View Full Version : Your Freedoms Defended by a Russian
KA8NCR
03-14-2006, 12:21 PM
The fascists meet Google in court today.
The scholar quoted at the end pretty much says it all; freedoms erode incrementally. And this isn't about terrorism, it's about a personal crusade against pornography. Yeah, I'm against children seeing it, being in it or otherwise party to it. Fact remains, this is nothing but a grab to peer into the life of citizens and our government is going to persist until we slap their fingers.
Oh the irony that a company that was founded by a Russian is the only one with the brass to say no.
US VS Google (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/BIZ04/603140339/1001/BIZ)
Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Mar. 14 2006,05:21)]The scholar quoted at the end pretty much says it all; freedoms erode incrementally.
Fact remains, this is nothing but a grab to peer into the life of citizens and our government is going to persist until we slap their fingers.
How do you boil a frog?
Turn the heat up one degree at a time...silly animal (us) has no idea of its predicament until it's too late. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Sure. The Russians, who have only recently gotten their freedom, know how important it is to have them. We, on the other hand, are unaware of how life can be without them.
This should turn out to be a very interesting and important case.
(edit)
Interestingly enough, I googled this and noticed not a single Major Media Outlet (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, BBC...) is carrying this story. They can't be shying away from this can they?
WA5KRP
03-14-2006, 05:15 PM
Interesting story and thanks for the link. Makes one wonder if we can expect privacy in this very public medium. Personally, I hope Google's refusal to furnish search records is upheld in court.
One thing I don't understand is why Google would keep search records in the first place, unless they consider that marketing data they can sell.
WA5KRP
Texas
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,10:15)]One thing I don't understand is why Google would keep search records in the first place, unless they consider that marketing data they can sell.
That...or possibly under the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...
WA5KRP
03-14-2006, 05:30 PM
Quote[/b] (n8yx @ Mar. 14 2006,11:23)]That...or possibly under the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act...
I thought that was passed after the Enron debacle to establish corporate standards for accounting and auditing.
WA5KRP
Texas
In my opinion, this whole court case is nothing more than a formality.
The NSA, FBI & a long list of other Federal agencies can find out exactly what sites you are visiting on the Internet without the blessing of Google..........You mean to tell me there are not certain keywords when entered into a search engine that won't put up a red flag?
Big brother IS watching. (now where is my tinfoil hat)?
Tom kcØw
KF0RT
03-14-2006, 05:43 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,10:15)]One thing I don't understand is why Google would keep search records in the first place, unless they consider that marketing data they can sell.
The easy answer is that it could be used as test data for testing improvements to their search engine. Real-world "live" data like that is often far more valuable than anything that can be generated in a lab.
73, Rob
Quote[/b] ]I thought that was passed after the Enron debacle to establish corporate standards for accounting and auditing.
It was but it also has provisions for how corporations computer systems, which may hold sensitive corporate or financial data, are treated.
For instance, you are required under Sarbanes-Oxley to back up data then completely wipe the hard drive, to DoD standards, of any computer that gets moved from a "sensitive" area.
kc7jty
03-14-2006, 06:28 PM
Quote[/b] (ka8ncr @ Mar. 13 2006,06:21)]Oh the irony that a company that was founded by a Russian is the only one with the brass to say no.
Same is true with our involvement in the middle east, only the "terrorists" have the brass to say no and do anything about it.
It certainally isn't the responsability of the American people to hold their government accountable for it's actions is it?
WA5KRP
03-15-2006, 05:09 AM
Looks like Uncle Sam prevailed by limiting search data requests to kiddy porn.
US v. Google (http://finance.myway.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_rt.jsp?section=news&feed=bus&src=202&news_id=bus-n14316239&date=20060314)
Feigning it only wants kiddy porn search info, the camel got its nose under the tent.
WA5KRP
Texas
w7lpn
03-15-2006, 05:28 AM
Nazi gun control laws looked very resonable until too late. #They they had already disarmed everyone who opposed them. The U.S. gun control act of 1960 was nearly word for word exaclty like the Nazi gun control act of 1934. first no knives and clubs, then guns. It began with not allowing mail order guns.....Seems resonable, right? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Then they took guns from anyone with a conviction....reasonable? Maybe? Then oposing political groups? non German born, Pole's, jews etc., etc., etc.
w7lpn
03-15-2006, 05:35 AM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Mar. 14 2006,08:10)]Sure. #The Russians, who have only recently gotten their freedom, know how important it is to have them. #We, on the other hand, are unaware of how life can be without them. #
Big media has no vested interest in our freedoms. Most of them are rabid anti-gun, bunny-huggers!
This appears to be more incompetent BS from the Bush administration. I could easily download all manner of pornographic media off of the internet without proving my age. There is no protection for kids.
PE1RDW
03-15-2006, 12:46 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,10:15)]One thing I don't understand is why Google would keep search records in the first place, unless they consider that marketing data they can sell.
There are two reasons:
1- directed ads, they can ask more for adds if they show it users that are interested in the subject.
2- the rating of a link depends for a part on how often someone clicks it.
When Gore was running, he talked about government support of an information superhighway as well as the need for traffic patrol officers. That stuff scared me. Now that I have seen how Vonage and other parasites are sucking free bandwidth while the modern equivalent of Highwaymen (http://www.bjcurtis.force9.co.uk/html/highwaymen.html) have rendered computer networking unsafe for children and grandparents, I think Gore may have ha something. My impression that Bush would be more sensitive to issues of privacy would now be laughable if it wasn't so sadly wrong.
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,10:15)]One thing I don't understand is why Google would keep search records in the first place, unless they consider that marketing data they can sell. #
Of course they keep the records. That's what they data mine and how they're going to make all their money. They will turn over whatever records you want if you pay them enough. .gov doesn't pay - that's the rub. It isn't "freedom." They bowed to the Chinese, remember?
WA5KRP
03-15-2006, 09:14 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,11:15)]One thing I don't understand is why Google would keep search records in the first place, unless they consider that marketing data they can sell. #
Thanks to the good folks that responded to my uncertainty. #You gave confirmation of what I suspected but didn't really know.
Sooooooooooooo......somewhere deep in the bowels of Google, I have left a search trail. #Am I correct to understand they have ME specifically doing particular searches? #Or are the records only of what searches have been done by Google users in general without showing specifically whodunnit?
WA5KRP
Texas
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 15 2006,14:14)]Thanks to the good folks that responded to my uncertainty. #You gave confirmation of what I suspected but didn't really know.
Sooooooooooooo......somewhere deep in the bowels of Google, I have left a search trail. #Am I correct to understand they have ME specifically doing particular searches? #Or are the records only of what searches have been done by Google users in general without showing specifically whodunnit?
WA5KRP
Texas
I don't work for Google, but if I did, I'd make sure they kept - at least - the time a search was done, the IP it came from, any Google click-throughs, and any cookie information Google may store (ie. a unique ID that reveals that it's your machine even if you have dynamic IP addresses assigned to your computer). #They might not have your name, but they know that a certain machine searched for a certain thing at a certain time, and whether you clicked for the 2nd or 3rd page, etc. #If you clicked on any "cached" links, or Google ads, or "Similar pages" links, that should all be stored. #They can also often identify your zip code, internet provider (perhaps employer) by IP address. #And this is all automatic.
They would be able to pull together all searches done by your machine (and how "in depth" you went into the results), along with the times, and deduce something about you and your behavior, which can then be sold to industry or government (probably as part of a derived demographic - probably not "This is what WA5KRP does"). #They can sort/search by IP-indicated zip code. #They can guestimate your income and education by what you search for, how much time you spend online, etc. etc. #They can "mine" this large set of data for valuable information. #This is what search engines are about. #Learning about consumers. #Knowing that consumers who search for "Yaesu" often also search for "Icom" in the state of Washington, whereas in Tennessee the "Yaesu" searchers are more likely to follow with a "Ten-Tec." #And both of these are more likely to search for "cordless drill" than "makeup." #Being able to pinpoint specific customers out of the mix isn't hard at all - getting a name just takes an extra step (contacting ISP, probably).
If you have a g-mail account, they have your e-mail. #If you have Google desktop, they could have everything on your computer, including information from other "cookies" and your non-google e-mail.
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 15 2006,14:14)]Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,11:15)]One thing I don't understand is why Google would keep search records in the first place, unless they consider that marketing data they can sell.
Thanks to the good folks that responded to my uncertainty. You gave confirmation of what I suspected but didn't really know.
Sooooooooooooo......somewhere deep in the bowels of Google, I have left a search trail. Am I correct to understand they have ME specifically doing particular searches? Or are the records only of what searches have been done by Google users in general without showing specifically whodunnit?
WA5KRP
Texas
We know what kind of pictures you look for Danny. We don't need the eternal records of Google to tell us about that. Your Great, Great Grandchildren will probably be interested to see what Great, Great Gramps was looking for on the Internet though. Have a nice day.
G0GQK
03-15-2006, 10:08 PM
The big, big problem today is that every large company, and governments, are keeping lists. They are collating data on everything and everybody to keep these "public servants" in jobs. The fact is they are just snoopers, poking their noses into everybody else's business.
The craze in Britain is targets. The government is setting out targets for this and that, and ten year plans which they will never achieve. What country does that remind you of ? #That's right, the Soviet Union.
The American press is docile, it never used to be, but its like the BBC and the media is now in the UK. Very selective on what it reports. This is so that they don't show that a government #appears to be stupid, but everybody knows that it is, just like in the old days of the Soviet Union. Read the forums everywhere in Britain and you get the picture.
G0GQK
Right now, if you want to rent an apartment or get car insurance, your credit history is checked. I bet eventually, so will be your Google history. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/blues.gif
WA5KRP
03-15-2006, 10:19 PM
Quote[/b] (AK7V @ Mar. 15 2006,15:51)]I don't work for Google, but if I did, I'd make sure they kept - at least - the time a search was done, the IP it came from, any Google click-throughs, and any cookie information Google may store (ie. a unique ID that reveals that it's your machine even if you have dynamic IP addresses assigned to your computer). #
Incredible. #Thanks for your reply. #You make it crystal clear there is nothing private about the internet. #Whatever whims of fancy I had about that are gone out the window.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Mar. 15 2006,15:53)]We know what kind of pictures you look for Danny. #We don't need the eternal records of Google to tell us about that. #
http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif #I found a pic for you, Dave..........
http://www.wiredvideo.net/images/screen%20grabs/alecwoods.jpg
HAW!©
WA5KRP
Texas
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 15 2006,15:19)]Incredible. #Thanks for your reply. #You make it crystal clear there is nothing private about the internet. #Whatever whims of fancy I had about that are gone out the window.
I should point out that if you search for something and then click on a resultant link, Google doesn't know which link you've clicked, if any. #The exceptions are the links that go through Google (like the "view cached" or advertisements or image search results or some featured links). #
But, they know which results they displayed for your search, and whether you went to page two (and how long in between pages), and can assign reasonable probabilities to you having gone to one of the displayed results. #If they correlate their data with the target websites', they can get a much fuller picture of your behavior.
Of course they _might_ not be doing any of this, but then I wonder - why the heck not? #This is a goldmine. #And their stock price reflects that.
WA5KRP
03-15-2006, 11:03 PM
From today's Drudge Report:
KIDDY PORN ARRESTS (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/15/D8GC3SD83.html)
That's a good thing.......but it leaves the door wide open to scary possibilities not related to porn.
WA5KRP
Texas
kc7jty
03-16-2006, 02:32 AM
Quote[/b] (G0GQK @ Mar. 14 2006,16:08)]The American press is docile, it never used to be, but its like the BBC and the media is now in the UK. Very selective on what it reports. This is so that they don't show that a government #appears to be stupid, but everybody knows that it is, just like in the old days of the Soviet Union. Read the forums everywhere in Britain and you get the picture.
G0GQK
This is a noteworthy quotable. You have hit the nail on the head with it.
I'm sorry for I must disagree with "but everybody knows that it is" (about the government being stupid). How I WISH this were true. You must only speak for yourself for I'm sure here in the states at least 50% suck it up hook, line, & sinker. I believe it to be our biggest problem. Total apathy and ignorance in the people.
kc7jty
03-16-2006, 02:42 AM
Quote[/b] (WA5KRP @ Mar. 14 2006,17:03)]From today's Drudge Report:
KIDDY PORN ARRESTS (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/15/D8GC3SD83.html)
It is the latest witch hunt craze, It's right up with the terrorists flying planes into buildings. All blown up hype to baffle the minds of the weak to the real issues.......such as the government getting everything it wants without opposition and the continuous eroding of our individual rights and freedoms.
W2ILP
03-16-2006, 04:09 AM
Hmmm...
What if you don't search with Goggle? What if you search with Yahoo?
Who do the searchers search with?
Actually I don't care who knows what I search for...I just don't want them to be sure of what I might find.
I don't search for the underaged or those who don't consent to be searched but there are some sites that don't leave much to be searched for that isn't there to begin with.
w2ilp (Ignoring List Pursuers)...and trivial pursuits.