
 
Freakshow said:
Well, there is reality right now, because I have to get some work done. But you're welcome to come hang out this weekend. You're in a band, right? You should fit right in. :D
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd love to. You won't be at the NAMM show this weekend, will you?
 
aerocontrols said:
There's nothing special at all about those dates. They're looking for aggregate data to demonstrate a point that the Supreme Court said they hadn't proved in the prior case, instead of looking for personal data so they can throw Mark in jail for mopery with intent to creep.
Click to expand...

The scary thing is, if they did do that, people like you would think it was perfectly OK.
 
Mark said:
You got me there...I didn't know you could do that with a pdf document. However, since Manny linked to the document, and I had to read the entire thing to find the pertinent paragraph, I suggest you bust his chops. Or read it yourself as I did. If that sounds petulant, it is; I get tired sometimes of being held to a different standard from conservatives.
Click to expand...
Heh. As Aero pointed out and Jocko has agreed, Jocko's request was in error. Neither of us can easily cut and paste the text from the relevant links.

We could each type out the relevant parts of course, except that I'm alleging that the part is not there, so what would I type? I guess I could type "And one could envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome Google cannot accept." But that was in the objection to the disclosure of the search terms, not the random URLs.
 
manny said:
Heh. As Aero pointed out and Jocko has agreed, Jocko's request was in error. Neither of us can easily cut and paste the text from the relevant links.

We could each type out the relevant parts of course, except that I'm alleging that the part is not there, so what would I type? I guess I could type "And one could envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome Google cannot accept." But that was in the objection to the disclosure of the search terms, not the random URLs.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I really am working under a deadline...and doing this debating in between. I really don't have time to manually type out the paragraphs. People on your side of the aisle will say it is because they are not there. There is nothing I can do about that right now. Maybe later today.

Although I remind you all that several independent news orgainizations read it the same way I did. How can people who have not read the document dispute the media take on it?
 
Mark said:
Believe it or not, I really am working under a deadline...and doing this debating in between. I really don't have time to manually type out the paragraphs. People on your side of the aisle will say it is because they are not there. There is nothing I can do about that tight now. Maybe later today.
Click to expand...
Hey, we all got a gig. I for one will never accuse someone of ducking anything simply because they don't do it in some short time span.

Although I remind you all that several independent news orgainizations read it the same way I did. How can people who have not read the document dispute the media take on it?
Click to expand...
I think you're misreading the articles. All the articles say that the url portion of the subpoena is for random urls and none say that there would be identifying information of google users attached to that information.
 
manny said:
Hey, we all got a gig. I for one will never accuse someone of ducking anything simply because they don't do it in some short time span.

I think you're misreading the articles. All the articles say that the url portion of the subpoena is for random urls and none say that there would be identifying information of google users attached to that information.
Click to expand...

Maybe. If I have time this afternnon, I will indeed copy the paragraphs in question and we can debate them.

Although, given that the personal data are almost cetainly in the records anyway, it is sort of a moot point. The government can track our use of search engines without your consent and without probable cause. You don't find that alarming. I do. Very. What else is there to debate?

For all of you who have no objection to this, I have to wonder: what won't you let this administration do? They can examine your records without a warrant or probable cause. They can imprison you indefinitely without charge or trial. What won't you let them do?
 
Mark said:
Maybe. If I have time this afternnon, I will indeed copy the paragraphs in question and we can debate them.
Click to expand...

I reiterate:

If you can't be bothered to type the section out, perhaps you can tell us the paragraph and page number.

It doesn't seem that hard...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom