View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently June 23rd, 2018, 6:37 am

Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
 Fears confirmed: U.S. is a Police state 

Does the government have the right to see what you do in the privacy of your own home?
Yes - National Securtiy 11%  11%  [ 1 ]
No - They have gone too far 89%  89%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 9

 Fears confirmed: U.S. is a Police state 
Author Message
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
Post Fears confirmed: U.S. is a Police state
anyone thats ever read the book "1984" knows whats next. This administration has taken personal privacy to a new low. ... 0000000001

Google Rebuffs Feds on Search Request

The Bush administration wants Google to release 1 million Web addresses and records of searches from any one-week period.

SAN FRANCISCO (Jan. 20) - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine ? a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week ? a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yahoo Inc., which runs the Internet's second-most used search engine behind Google, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.

Although the government says it isn't seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoena still raises serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.

"Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother," said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.

"Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too."

The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.

For instance, it's not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.

"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this."

Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren't identified.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."

Microsoft Corp. MSN, the No. 3 search engine, declined to say whether it even received a similar subpoena. "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," the company said in a statement.

As the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that "makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.

In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don't do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.

Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "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," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday

Google ? whose motto when it went public in 2004 was "do no evil" ? contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.

"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept," company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government's filing.

Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.

"This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Ramani wrote.

Dixon is hoping Google's battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines.

"When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said.

[b]New York Giants 26 - San Fransisco 3 - CandleStick Park - Who's got it better than us???[/b]

January 20th, 2006, 12:37 pm
Profile WWW
The idea that "you are free to do whatever you like within the law, and you shouldn't be suspect of the gov. 'watching' you if you're not doing anything wrong," though seems true in its face, is HIGHLY flawed. Why?

1) The government can find SOMETHING on ANYONE at any given time that they're doing wrong, build a case, and send anyone they want to jail. IMO it spunks the interests of conspiracy theorists, and is a tool for jailing anyone they wish for their own self-serving interestes. Can't they do that already? Sure, but not to the same degree... Police departments manufacture evidence all the time to imprision innocent people... sometimes it is because they beleive the guy is guilty and they're just "helping" the process along, and other times its for other reasons. It's a well known fact that "unsolved cases" are black marks on police records and "solving" these cases sometimes comes at the expense of an innocent individual. Sound kinda crazy? How many times do you see some radiacal view member of the political arena (not politician but someone in the light of the public eye... a self-professed communist, socialist, fascist, ext., suddenly become the crux of an "investigation" and carted off to jail? IMO it's more than you realize... These guys aren't usually as famous as David Duke or David Koresh, and fade from the news media as fast as they enter... I'm not promoting the message or behavior of either of the aforementioned individuals, but I do promote the idea of diversity... it seems that the gov. wants everyone to be red or blue... dem. or rep.... and follow a cookie cutter mediocre vanilla life-style. For doing things that police officers turned a blind eye to not more than 20 years ago someone can find themselves jailed for a vast # of years today... Are we better off for it??? Personally I don't think so...

2) In saying "you are only free to do whatever you want if you're not doing anything wrong" the government has taken the position that you should be subject to being treated like a criminal. There's something inherently wrong with that and saying "well you shouldn't mind if you're not doing anything wrong." Degrading, invasive teatment towards innocent people in the name of "National Security" or otherwise is, and always will be, WRONG.

January 20th, 2006, 1:38 pm
Pro Bowl Player
User avatar

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 2:10 pm
Posts: 2478
Location: Michigan
What's one more red flag for me? :lol:

conspiracy theorist

U.S. Congressman on the U.S. becoming a Police state on the floor of the Congress ... 062702.htm

Actual logo in Germany during WWII

Digital angel video ... Technology

[b]New York Giants 26 - San Fransisco 3 - CandleStick Park - Who's got it better than us???[/b]

Last edited by Ferris on January 21st, 2006, 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

January 20th, 2006, 1:56 pm
Profile WWW
Varsity Captain

Joined: October 15th, 2005, 7:20 pm
Posts: 292
Location: Pittsford Michigan
Well i think asking Google to hand over search records is going alittle far, after all China is another country that does similar things... This is entirely a different thing then the warrentless wiretaps which involve foreign nationals (thus making it a intelligence matter and under presidential power).

But on the other hand i have seen figures that a large percentage of people already have their web activity monitored by others (not the governement in this case) via spyware, so everyone knows their web activity could be monitored at this point.

If they want to monitor web activity then it must be restricted to activity relating to terrorist web sites and terrorist link charities, they cant just scoop up a bunch of web records randomly...

January 20th, 2006, 11:04 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 4 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.