Bush Wants YOUR Google Records

[Mark]

What next, Conservatives?

Now your president wants to know what YOU have been Googling on the internet:

Google is resisting a White House subpoena to hand over the records of the searches internet users are asking it to perform, it has emerged.

The request was first made last summer, but when California-based Google refused to comply, the US attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, lodged papers with a federal judge in San Jose to enforce the order.

The White House argues that a list of all requests entered into its search engine over a single week - which could span tens of millions of queries - will help it build up a profile of internet use it needs to defend an online pornography law...

...The papers said Google's search record "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users [and] to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1691273,00.html

My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?

 

[Mephisto]

My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?

Good question, Mark!

I guess it's going to take a few apologists being arrested for kiddie-porn before they get too upset about this. It is, after all, a necessary step toward ensuring the security of the U.S. (as I'm sure many terrorists occasionally Google for info on bomb-recipes, how to fly a jet-liner, etc.).

I suggest that we start a Google-It campaign whereby we gather a great number of friends and acquaintances and ask them to Google IMPREACHMENT PROCESS. That'll get them worried!

 

[Ed]

So what?

 

[aerocontrols]

I guess they would have to be looking for personal information to get me worked up.

That said, I hope they lose the court case - both the effort to subpoena google and the case to defend the latest attempt to legislate internet decency.

 

[Darat]

On what grounds can they demand this information from a private company - surely the data belongs to the company and therefore its shareholders? If the government want it shouldn't they have to at least pay for it?

 

[Manny]

My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?

Well, let's see.

I object to the government's request in this matter and I hope they lose their court case. Happy?

That said, I note that the government is not asking for the requesters of any searches. Which is to say, your title is inaccurate. Bush doesn't want YOUR (or MY) Google records, but rather Google's Google records. YOUR (or MY) Google Images Searches for exhibitionistic thong wearing 17 year old fundamentalist Christian lesbians will remain private to us; the government will just know that someone ran that search. This is objectionable. But why exaggerate it?

 

[Mark]

So what?

Every time the Bush Administration assaults the Bill of Rights, someone asks this question. If you can't see the pattern---and be alarmed by it---nothing I can say will convince you. The individual violations may not be that bad, but taken together they present a pattern that every American who values our liberties should be upset about.

For those who would give up their freedom for the mere illusion of safety, I suppose "So what?" is a valid question.

Mephisto

I suggest that we start a Google-It campaign whereby we gather a great number of friends and acquaintances and ask them to Google IMPREACHMENT PROCESS. That'll get them worried!

I love it! (And I just did it, too.)

 

[aerocontrols]

On what grounds can they demand this information from a private company - surely the data belongs to the company and therefore its shareholders? If the government want it shouldn't they have to at least pay for it?

I imagine they use the same principle that allows them to get fuel efficiency standards so they can examine CAFE compliance and whatnot.

 

[Mephisto]

On what grounds can they demand this information from a private company - surely the data belongs to the company and therefore its shareholders? If the government want it shouldn't they have to at least pay for it?

On the same grounds they use to monitor our telephone messages or our email (and likely the contents of our computers), don't you remember there is a war going on, Darat and President Bush is responsible for the safety of the American people. Please don't forget that, because of 9/11, our government has the right to investigate anyone they consider suspicious.

I'll wager that the NSA spy scandal is the tip of the iceberg and we'll someday find out that the government routinely "looks into" the data of private companies and private citizens.

P.S. They DID pay for it, but now they'll have to pay Jackoff.

 

[headscratcher4]

Have no fear. Given this Administration's record, there is no doubt that they will use whatever information they gather, wisely, judiciously and with respect for individual rights. They took an oath on the consitution to do so. Clearly, they should be given great leeway and be credited with the most noble of intentions. Fortunately, though many in the Administration began their careers as politicians, they have morphed into super patriots who now put the safety and security of our country above politics or other base considerations...and I, for one, have every confidence that they will protect whatever information they gather (whether from warrentless wire-tapping to examining google-searches) only to protect this nation and to promote freedom and democracy around the globe, oh, yes, and to fight terrorism.

I have finally seen the light. God bless George Bush.

 

[Mark]

Well, let's see.

I object to the government's request in this matter and I hope they lose their court case. Happy?

Marginally, except that you sort of took it away with your comment below.

That said, I note that the government is not asking for the requesters of any searches. Which is to say, your title is inaccurate. Bush doesn't want YOUR (or MY) Google records, but rather Google's Google records. YOUR (or MY) Google Images Searches for exhibitionistic thong wearing 17 year old fundamentalist Christian lesbians will remain private to us; the government will just know that someone ran that search. This is objectionable. But why exaggerate it?

Do you think that information is not in the records? Where do you think Spam comes from?

I am not exaggerating. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

 

[Manny]

Do you think that information is not in the records? Where do you think Spam comes from?

Yes. I think that information is not in the records requested by the government (or, sadly, supplied by Yahoo or MSN). I do not think Spam comes from my Google searches. I have complete, 100% confidence that the only email address of mine of which Google is aware ends in "gmail.com."

 

[Mark]

Yes. I think that information is not in the records requested by the government (or, sadly, supplied by Yahoo or MSN). I do not think Spam comes from my Google searches. I have complete, 100% confidence that the only email address of mine of which Google is aware ends in "gmail.com."

Oh, good. That solves everything.

You can go back to sleep now.

Oh, btw:

In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1523418

 

[Freakshow]

I'm with you on this one, Mark. I'm glad to see Google is fighting it.

 

[Mark]

I'm with you on this one, Mark. I'm glad to see Google is fighting it.

Ever since I read your political view list, I realized we agree far more than we disagree. There is no reality.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I am no apologist for the administration, but this particular thing doesn't bother me as much upon relfection as it did when I first heard about it. They aren't asking for information to determine who made what search, just records showing that out of X number of searches ran in a week, there were Y number looking one thing, Z number looking for another and so on, along with a list of web sites that Google is capable of directing a user to. So I have to agree that your thread title is a little misleading.

That being said though, I am no lawyer (and maybe a lawyer could explain this to me if I am wrong) but I don;t see how Google is in any way obligated to help the government prove its case unless Google is somehow party to the suit. It bothers me more from that point of view than from a privacy violation point of view.

 

[Mephisto]

I love it! (And I just did it, too.)

HA! Won't they be pi$$ed if they finally get the "approval" from Google to look through their records only to find a vast number of hits on IMPEACHMENT PROCESS?

I've got a pretty extensive list of friends and family that I'll send the suggestion to - maybe we could start a movement! Too bad we can't have them sing a bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walk out . . .

Just think, if this grew exponentially, we could get as many as 300 or 400 people involved!

 

[Manny]

Oh, good. That solves everything.

In case you care, here is the original subpoena and here is the recently filed motion so you can judge for yourself. I'm sure you agree that original sources are generally preferable to having one's information distilled through the media.

 

[Mark]

In case you care, here is the original subpoena and here is the recently filed motion so you can judge for yourself. I'm sure you agree that original sources are generally preferable to having one's information distilled through the media.

I also know that THERE IS NO WAY YOU READ THROUGH THAT WHOLE THING ALREADY. No way at all.

So, all you have done is prove how desperate you are to excuse this Administration for anything. ABC news has reported that they ARE asking for web addresses. You choose not to believe it based on absolutely nothing, except the assumption (aslo based on nothing) that ABC is lying.

And the media disinformation continues:

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued in 2005, for a wide range of material from its databases, including a request for one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed on Wednesday in a U.S. court in San Jose.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/19/business/techbrief.php

Pf course, the Associated Press are lying about poor Bushie, too, right?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I also know that THERE IS NO WAY YOU READ THROUGH THAT WHOLE THING ALREADY. No way at all.

So, all you have done is prove how desperate you are to excuse this Administration for anything. ABC news has reported that they ARE asking for web addresses. You choose not to believe it based on absolutely nothing, except the assumption (aslo based on nothing) that ABC is lying..

Yes, web addresses of the companies that Google can provide a hit to, not web addresses of the people doing the searches (I am not so sure they could even DO that without the cooperation of lots and lots and lots of ISPs)