I apologize for not taking a good look at the document, but not for your ignorance of the text select tool. You will need it someday.
You're welcome.
Bush Wants YOUR Google Records
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
I apologize for not taking a good look at the document, but not for your ignorance of the text select tool. You will need it someday.
You're welcome.
Just so you know, you're staring to resemble CFLarsen in a most unflattering way with your refusal to clarify.
Just saying.
Ohmer
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 674
Because the Feds are going to use this information to find the best girl on girl web sites and shut them down. Such sites are wrong. Do you want that Ed?
Seriously, what bothers me about this is the government is asking to google to hand over data that it collected for a court case that has nothing to do with google.
Feds seek Google data
If the feds need this information to make their case, they should either collect it themselves or pay for it. They are tying to get a expert witness for free.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
My last few Google searches:
"Hitler" AND "hat size"
"lyrics" AND "Billy Ocean" and "Caribbean Queen"
"Zoo Tycoon" AND "cheats"
"monkey" AND "skull" AND "for sale"
"non stick frying pan"
And I'll state, unafraid of the controversy, that Billy Ocean was really pretty damn good.
"Hitler" AND "hat size"
"lyrics" AND "Billy Ocean" and "Caribbean Queen"
"Zoo Tycoon" AND "cheats"
"monkey" AND "skull" AND "for sale"
"non stick frying pan"
And I'll state, unafraid of the controversy, that Billy Ocean was really pretty damn good.
Apology and rebuke accepted.
In all seriousness, it bothers me that Manny could argue with what's in the document without reading it, and no one questions it. I agree with something in it and I have to take my time to manually type out what's in it. Or re-read the whole thing---well, at least half; I think that's where the paragraph was---which I do not have time for right now.
Do you see the double standard?
Do you also see how silly it is when the news outlets reporting it agree with me?
In any case, I'll read it again when I can spare 15 minutes to do so (I admit I did not write down the paragraph number). But the blatant double standard is still very, very annoying. It shows me that certain people are not interested in accuracy; they are interested in supporting Bush. If it were otherwise, they would read it themselves.
Not interested in facts, only supporting Bush, eh?
roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
Well, the front page of today's Washington Post explicitly states:
Admittedly this is a secondary source, but unless they publish a retraction in a day or so I think we can take it as accurate.
The tracking information is in the data unless it is somehow deleted (a possibility). Remember, the government is demanding the data be delivered electronically, not by hard copy.
If it is deleted (and Google agrees that it has) I will withdraw my objection.
If I was google and was forced to do this I would be so tempted to deliver it as hard copy!
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
I'm not supporting Bush in this instance. Pretty obvious from my initial post. Whether I'm interested in the facts or not should be rather obvious from my defense of you Re: jocko's assertion that you could copy/paste from those .pdfs. "People like
" who care about the facts point out things like that, even to benefit people like you who refuse to be civil to "people like
".
I don't have time to read 45 pages of .pdf looking for something you claim is in there, somewhere. (something I'm sure you can understand, since you don't have time to type out 3-4 sentences from one of them)
Since you claim that the document says something, it should take almost no effort at all to prove it to everyone. The fact that you're so unwilling sets off my BS detectors.
I don't have time to read 45 pages of .pdf looking for something you claim is in there, somewhere. (something I'm sure you can understand, since you don't have time to type out 3-4 sentences from one of them)
Since you claim that the document says something, it should take almost no effort at all to prove it to everyone. The fact that you're so unwilling sets off my BS detectors.
Please state the facts of this thread that show where I am wrong.
Oh, wait, if you could you already would have.
Are you illiterate? READ IT YOURSELF!
You don't have time? Neither do I to do it twice. Oh, there's that wonderful conservative double standard again.
So let me understand this. It would seem to me that the people who don't think this is a big deal are pretty much saying the government should be able to demand information for any company even when that company is not involved directly in an action? Or that the government acting as if it can demand such information is no big deal?
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Nyarlathotep
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2003
- Messages
- 7,503
Not so. From my reading of this thread, even the people who don't see it as a big deal from a personal privacy standpoint, still agree that the government ahs no right to demand those records.
The two really are seperate issues and it is possible to not care about one and be deeply concerned about the other, or vice versa.
As regards the URLs, the tracking information is not in the data -- the government wants just the actual urls. i.e., amazon.com, forms.randi.org, exhibitionisticthongwearing17yearoldfundamentalistchristianlesbians.com, etc.
As regards the search strings, from the motion to compel (page 6, starting at line 8), "the subpoena specifically directs Google to produce only the text of the random sample of search strings, without any additional personal identifying information."
Now that said, I do not withdraw my objection to the subpoena of the search strings. It is possible, indeed probable, that at least some of the search strings themselves contain personally identifying information. Say my IRL name is John Smith. But I have a secret live as pornstar Lance Package. If I'm concerned that my secret identity is out there on the net I might run a search for "John Smith" "Lance Package." So Google's concern in this instance is not without merit.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Simply shout "War on terror! 9/11! War on terror!" enough times, and anything is justified. Right to a fair and speedy trial, the Geneva Convention, rules of evidence, warrants, right to representation, rights against unfair search and seizure...if those can be superceded, what cannot? The government has whatever powers it decides it wants.
aerocontrols
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2001
- Messages
- 3,444
In fairness, I said that I have "no objection" to the request for random URLs. Let me amend that statement. I have no privacy-related objection to the government's request for that information. As regards the government's "right" to obtain the information by subpoena I can see some arguments on both sides and I'm content to let the big boys at the Justice Department and Google's legal department slug it out, but I'm secretly rooting for Google to win.