Google Vs Bush Admin., Another privacy issue

Here's an article re: a request from the Bush Administration for records from Google.

Thoughts?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/?GT1=7538
Article curtosy of MSNBC.

I think there is far too much importance placed on privacy. For matters pertaining to national security, or as is the supposed motivator in this case, securing child internet protection laws, I think so-called "privacy" should take a back seat to prudence, particularly when maintaining this privacy keeps hidden crimes and criminals. There are a lot of scumbags out there who will gleefully sell pictures of their own children over the internet, and even more who seek these kinds of things. I for one hope that these subpoenas turn up some of these animals, even if the real reason the records are being sought are more closely related to the to the reasons for the wiretapping.

From the article:

Good for Pam Dixon. Whoever that is. At least she has an opinion. However, a "google" of her results in mostly hits for her own websites, and an actress by the name of Pamela Dixon. Not exactly a household word. Yet MSN seems to think her name carries some weight.

SCS your reply scares the hell out of me... can you say seig hiel!!

I'm surprised MSN didn't try to really ream Google and paint them as evil in this article. I saw this first in the Lexington Herald-Leader a couple hours ago. Honestly, I rather like how Google sticks to their guns under pressure. And I see the privacy point. PERTICULARLY on this issue. Now I agree, that porn is a little too easy for those who want illigitimate access to get to. But that's the site's fault. Google has options to remove porn and similar content from searches which is only one click in a box. I've not seen much of anything get past it either.

Google does their part to control the avaliability of adult rated material. I think making the porn sites require some additional steps to prevent inappropriate viewing would be in order, not attacking the search engines thenselves, which is what they're doing.

There is a new movie comming out soon titled "V for Vendetta." If you are not aware of the history of this movie, it is based on a comic book that deals with one mans fight to overthrow the English government in the near future. The government spies on it's people in everything they do with cameras, microphones, and government agents. Everything is regulated and the people live in fear of a government that has absolute control over everything in their lives.

The movie has a quote. "People should not be afraid of their government. The government should be afraid of its people."

Sure living without privacy would cut down on horrible things that happen to people everyday. But it wouldn't eliminate it, and it would bring about greater and greater injustices dealt upon people by the government the longer it was allowed to continue.

Many great books have been written about governments with too much control. "1984" and "Farenheit 451" are two that come to mind.

First goes our privacy. Then goes freedom of speech. And one by one our rights and freedoms disappear.

That future doesn't make me feel very safe.

Normally I would agree with something like this but the request is too broad. Indicating that they are on a fishing expedition and are not looking for anything specific. That's what I find troubling. The constitution specifically has language against unreasonable search and seizure.

Now if they would like to get specific about what they are looking for that's something else. This is not an issue of national security.

Preach on, Brother!!!

When you trade freedom for security, you don't have either.

This is a sweeping generalization and, as such, shouldn't be taken personally be anyone reading this post. That being said:

If you have nothing to hide why should you care if they're after pornographers or terrorist or communist or anti-americans etc. etc. If you don't fall into any of those categories they won't be looking at you and if you DO fall into those categories than they SHOULD be looking at you. It seems to me that many people who complain about invasion of privacy are the people who have something to hide and don't want to get caught.

It is not a matter of being caught at something it is the fact that the government places itself above the rights of those who "are supposed to control " the government. If this is allowed then where does it stop?
Hitler is a good example, so is Stalin, etc.
If you give up any freedom for the sake of "security" you lose!

I'll echo Shadows. If you let anything go, then before long what you needn't hide now by virtue of it being a right you have, will tomorrow land you tied to a stake (Or the rack). Example. right now format conversion is legal and I don't have to hide this project I've been working on for the last few months because it is, indeed, legal and permitted under fair use. However, if we let the covernment start tightening down on laws, then before long it'll be illigal to press record on any piece of A/V equipment because Heven forbid someone else be in the car while you play that CD of Buffy Sante-Marie while being driven by government controlled computers down 75. (Since it's now illigal to control your own vehicle as you might try to evade police). All this because some loser started selling illegal CDs and then caused a 100 car pile up fleeing from the FBI in his GTO.

That, is why people should care about keeping things hidden even if they have nothing to hide. And I'm sure it could easilly be several times worse.

I suppose this is true. But just because I have nothing to be ashamed of or hide doesn't mean I want everything I do under the scrutiny of the government.

Where do the lines get drawn? What if I like to look at kinky pictures on the internet, kinky pictures that are perfectly legal. But perhaps the government feels that this is a warning sign that I might become a pedophile. So they flag me. They watch me. They decide to follow my every move. Perhaps they feel that I shouldn't have certain jobs now, so they make sure I'm unable to work in certain feilds. They star pulling the strings behind the scenes, and if anyone doesn't like it the government justifies these actions in that they are simply protecting children.

Or perhaps I decide to research terrorists. And they start watching my every move simply to protect against the idea that perhaps someday I'll decide to blow something up.

If the government has to spy on its people to protect them, then the government isn't doing their job.

I think the words "scares the hell out of me" are a little strong here.

Now I agree that privacy is important. Who wants to think that the government may have some high-tech program installed into everyone's PC that transforms, very stealthfully, their monitor into a camera? Or that they may have a keylogger so advanced that it is not detected by even the most sophisticated spyware programs? In this respect we all want our precious anonymity. However deeply personal information is not being requested here. Simple internet searches, that's all. Plus the random email addresses. Neither of these is something sacred. It is akin to standing in the checkout at the grocery store carrying on a conversation at normal volume, and then complaining because someone is listening. The internet is not a secure environment. When you do a Google search, the results are displayed on a page with an address starting with http://. If you were "secure" it would begin as https://. So you are already in a public environment (grocery store checkout) when your sacred Google searches are being conducted. Furthermore, if you ever enter your email address in a form for most anything online, that address will be distributed to countless scammers. No one is immune even though there are ways to cut down on this.

I suppose what I am getting at is that these things being sought are not anything so personal as to qualify as an invasion of privacy. I'm all for keeping government out of our lives, but this is not something that I think warrants such panic. Yahoo complied. It may have escaped me, but I didn't hear the public outcry. I think that if Google had complied, we wouldn't be hearing it now.

here is a thought why does the government ( ) need to see the logs? It seems to me this is what the CIA, FBI, and all those other secrect people are for, If they cant do the job then why are we spending billions on these idiots. To me these people cause more trouble then they prevent, If we are so big and powerful then we should be able to find all these people causing trouble but I think the Government not (Bush) wants things to happen for the politicians have thier hands in a lot of dirt and they wish to get richer at everybody elses expense (gas prices for one).
SC Scotchman stick by your guns, some people cant seem to handle the truth about our crooked Gov. this is why I do not vote for it does no good all politicians are or will be crooked it just takes the right amount of money

If they are truly after pornographers, terrorists, etc. then they should be able to develop probable cause easily enough to obtain a search warrant. All they have to do is show reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence that specific individuals committed those crimes will be found in that database.

I care because what I do is no one's business except my own. Not yours, and certainly not the governments.

The slippery slope argument, although a logical fallacy, does seem to a apply here. What comes next? Church membership records? If so, is YOUR church BATF approved? Certainly the Branch Davidian's was not.

The right to be secure in your person, place or papers only exists so long as we, the people, are willing to exercise it.

Swanny

Where were all you "Right to privacy" warriors when the Clinton administration was developing and using the Clipper Project or the Echelon Project or even the Calea Project? Use your GOOGLE and see for yourself. Gore must have been planning ahead when he invented the computer!

I suspect that google will sell the same info that the government is looking for. The problem is the government wants it for nothing.

Rown1, The agencies you mentioned and others like the NSA use the information. Bush does not sit in front of a computer in the Oval office all day trying to catch terrorists googling.

Our world has changed due to modern technology. Anyone can access your computer, your home security system, your cell or cordless phones or your private conversations by using a few gadgets assembled from parts purchased at Radio Shack. How the government gets information or how they use it will be a bone of contention from now on. Singling out the Bush administration for things previous administrations routinely did seems to be politicly motivated.