Uncle Sam Wants Your Google Search Records

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by ghi
Liberal ?!  I  don't live in your country, i don"t care about your politic,  
I was born and lived  under the comunist dictator Ceausescu /Security and high censorship,  i had enough
 Now here comes Bush to spy me from thousands of miles away !

IMOP the Internet , is best creation of the last century,  should stay free,

We are stupid ghi.  We assume that the horrors of a ceausescu could never happen here.

[*NDM*JohnnyX]

Americans are famously stupid. We need stupid people to make mistakes to learn from. If you're smart all the time you never progress.

[Ripsnort]

ghi,
From what I have read the records will not include any information that would link the search histories to individual users. If that is indeed the case then I don't see how this is any different than the type of information that Google and the other search engines already publish to the web. For example, I have seen lists of the top search terms, and real-time lists of the last search terms used on a search engine.

How can they be worried about privacy regarding information they already publish that does not identify users?

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
ghi,
From what I have read the records will not include any information that would link the search histories to individual users. If that is indeed the case then I don't see how this is any different than the type of information that Google and the other search engines already publish to the web. For example, I have seen lists of the top search terms, and real-time lists of the last search terms used on a search engine.

How can they be worried about privacy regarding information they already publish that does not identify users?

Then why doesn't the government just get the information off the web if thats all they are asking for?

shamus

[soda72]

Didn't yahoo give user information to China?

[ghi]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
Yeager.

At what point do you think we should start worrying about or freedoms slowly being chipped away? How many more little bits will you let the government take from us before you decide it has gone to far?
.

Was same here, they take your freedom slowly, step by step,you don't feel until is to late, first they take your finger, slowly your arms and after your defenceless heads.
By 1989 we had 2 hours of TV program /day, only 1 national TV program, all the newspapers under goverment control, we were not alowed to walk on the streets in groups of more than 2 persons.

 The internet is maybe the most ussed product of globalization, unfortunatly all the eficient serch engines are in US and getting ganged now. Maybe the rest of the world sould build their own,

[Yeager]

the rights we enjoy, whatever they may be.....are extended and revised, amended and restricted, argued about and begged for, cursed and vilified, fought for and died for.....they are also used against us by our enemies to attack and destroy us.

Also, with regards to the internet, the worlds military powers are learning to use the internet to conduct war.  The internet will soon be integrated into the worlds battlefields, it is human nature.

If you think the internet is some happy little place where everybody is free to surf for kittie praun you are in a hurting pain.  The last place you want to be free is the internet.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Yeager
freedom means what exactly? freedom to break the law in private?

In other words I can break whatever law I want and as long as no one else knows about my illegal behavior I am protected by privacy?

Exactly how is doing a websearch, on any subject. breaking the law?

[weaselsan]

They are not asking google to provide information on searches, they are asking them to supply information they posess on "Illegal" searches. You cannot refuse to hand over evidence of illegal activity under some wierd idea of privacy. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Yeager
against unreasonable searches and seizures
====
who gets to define unreasonable?

What happens if an unreasonable search results in the discovery of a murdered child?

Then the defendant would unfortunately go free. Or the evidence would be ruled as inadmissable

there have been alot of cases where exactly this has happened because the search conducted was ruled as being unreasonable

[weaselsan]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Exactly how is doing a websearch, on any subject. breaking the law?

It is against the law to view child pornography in the USA, the Swedes don't have to worry we can't touch them.

[RAIDER14]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Exactly how is doing a websearch, on any subject. breaking the law?

they probaly wanna know how many people search for
[list=1]

• Statue Of Liberty
• Golden Gate Bridge
• How to fly a Boeing 767
• How to fly a Boeing 757
• hijack
• ways to bypass airport security
[/list=1]

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Shamus
Then why doesn't the government just get the information off the web if thats all they are asking for?

shamus

Thats what they want to do, from Google. John Public or Uncle Sam does not have access to the information that Google has on you.  You have to ask for it, or pass a law to get it.

[weaselsan]

That Seahawks helmet isn't gonna help tonite Rip.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by weaselsan
It is against the law to view child pornography in the USA, the Swedes don't have to worry we can't touch them.

Agreed. But doing a search on something, including child porn is not the same as viewing it.

Suppose you wanted to write some kind of report on the amount of child porn sites there are outthere. Or on how many people were arrested for possession or viewing child porn.

Obviously most of the keywords used in the search would be child porn, or child porn related.

And who gets to decide what child porn is?

About a year ago someone sent me a humourous Email where someone was talking about their kid at the bottom of the page was a obviously photoshoped pic of an infant with a full sized man noodle attached to it with teh caption "thats my boy" It was obviously a joke.
I thought it was hillarious and sent it along to another friend of mine who proceeded to chastise me for sending her "vile child porn"

Me,being me and never to just let things lie
Out of curiousity then sent her a picture of nude boy and asked her if she were offered that particular picture what would she do.

Again she chastised me calling me all sorts of nasty things.

the pic I had sent her was an oil painting done by a famous artist (whos name I have since forgotten)several hundred years old from a museum that had recently sold for like $200,000

Now let me say I think child porn is the most vile and dispicable thing on the planet.


but there is a line between art,humour and porn.
Now some is obvious and some is not.
And one persons art can be viewed as anothers porn.

Who gets to decide?