Bush Wants YOUR Google Records

edited because Mark did post the page number of what he was talking about. Thanks Mark.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
:D I'm sorry Mark. It is a serious matter and I don't mean to bellitle it. You're just funny sometimes.

I object Mr. Bush. What you are doing is wrong.

Are you happy now?
Click to expand...
Mark to Alan: {sounds of crickets}
 
LeFevre said:
edited because Mark did post the page number of what he was talking about. Thanks Mark.
Click to expand...

No worries.

I would, however, like to point out that after Jocko and Aero demanded that I do their reading for them and post the results, they didn't even bother to respond. I will remember that next time, guys, when you make unreasonable demands of me.
 
I'm not sure I trust Google with the information much more than the government. Is anyone else worried about how much info Google may have and to what level of detail? That being said;

COPA has been declared unconstitutional. It was bad law in 1998, it's bad law now. This action is first of all being justified to defend bad law?

I'm against this culling of data that could be personal data and infringe on first amendment and privacy rights. On whose orders is it being done? By Bush directly or by the Justice Dept. or...
 
He can have it.
I'll do anything to help in the Holy War.

Just remind me- Who are we fighting again?
 
My original claim:

They are asking for web addresses (URLs) that are searchable by google.

They are not asking for e-mail addresses.

Mark's response:

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.

So after some wrangling, we get Mark to point out where in the subpoena it says what he claims. And what does he come up with?


Mark said:
A) Page 4, line 6 on, show how the government did want all data, including personal info, but now limited it to data that do not have that info. This is bogus, because they still want the original electronic data which does have such personal identifiers. There is no provision in this entire motion explaining how personal identifiers will be deleted, or how we as Google users can confirm such deletions.
Click to expand...

No, page 4, line 6 on, shows that the government asked for all data, and then granted Google's requests to let the data be stripped of personally identifying information. Your objection that that is 'bogus' seems once again to show that you don't know the difference between 'an' electronic file and some file which you refer to as 'the' electronic file which (according to you) must contain personal identifiers. The motion implies that the manner and confirmation of deletion of personal identifiers would be at google's discretion.

The simple fact of the matter is that the government is willing to do without the personal info, because it doesn't need that info to demonstrate what it wants to demonstrate.

Mark said:
Page 8, line 8 again confirms that the government wants the electronic files...and there is no provision whatsoever explaining how personal identifiers are to be deleted, or how such deletions are to be confirmed.
Click to expand...

Once again, you say 'the' electronic files as if the government is demanding some master file that personal identification can't or won't be stripped out of. Page 8, line 8 on refers to an electronic file first of all URLs (these are web addresses, not e-mail addresses, and THERE WOULD BE NO PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS IN SUCH DATA, how could there be?) that google finds via web search, and then this request is limitted to a list of random URLs, which once again would contain no personal information.

There is nothing I see in that section that suggests that even google objected to providing this info on the the grounds that it could have personally identifying information within it.

Mark said:
On this section, the motion also says that the government wants access to the databases where the URLs are stored...such databases certainly contain personal identifiers.
Click to expand...

On which line does the motion say that?
 
peptoabysmal said:
COPA has been declared unconstitutional. It was bad law in 1998, it's bad law now. This action is first of all being justified to defend bad law?
Click to expand...
That's just the problem. Parts were declared unconstitional; other parts were declared, for lack of a better term, "probably unconstitutional but we're sending this back for a full trial to find out, and here's the evidence we want to see." One of the things SCOTUS wondered whether net nanny filters might do a sufficient job of protecting kids from access to porn that the law wasn't necessary. The government here is trying to get data to address that question.

On whose orders is it being done? By Bush directly or by the Justice Dept. or...
Click to expand...
It'll be the Justice Department and indirectly the Supreme Court.
 
I wonder what would have happened if the government had approached Google and just offered to buy this information.
 
There's a good article in The Register about a part of this issue that most people don't seem to notice. Specifically that Google wasn't the only one targetted; but was the only one that didn't immediately cave in to government pressure. However, because of the nature of the information, and the fact that it's duplicated by their AOL partner, Google's resistance is moot.

Plus, Google is not really resisting on a privacy basis, but on "proprietary business information" grounds.

As far as the War on Privacy goes, this little skirmish isn't even a sideshow.
 
luchog said:
As far as the War on Privacy goes, this little skirmish isn't even a sideshow.
Click to expand...

That I agree with. Bush has effectively scuttled the 1st and 4th ammendments. This one really is a blip in comparison.

From the Florida Sun-Sentinel:
While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies.

Richard Hersh, of Boca Raton, Fla., director of Truth Project Inc. of Palm Beach County, told an ad hoc panel of House Democrats that his group and others in South Florida have been infiltrated and spied upon despite having no connections to terrorists.
Click to expand...
http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=661tu
 
Last edited:
I'm still amazed at the sheer effort and energy devoted by this administration to fighting pornography. Don't they keep telling us that we should be focused on the War On Terror?
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm still amazed at the sheer effort and energy devoted by this administration to fighting pornography. Don't they keep telling us that we should be focused on the War On Terror?
Click to expand...

But the pornography is sapping the vitality of the young men we need to fight the war on terror/drugs/bush's mother-in-law/that man who short changed me at Starbucks*



*Delete as applicable.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm still amazed at the sheer effort and energy devoted by this administration to fighting pornography. Don't they keep telling us that we should be focused on the War On Terror?
Click to expand...

Much like the "war on drugs" the "war on Christmas" and the "war on Christians," putting money in the pockets of pornographers is like putting money in the pockets of terrorists!
 
Mephisto said:
Much like the "war on drugs" the "war on Christmas" and the "war on Christians," putting money in the pockets of pornographers is like putting money in the pockets of terrorists!
Click to expand...
Plus, all it does is drive the industry underground where it will flourish unregulated, and be prone to far more abuse.

It's nothing more than the same old scapegoating that's been going on forever. "It's not our fault our children are growing up to be delinquent thugs, it's the fault of video games/pornography/role playing games/drugs/atheism/religion/floridated water/etc. It's not our bad parenting that's to blame." And polititians are elected from and by those people, and either believe it themselves or pander to them.

The War on Porn will eventually fade, be replaced with something else more trendy, and undergo yet another resurgence when people get bored of other scapegoats.

"I'll give up my porn when they pry my cold, dead, sticky fingers off it."
 
It seems that people want a crusade against everything in life that's any fun. Porn, fattening food, drugs, sex, smoking, alcohol, unsafe-for-children television, violence in movies and video games....yes, yes, we could all live to be 120 in a sanitized Flanders world...but who the hell would want to? As Rumpole once advised the puritan child, "there is no pleasure in life worth sacrificing for the sake of an extra five minutes of living in the Sunnyside Old People's Home!"
 
I don't think that's quite fair. After all, as long as Republicans are running the show golf will always be safe. ;)
 
luchog said:
"I'll give up my porn when they pry my cold, dead, sticky fingers off it."
Click to expand...

Close.

Put me in the "Anti" category on this search. In the "Strongly Disagree" box.

Corporations should have privacy rights just like individuals. If the government wanted to come into your house and look at your internet cache, you'd be pretty pissed, too.

This is total bull****.

The government claims this is supposedly to determine if kids are able to access porn without having to register or otherwise prove their age. So the government can craft legislation to prevent it.

Um.

Okay. How much of a freaking genius does it take to just do a freaking GOOGLE SEARCH FOR YOURSELF and find out that way?

Uh, gee, George, google "bukkake", "blowjob", and a few Rule 8 words and see what happens.

Hire a million monkeys to search a million random sites. Better yet, use the lawyers you are wasting on this case.

Dumbasses.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom