Google!

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:29 am

DVD Burner wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:
HughMungus is right. Google should up chuck that info to the Bush administration.
I didn't say anything about Google giving up information. Maybe you need a new paragraph between those two sentences.

UUUMMM,

that was supposed to be me joking. :roll:

Sorry, I couldn't see you smirking over my internet connection. Somehow those things don't get conveyed with the data.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:51 am

DVD Burner wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
DVD Burner wrote: HughMungus is right. Google should up chuck that info to the Bush administration.
I didn't say anything about Google giving up information. Maybe you need a new paragraph between those two sentences.
UUUMMM,
that was supposed to be me joking.

what a lame cop-out of an excuse.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:04 am

joel the ornery wrote: what a lame cop-out of an excuse.

What cop out?

You mean that I actually belive that google should give up the info?

Now if you belive that.......that's truely funny.

Joel, I did'nt know you had it in you.

(WTF are you talking about anyway?)

Dr BENWAYLADEN · Post by **Dr BENWAYLADEN** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:26 am

It’s to keep you safe. I need the info to keep you all safe.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:27 am

DVD Burner wrote:
joel the ornery wrote: what a lame cop-out of an excuse.
What cop out?

the statement below is a cop-out.

DVD Burner wrote:UUUMMM,
that was supposed to be me joking.

now, onto the Google files issue...

DVD Burner wrote: You mean that I actually belive that google should give up the info?
Now if you belive that.......that's truely funny.
Joel, I did'nt know you had it in you.

no, i do not believe Google or any other carrier should give up the files.

DVD Burner wrote: (WTF are you talking about anyway?)

Illumination of your shortcomings, that is what i have posted most recently.

and by the way, maybe you should use a spell check funtion before you post.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:29 am

Dr BENWAYLADEN wrote:It’s to keep you safe. I need the info to keep you all safe.

I dont know Doc. Are ya trying to keep us safe or are ya just tryin to learn new sexual positions?

After all, you are just asking for info realted to sexual surfing.

Dr BENWAYLADEN · Post by **Dr BENWAYLADEN** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:33 am

you are good

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:33 am

Actually I have serious reservations about this administration when it comes to freaky sex.
Take Abu Ghraib for instance. Those pics and videos were going all the way up the chain for a long time before anyone said anything about it.

(some of those pics were pretty juicy dont you think?)

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:40 am

SHIAT!

Google's stock is dropping.

Now I'm kinda worried.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:46 am

joel+diginification=not.

Dr BENWAYLADEN · Post by **Dr BENWAYLADEN** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:49 am

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:51 am

Oh maaaan!

is that you Joel?

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:56 am

DVD Burner wrote:SHIAT!

Google's stock is dropping.

Now I'm kinda worried. :o

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/ ... compel.pdf

"absent any information identifying the person who entered such query."

It's not a privacy issue, it's a business decision.

regionalchaos · Post by **regionalchaos** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:01 pm

BigCock wrote:The prospect of Google giving information about me to the Bush maniacs, either voluntarily or by force, has me contemplating what my life might be like without Google.

Same here. Which is a shame, I use a gmail address and I use google exclusively as a search engine. But I'm honestly not sure if I could continue that practice if the government is just going to cease search records at will.

This is definately the type of invasion of privacy which I would be willing to protest about.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:02 pm

HughMungus wrote:
"absent any information identifying the person who entered such query."

It's not a privacy issue, it's a business decision.

Uuummm,

Actually IMHO it is a privacy issue. The government is invading Googles privacy by making the attempt to gain access to company trade secretes.

Now uummm that’s just MHO which should and will have legal standing.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:07 pm

Might I add that this administration actually are messing with the wrong people.

Not a good thing to think one is going to out smart people like Google.

And to top it off, they are BURNERS.

the government cant touch them.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:14 pm

DVD Burner wrote:they are BURNERS.

:roll:

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:38 pm

Food for thought .

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/index.php?p=41

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 1:50 pm

EvilDustBooger wrote:Food for thought .

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/index.php?p=41

Too bad the blogger is way off base. This is not about kiddie porn. It's about kids getting access to porn. Sigh. So much misplaced zeal, so much time wasted.

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:02 pm

HughMungus wrote:
EvilDustBooger wrote:Food for thought .

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/index.php?p=41
Too bad the blogger is way off base. This is not about kiddie porn. It's about kids getting access to porn. Sigh. So much misplaced zeal, so much time wasted.

Call it whatever you like.
It`s about Government using the argument of fighting kiddy porn as
an excuse to wholesale abridgement of our citizens` 4th amendment rights.

Of course, kiddy porn is bad. sigh.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:14 pm

EvilDustBooger wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
EvilDustBooger wrote:Food for thought .

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/index.php?p=41
Too bad the blogger is way off base. This is not about kiddie porn. It's about kids getting access to porn. Sigh. So much misplaced zeal, so much time wasted.
Call it whatever you like.
It`s about Government using the argument of fighting kiddy porn as
an excuse to wholesale abridgement of our citizens` 4th amendment rights.

Of course, kiddy porn is bad. sigh.

My point is that the idiot blogger has his head up his ass. It's not about kiddie porn. It's about keeping kids away from porn. Sorry, I just hate inaccuracy in the media (e.g., the government wants personally-identifiable data so this is a privacy issue, which no part of is true).

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:48 pm

Privacy concerns
As part of their defense of COPA, prosecutors are expected to argue that technological filtering methods are less effective than criminal prohibitions.

Privacy watchdogs have worried about the massive store of data that Google has assembled about the online behavior of Internet users. Google keeps log files that record search terms used, Web sites visited and the Internet Protocol address and browser type of the computer for every single search conducted through its Web site. It also sets cookies that can be used to correlate repeat visits to the company's growing network of Web sites.

Sherwin Siy, staff counsel at the privacy rights advocacy organization Electronic Privacy Information Center, praised Google for fighting the administration's request. However, he said there would not even be an issue if the search engine hadn't collected the information and made it aggregatable in the first place.

"This continual aggregation of people's search streams and all this information and the other data from their other services like Gmail places privacy at risk. This is something you would think Google should have anticipated," he said. "It is not a recent phenomenon that overbroad government investigations will put people's privacy at risk by digging through business records."

EPIC's Siy said AOL and MSN should have fought the government's demands more vigorously. "In not doing anything to protect the privacy of their customers they are not doing the right thing," he said. "They are taking the easy way out."

A spokesman for Ask Jeeves said Thursday that it "has not received requests for search data from the Department of Justice in this matter."

Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he was glad Google "stood up in this case to protect the privacy of this information and I'm disappointed that other search engines would be willing to turn it over without a fight."

"Google has a massive database that reaches into the most intimate details of your life," he said. "What you are searching for, what you are reading, what you are worried about, what you enjoy. People should be able to use modern tools like search engines without the fear of Big Brother looking over their shoulder."

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:58 pm

HughMungus wrote:
EvilDustBooger wrote:Food for thought .

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/index.php?p=41
Too bad the blogger is way off base. This is not about kiddie porn. It's about kids getting access to porn. Sigh. So much misplaced zeal, so much time wasted.

UUUMMMM,

I dont know how well you read that but that's ZDnet. Quite reputable.

They have been in the buisness for ever.

Davoid · Post by **Davoid** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:54 pm

EvilDustBooger wrote: A spokesman for Ask Jeeves said Thursday that it "has not received requests for search data from the Department of Justice in this matter."

What the spokesman failed to add was that the only thing in their files was people querying, "Hey Jeeves- Does anyone actually use Ask Jeeves?"

Seriously, though- Bushco has already overreached in so many ways, and shown such seriously misguided and shortsighted reasoning for their actions, that they're like a bastardized boy who cried wolf (forget about what I suspect about their outright lying, pandering, etc. etc.). I can't take anything they say seriously, especially this one, on the heels of the illegal wiretapping revelations. Kids' porn access? Mmmmmmmaybe.

It's pathetic when you can't completely rule out any conspiracy theories about a given administration. Reluctantly, I don't put anything past these guys.

And kids- if you end up needing to go back to the stone age of Mom's Victoria's Secret catalog, I feel for ya. But hey, at least a new one comes in the mail every week or two.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:04 pm

Davoid wrote:
What the spokesman failed to add was that the only thing in their files was people querying, "Hey Jeeves- Does anyone actually use Ask Jeeves?"

Hey hey hey.

You cant get away with that. Joel uses "Ask Jeeves".

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:02 pm

DVD Burner wrote:
HughMungus wrote:
EvilDustBooger wrote:Food for thought .

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/index.php?p=41
Too bad the blogger is way off base. This is not about kiddie porn. It's about kids getting access to porn. Sigh. So much misplaced zeal, so much time wasted.

UUUMMMM,

I dont know how well you read that but that's ZDnet. Quite reputable.

They have been in the buisness for ever.

Yeah, and the media is never wrong.

I read the news critically. First I find the facts, then I form an opinion.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:30 am

HughMungus wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:
HughMungus wrote: Too bad the blogger is way off base. This is not about kiddie porn. It's about kids getting access to porn. Sigh. So much misplaced zeal, so much time wasted.

UUUMMMM,

I dont know how well you read that but that's ZDnet. Quite reputable.

They have been in the buisness for ever.
Yeah, and the media is never wrong.

I read the news critically. First I find the facts, then I form an opinion.

Yeah.....so ......UUUUMMMM.......

what are youo saying???????

or what do you mean????????

Please tell us all what you are meaning?????? what you are saying

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:25 am

Minor Corrections:

[The following lede paragraph is altered to reflect the fact that several justifications for the subpoenaed information discussed in the story have been floated. Nonetheless, the basic principles involved are identical.]

Claiming to be conduction research about how kids find pornography on the Web and, in some comments to the press, raising the issue of kiddie porn, the DOJ under directiopn of the Bush Administration, has subpoenaed the results of randomly selected searches by users of Yahoo!, MSN and Google. People who like child porn are sick, but they have rights. More importantly, we all do. The Department of Justice is using people’s general distaste for the idea kids will get their hands on porn and for kiddie-porn lovers to convince them the rights of all Internet users should be abridged. That’s wrong.

It really won`t make any difference what I say here, but for clarification...
Pearls before Swine:
The comment about kiddy porn was just an opening zinger...
kind of like saying "everybody hates cancer ...so now we all have to take chemotherapy"...

The body of the article is dead on.... if only you read past the
first paragraph and have comprehension skills.

Unfortunately it`s too late.

Heads have already been shoved up asses,
and posts have been pooped on.

just another day on the www

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:06 am

EvilDustBooger wrote:Minor Corrections:

[The following lede paragraph is altered to reflect the fact that several justifications for the subpoenaed information discussed in the story have been floated. Nonetheless, the basic principles involved are identical.]

Claiming to be conduction research about how kids find pornography on the Web and, in some comments to the press, raising the issue of kiddie porn, the DOJ under directiopn of the Bush Administration, has subpoenaed the results of randomly selected searches by users of Yahoo!, MSN and Google. People who like child porn are sick, but they have rights. More importantly, we all do. The Department of Justice is using people’s general distaste for the idea kids will get their hands on porn and for kiddie-porn lovers to convince them the rights of all Internet users should be abridged. That’s wrong.

It really won`t make any difference what I say here, but for clarification...
Pearls before Swine:
The comment about kiddy porn was just an opening zinger...
kind of like saying "everybody hates cancer ...so now we all have to take chemotherapy"...

The body of the article is dead on.... if only you read past the
first paragraph and have comprehension skills.

Unfortunately it`s too late.

Heads have already been shoved up asses,
and posts have been pooped on.

just another day on the www

OK

By the way, Google has agreed to censor itself in order to get into the Chinese market.

Do no evil!

See, DVD, this is why we can't have commerce here.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 2:10 pm