What is Digg?124 Comments
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16Dear "4answer2",
I'm an American and the requests (not to mention the decisions) made by the Bush administration piss me off to no end. Me and people like me can't really do anything until 2008. That's how it works in America. Not sure about where you're from.
Thank you for your time,
Joe T. Rigby
P.S. Up yours - tionanny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12
@joe rigby
what is this we cant do any thing untill 2008 crap?
what about the 2006 elections?
help eliminate the base on wich he stands VOTE - TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Let me clarify:
Google sells out Chinese citizens to the Chinese government. U.S. government is mad at Google.
Google protects the privacy of American citizens from the U.S. government. U.S. government is mad at Google.
Basically, it appears that the U.S. government cares more about the privacy and human rights of Chinese citizens than it does of its own citizens. Meanwhile, Google's "do no evil" does not apply when operating in China. - anjinash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This is just an excuse for the Bush administration to monitor Americans and stifle dissent more, don't kid yourselves. This aministration has been pissing on the constitution of our (once) great country ever since they gained power. I'm a proud American, but I haven't had a reason to be proud since this dickless wonder took office. The fact that he was re-elected by the supposed majority of my country gives me the creeps. Either these elections have been tampered with, or 51% of America is full of complete and total retards.
Libera, conservative.. it doesn't matter. GW Bush is the WORST f'n president in our history (and that includes Nixon!) and if this ***** tries to change the laws so that he can run for a third term, I will most definitely move out of this country. - TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9On the one hand, the Bush administration is trying to force Google to give up the privacy of its users.
On the other hand, Congress has been grilling Google, and other search companies, for violating human rights in China.
The double-standard that is going on between both the search engines and U.S. government is really pissing me off. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Seriously, are we all to be expected that the DOJ wants all this data from all these different companies to do some kind of statistical analysis about how hard it is to find child porn?
Any Statistician could tell you they could do that with their own searches, not to mention with all of the the "freebie" data they already got voluntarily for from AOL, MS and Yahoo and more.
So, what are they going to do will all this data? Are they going to purge it after they are finished with this little experiment? Yeah right...The NSA, CIA, FBI & DOJ is going to mine the ***** out of this data and combine it with other data they have. If you don't know the power of data-mining, you should research it. Walmart has so much customer information in their data-center it's mind-boggling (Google it). So is the government just trying to tap into a new source for data to mix in with all its other data sources? Is some of this information going to used to build profiles on people unrelated to their current little experiment (file & music sharers, political groups,political foes, Open Source"commies", legal porn etc...).
I also suspect that they are also trying to make Google trade secrets public, so as to punish Google for not being Bush Admin friendly, orj ust to get that information to other Bush administration friendly companies (Microsoft). - Kestral, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I noticed that a lot of people compare Bush to Hitler. I think that is highly inaccurate. Hitler at least won a few battles.
- Bethling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Umm.. I don't see how this is in any way related to the Bush Administration. Its the Justice Department asking for this information. That's the judicial branch of the government, not the executive."
The Justice Department is part of the executive branch. It's the department headed up by the Attorney General. He's part of the cabinet, and it is his department that is requesting the information. It's certainly is related to the Bush Administration. - manano, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Who says we can't do anything about the Bush admin until 2008? Has anyone heard of impeachment? Heck, Nixon was going to get impeached for a lot less than this.... It would be poetic justice for the California governator....
- Roguecop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What is:
The cost of doing business in China?
What is:
The value of doing business in China?
The answers being 'gov. dictated censorship', and 'very great indeed'
Neither Google nor any other American company will change China by playing the indignant American patriots but they would lose vast amounts of $$$ in the process.
China quite honestly no longer needs our $$$, the reverse ain't necessarily true is it?
'You want China money round eye hillbillies, you play by China rule.' - DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"useful evidence regarding child pornography."
And onec again this isn't a child pornography issue, it's children's access to pornography (aka government legislation of parental responsibility). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4>what about the 2006 elections?
>help eliminate the base on wich he stands VOTE
Unfortunately, I was in Iraq during the elections. Absentee ballots were not counted. My vote really didn't matter!
I agree with some of the other contents, Google just might be hiding something. But until something like that is proven, I applaud Google, and have sympathies for their stock. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2locojones,
There is NO investigation... This is purely a data fishing expedition on the Administrations part. Supposedly it's so they can try to convince congress revive legislation which already failed to pass. All of which could be done on their own with no information requests.
Evidently, the DOJ has adopted the Presidents strategy of acting like he's too stupid to know what he's doing, causing people to lower the bar on their expectations, and underestimate and the nature of his intentions.
DOJ to Google: Give us all your searches and every site you have indexed so we can see how easy it is to search for porn. We're not sure what we need, just give us all of it and we'll figure it out.
Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL: Here you go... Would you like some fries with that?
Google: No that's Google's private information and it's not necessary for you to have it to accomplish your goal. It would also violate our users privacy. If you would like to search google, please visit www.google.com. Have a nice day. - NickW0817, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'd rather let Google look at my stuff than the Bush administration.
- anjinash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I have never read such maroonic stuff in my life. a bunch of nerdy IT geeks talking about politics like they have a clue. All you know is that it's cool to hate the "Bush Administration" because the media tells you to... so much for free thinking. Go ahead, run with the herd you bunch of pathetic lieberal sheep. baaaa. baaaaaaaaaa."
Excuse me, but what the hell are you smoking? Whatever it is, I want some. The media tells us to hate Bush? Do you even WATCH the news? These ***** have been giving this administration a free pass for nearly 6 years now. If Clinton had done HALF the ***** that Bush is getting away with, the media would have crucified him. - mingistech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"The Justice Department is part of the executive branch. It's the department headed up by the Attorney General. He's part of the cabinet, and it is his department that is requesting the information. It's certainly is related to the Bush Administration."
you beat me to it. :)
it's funny how these FoxNews conservatives are spoon fed propaganda. - tonage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Americans are pacified by TV so they don't really care about issues like this.
Americans are the only ones pacified by TV? I don't think so. - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mr_cheese28,
If google wants to do business in China it has to adhere to Chinese laws. Google like many other companies have chosen to do business in China. End of story.
Doing business here in the U.S., it also have to adhere to U.S. laws. The Government's request unless otherwise ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be highly unconstitutional in more ways than one and therefore illegal. So google is just protecting it's own and its users rights. - D43PAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I won't touch Yahoo, AOL or Microsoft ever again.
If Google ever has to turn over it's information I'll never use on my personal PC either. - mentor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't get it. Why is Google in any way compelled to give this information? I thought that people were protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the constitution?
- Theodorant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"All you know is that it's cool to hate the "Bush Administration" because the media tells you to"
All the major news companies are owned by big businesses who have a vested intrest in keeping republicans in power so that they can get their tax breaks. They don't have to tell us how bad of a president he is. - Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Stick it to the man, Google. You're our hero!
Honestly, why the hell would the government want with the ENTIRE INDEX of URLS that Google has... Is it even possible to file through those URLs effectively? It could take years to look through even 1/100th of the total database... and within days it'd be outdated. - Aleks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's not forget that if the Administration gets a hold of google's data, they will not only get data from US Citizens but also from every other person in the world who uses google.
I think google should use its funds for a huge campaign against Big Brother - It's their right. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24answer2,
bush & crew may have stolen two elections but this will last 8 years from start to finish
after this America can start the recovery process - - ting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In distinction from other companies-whores like Yahoo which give up everything for instant and proper pay, Google is moved by ideas. Google went a long way and made a lot of sacrifices to achieve some specific tasks and accumulate a lot of resources which can bring them ... well, I'm not sure what exactly, but it'll be mixture of ultimate power, money etc. While others by accepting everything for a bucks lost their acceleration and it's only a matter of time for Google to bury them all.
So now they want Google's treasure, achieved with this discipline for free using preposterous motives. I'm not sure who really started this - Bush Administration or competitors. - TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Seems Google is doing the right thing by protecting their trade secrets and our privacy from big government conservatives and libertarians. Sooner or later, there may be a dept to harass successful companies on the behalf of other companies that lobby Congress. RIM had to shut down their Blackberry service and Microsoft announced thier own version of it. Seems that conservatives want a super-large government for those that can afford it aka small government. Next time guys, don't vote for Republicans, they only want to increase the national debt, invade our privacy, and give away welfare for corporations under the guise of small government. They really love large government for themselves and no one else.
And the porn law is just lame. Even if Google did turn over IPs and search terms, how can you know, or prove, that a 12 yeard old searched for "ayllison hannigan nude" instead of a 60 year old? - CoryTrevor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The Bush Administration should forget about this nonsense and focus on what's really important... tax cuts and eliminating the estate tax. We all know that Paris Hilton needs that money more that our country so lets help her out.... hurray for small government republicans.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1SyDIGG,
The DOJ is not acting independently from the White House.
There is NO a DOJ investigation, it's a fishing expedition... This is about trying to revive legislation that Bush wanted to pass, but did not make it through Congress.
You are very naive if you think the DOJ has no influence from the White House. - 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16Americans are pacified by TV so they don't really care about issues like this.
- GoaGloba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thumbs up to Google!
- dknighton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't think that Google should give up the information either, but their compromise in order to get their foot in the door in China reveals the true "two faces of Google." They thumb their collective noses at the Bush administration because it's the hip thing to do here in America, yet they happily agree to censor search results to please the communist Chines government.
You can toss around all the moral ideals you want, but in the end it's all about money. Those of you who think Google is any different are fooling yourselves. - Lite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2go google go!
- MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2its sad to see people STILL supporting our current president. I mean Dick did just shoot some guy. That only shows how ***** up our country is. The only reason why the government wants to get rid of porn is look who is running the country. I don'y mean to be offensive here, but its the right wing christians who want everything their way. This country was founded to keep that exact thing out of politics. So why should a president so heavely influenced, or so he says, by religion get to make laws? Simple. The majority of the population is right wing christian.
- jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2First, I don't buy this no child porn act, the administration is just using it as an excuse to get power.
Secondly I think information is traded through hidden photo networks using steganography, and it just so happens that taboo concepts like child porn are perfect places to hide the information, who would want to look there, unless they had too. It creates an immediate trust circle, and if one breaks the trust of the others, then Bamm, he, or she is brought up on charges.
The government should never have any more right to enter my digital life than it does my physical home without me knowing! - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what's left if Google does monitor everything we do? I think that's it as far as search engines go...
Now I can't look up my kiddie po.... I mean information about my weapons of mass des... I mean find my terrorist training websi..... I mean... uh... what's the Internet supposed to be used for again? - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12008 is the presidential election, BTW, and regardless of how his base is doing, he's still going to be president in 2006.
- gamekid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Umm.. I don't see how this is in any way related to the Bush Administration. Its the Justice Department asking for this information. That's the judicial branch of the government, not the executive."
Guess who appoints the judges. - aubray1741, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2``The very fact that the Government is so uninformed about the value of search and URL information and so dismissive of Google's interest in protecting it speaks volumes about why the Court should protect Google from this compelled disclosure,'' the company wrote.
Owned. - slamm6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The media didn't tell me to hate Bush.
I came by it honestly after he invaded Iraq on trumped up charges.
It's the same approach the current administration is using to poke, prod, squeeze, tred upon and mangle our own precious civil liberties. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
And if they keep the majority in 2006 and another "born again" gets to power in 2008, you'll see the landslide continue. Just keep watching NASCAR and you probably won't notice it, though. - happbando, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1as if i would ever have touched yahoo, aol or microsoft's products anyway. go google!
- pestilence30, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google is definately the only search engine i will use again. Soon our government will know everything about us anyway. Or just make up a law to get what they want. Take the Patriot Act for instance.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1locojones,
My beef is not with individial employees of the DOJ who are doing their jobs, they take their orders from the top, Alberto Gonzalez is a Bush crony and he is the one giving orders at the DOJ.
AND NO it is not an investigation, no matter how you spin it. If it was they would be very limited in the scope of information they are seeking. Notice they didn't ask for all the porn seaches in a two month period??? that's because they wan't more than just porn searches. They are testing the water to see how much access they can get to information like this with little to no legal standing.
Plain and simple DOJ has no reason to know what internet users are searching for... They can search for porn and see what they find themselves.
This ***** argument you are giving that it doesn't violate the privacy of google users' is stupid. People search for themselves, for family, for friends & for employees, for prospective empoyees and for strangers by name, address, phone number, email address interests and many, many other ways that may be personal and identifiable. You can't tell me that that isn't privacy issue. None of that information I cited is "relevant" to this inquiry. Yet the DOJ wants ALL of it, and 2 moths if google searches is HUGE.
We do not know what exactly the DOJ will do with this information , but we can be sure that they will not purge it... All of this data can be mined and combined with other data to extract more and more detailed and specific information. - gamekid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Shouldn't google be complying with local laws and handing over the data?"
You forgot the <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags. - smartalecks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love Google so much more now. :)
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>You can look at it that way. Or you can look at it as google being a part of the chinese authoritarians' plan
>to shape public opinion through censorship.
the thing that you aren't considering is that google isn't the chinese government and with internet and google [in its present good guy status... wait till the public company google settles in and we'll see] is that its a foot hold and genie that they can't put back in the bottle. it will open china more than close it. bet. - Aeiri, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>Please start a Tor server (tor.eff.org! I mean it! We're getting so much throughput from the Chinese that it's lagging the network to no end!
I like the idea of Tor, but I'm starting to not like its implementation...
I've heard increasing reports of people setting up Tor servers and using packet sniffers to store usernames and passwords going out of the system...
If only there were a way to fix that! ..Although, I know there isn't... :( - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0gunsablazin -
"If this information is not useful, WTF do they want it? Think about it."
The inquiry is not whether it is "useful," but rather is it "relevant." Please take a class in the Federak Rules of Evidence before speaking up. A piece of evidence is relevant is it tends to make the existence of a fact of consequence more or less likely than it would be without the evidence.
Here, the Department of Justice wants access to Google's search queries and its URL database because it's relevant to their investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether technological filters are doing an adequate job in preventing underage access to pornography online. In order to determine this, then access to the world's largest search engine is both sufficient and necessary. And if the discovery requests show certain patterns of inquiries that show that minors are indeed accessing pornography through the search engine, then that tends to prove that the legislation is necessary. It may also show the contrary. But regardless, the information is relevant.
Now, I am not saying the Department of Justice is justified in a mere fishing expedition. But just because the previous Google is involved doesn't allow them to thumb their nose at the legal system. If all the DOJ wants is bare access to search queries and a list of websites, I have no problem with it.
However, I suspect the resistance on behalf of Google is that it will be discovered that there are coorelations within the information sought to personally identifiable user information, which they don't want the public to know.
In my opinion, the only way the discovery request would produce anything usable by the DOJ was if the search results could be tied to identified, underage users. Otherwise, a plain list of search queries without accompanying user demographics, even if they were for pornography, wouldn't seem to produce any useful correlations in this context. Afterall, how can one make an argument that, despite the presence of technological filters, children are still accessing pornography online if all you have is a list of how many times Britney Spears was searched for in a two month period? - jbus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ fsjonsey:
Sorry, I don't fit into your pejorative "liberal" label. I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on some and middle of the road on others. But I guess your type defines anyone that is not kissing Bush's ass as a "liberal", so none of that doesn't matter to you anyway.
AND FYI I was referring to YOUR idea of a conservative, not mine. The rest of us call them for what they are: Bush Loyalists. Up, down, left, right, right, wrong... It doesn't matter, they love that Bush.
By your self description I can certainly seen why you would be so in love with this administration. They represent atheists with gay friends that don't approve of Southern politics EXTREMELY well. Kudos to you... You certainly know how to chose a party and President that represents you very well. -
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is