Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Google Vs Bush Admin.


Posted by: CelticCoalition 20-Jan-2006, 02:41 PM
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.

Posted by: SCShamrock 20-Jan-2006, 04:37 PM
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:

QUOTE
“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.”


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.

Posted by: Shadows 20-Jan-2006, 05:01 PM
SCS your reply scares the hell out of me... can you say seig hiel!!

Posted by: Aaediwen 20-Jan-2006, 07:17 PM
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.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 20-Jan-2006, 08:17 PM
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.

Posted by: stevenpd 20-Jan-2006, 08:28 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 20-Jan-2006, 02:37 PM)
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.

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.

QUOTE
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.

Posted by: MDF3530 20-Jan-2006, 08:33 PM
QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 20-Jan-2006, 08:17 PM)
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.

Preach on, Brother!!!

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

Posted by: Sonee 21-Jan-2006, 11:32 AM
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.

Posted by: Shadows 21-Jan-2006, 11:42 AM
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!



Posted by: Aaediwen 21-Jan-2006, 01:52 PM
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.

Posted by: CelticCoalition 21-Jan-2006, 02:57 PM
QUOTE (Sonee @ 21-Jan-2006, 11:32 AM)
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.

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.

Posted by: SCShamrock 21-Jan-2006, 02:59 PM
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.

Posted by: ronw1 21-Jan-2006, 04:55 PM
here is a thought why does the government ( laugh.gif ) 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

Posted by: Swanny 21-Jan-2006, 11:52 PM
QUOTE
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 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

Posted by: Fiddler 22-Jan-2006, 06:34 AM
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. biggrin.gif tongue.gif

Posted by: Shadows 22-Jan-2006, 08:09 AM
QUOTE (Fiddler @ 22-Jan-2006, 08:34 AM)
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. biggrin.gif tongue.gif

I for a fact can tell you that the government ( I thought we the people were supposed to be the government ) has already requested from your local library a list of the material that you, yes you, read! I know this because my wife is a local library director and her library refused to comply... they did not just want records on certain people they wanted them all. Where will it stop?

Posted by: ronw1 22-Jan-2006, 10:36 AM
Shadows,
Somehow "We The People" fell thru the cracks not sure when but some thing went haywire, and it scary that our lives can now be looked at by anybody who knows how.
I do not understand why if something goes amiss fingers point to the Peresident, True he is our leader but as i stated before (not saying you shadows) the FBI CIA etc do things he might not know about or fed just enough info so he knows and if something goes wrong the blame falls on him and the snakes that did it get off free. Papers say the Gov. knew of all the things that have happened over the past few years ahead of time but did nothing. The CIA failed the FBI failed The Gov. failed, Why? What was to be gained by letting all those people die. The only answer i can think of is a lot of politicians have thier hands in defense prodjects and are getting rich from it. Yes I can say this I served, not in war but i did my time.
(Fiddler) NO Bush does not sit in front of a pc all day that is what he has said people do and that is thier job to keep this country safe to look for threats, but only at people that
are known or have connact with such people all the other things are not going to hurt this country.

Shadows, thumbs_up.gif for your wife and the library, someones library card is of no concern of the Gov. I can see it know 10 year old jailed for reading Harry Potter charge
"praticing turning a pet into a glass" oh my god, life in prison laugh.gif

Our country is a mess but the Gov is to busy bieng nursemaid to the world and concern ourselfs with us.

Posted by: Swanny 22-Jan-2006, 10:57 AM
QUOTE (Fiddler @ 22-Jan-2006, 03:34 AM)
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 was screaming just as loud and long as I'm screaming now, making many of the same arguments.

It doesn't matter one bit which administration is in power at any particular time. What matters is how the government wants to gather and use information without our knowlege or understanding.

That doesn't change with whichever party is in power. Sorry guys, it's not a partisan issue regardless of which set to thieving low-life scum-bag poliiticians you want to be unhappy with at any given time.

Once again, if we don't demand our rights be respected, then for practical purposes those rights don't exist at all.

Swanny

Posted by: Sonee 22-Jan-2006, 11:14 AM
Everyone keeps hollering about the government staying out of their lives but when something like 9-11 happens (and even Katrina to an extent) people holler about where the government was and why they didn't protect us. We can't have it both ways.

We seem to have become the most fickle society in the world. Out of one side of our mouths we scream for privacy and less government involvement but , when something bad happens we scream from the other side that the govenment should have known about it in advance and done something to stop it.

With everyone doing so much "business" online these days how is the government supposed to get this "probable cause" you speak of? Do pedofiles, or terrorist or the like look different on the outside from you and me? Do they give some clue that would cause someone to get suspicious and dig deeper? Probably not. If the government was only taking records from selected people you would probably be hearing more cries of "racial profiling" or perhaps "religious profiling".

Although I can't prove it I would bet that there are still terrorist cells residing here in the U.S waiting for the right opportunity to strike. I'm also quite sure they arent carrying out conversations over AT&T phone lines but encrypted computer programs that are highly sophisticated. If this cell strikes a building where your wife/child/mother/father/brother etc was, and it's found out later (you know there will be a commision to investigate whose fault it was and who knew what) that all the information about this strike could have been found online and prevented, will you say, "that's okay, at least I still have my privacy and they can't see the smut site I visited the other day." On the contrary, I think most people will yell and scream that the government should have done more to protect them.

If you give up any freedom for the sake of "security" you lose!


What abut protecting your freedom at the expense of "security"? Who do you blame when the bomb goes off and vast numbers of "innocents" are killed?

Posted by: CelticCoalition 22-Jan-2006, 02:23 PM
QUOTE (Fiddler @ 22-Jan-2006, 06:34 AM)
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 for one hadn't discovered this web site yet and so wouldn't have been able to say anything.

I can't believe that this has come down to democrat vs republican again. This has nothing to do with what Clinton did or democrats or republicans or whatever. This has to do with the Government, under any designation, poking their noses where they don't belong. It doesn' matter if Clinton did it or Bush is doing it. Clinton was just as wrong to spy on the people as bush.

And really, it isn't about clinton or bush. It's about The government as a whole.

And who do I blame for 9-11? Who do i blame for the terrorist acts now? I blame the terrorists. But I'm not willing to give up my freedoms just to be safe. I'd be willing to fight and die so that the people in this country can live free.

Besides, if we give up our freedoms to our government just to be safe from terrorists, we are simply trading one terror for another.

Posted by: Swanny 24-Jan-2006, 08:56 AM
A question then, how much of your personal freedom are you willing to give away to the government, free of question or concern, for the sake of national security? How much have you already given up for the sake of the misguided "war on drugs"? How much is enough?

At what point will we have given up enough of our freedom that we can no longer be considered a "free" nation, or a "freedom loving people"?

Swanny

Posted by: CelticCoalition 24-Jan-2006, 02:13 PM
QUOTE (Swanny @ 24-Jan-2006, 08:56 AM)
A question then, how much of your personal freedom are you willing to give away to the government, free of question or concern, for the sake of national security? How much have you already given up for the sake of the misguided "war on drugs"? How much is enough?

At what point will we have given up enough of our freedom that we can no longer be considered a "free" nation, or a "freedom loving people"?

Swanny

I'm not sure if this was directed to me or not, but I'll go ahead and answer.

I'm not willing to give any of my personal freedom away for the sake of national security.

I'm against the war on drugs, and so it doesn't matter to me how much I might have given away for that, it's too much.

Giving away any personal freedom is too much.

I would say we are far away from no longer being a free country, but every bit of freedom we lose is a step closer in that direction.

Posted by: MDF3530 24-Jan-2006, 08:08 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

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

Posted by: Shamalama 26-Jan-2006, 03:12 PM
QUOTE (MDF3530 @ 24-Jan-2006, 09:08 PM)
I've said it before and I'll say it again:

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

Nah, I was going to let you go when you just said it once.

But when you said it twice I had to jump in.

The Ben Franklin quote that has been so misused and abused originally appeared in 1755:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The version that appears on the Statue of Liberty's pedestal reads:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Your omission of those key qualifiers--"essential" and "little"-- makes all the difference in the world. Ben Franklin has been hijacked to endorse an untenable and deadly view that no sacrifice of any liberty for any amount of safety at any time should ever be made.

The conflict against al Qaeda is, in fundamental respects, a war of information. We cannot build walls thick enough, fences high enough, or systems strong enough to keep our enemies out of our open and welcoming country. Instead, as the bipartisan 9/11 and WMD Commissions have urged, we must understand better who they are and what they’re doing – we have to collect more dots, if you will, before we can “connect the dots.” This program to surveil al Qaeda is a necessary weapon as we fight to detect and prevent another attack before it happens.

It's worth noting that Franklin was talking about liberty, not privacy. There is a relationship between the two, but I find it strange that no one bothers to quote Franklin when we're talking about the liberty to choose how your children are taught.

The misquotation of Franklin in the argument about information gathering strikes me as particularly amusing in light of Franklin's role as one of the premier intelligence agents during the Revolutionary War. The CIA has a nice summary of the intelligence activities undertaken during that war, and no one is so prominent as Franklin, including in covert activities. More to the point here, Franklin was a member of the original committee, appointed by the Continental Congress, to review and publish intercepted communications from England. Hmm, Benjamin Franklin: Domestic Spy?! If he meant what the liberals think he meant, we're going to have to change his statues to read "Printer, Inventor, Statesman, Hypocrite".

Funny that the same screamers currently in a Franklin frenzy never quote this:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.






Posted by: Fiddler 26-Jan-2006, 04:00 PM
TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH SHAMALAMA! biggrin.gif

Posted by: birddog20002001 27-Jan-2006, 10:43 AM
QUOTE
essential liberty


All liberty is essential, and privacy garunteed under the bill of rights is a liberty.

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)