What is Digg?127 Comments
- SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11thats funny, the government also declined my request that they disband.
- macewan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11someone give that ***** a blowjob so we can impeach him
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning."
-George Orwell
Leave it to Bush and Co. to pull this ***** to attempt to revive a law that's already been ruled unconstitutional. - ryogahibiki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Impeach Bush!
- aburd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This story is pretty crappy and so is the write up. The DOJ didn't turn down google's motion. The DOJ filed an arguement against google's motion. The judge will eventually decide which arguement wins. And the story doesn't even mention that google's motion has more than one reservation (the privacy one).
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5umm, this still has to go before the judge. Misleading title.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Why doesn't the gov't just search for "porn" and see what pops up? ;-)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's a sad day when you have to petition the government on a per-case basis to ask for privacy. All of those who say "privacy is NOT a right" are clearly correct. It's a high honor and privelige bestowed by the courts and administrations.
- AHIGHERGOD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
- MikeKnoop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm more interested in what the government defines as 'young'. I'm 16 and can tell you that I have plenty of maturaty to handle anything the web can throw at me. That's not to say all can. For example, M rated games. I can tell you I'm well aware of what it contains, but I'm also aware of the counter arguments against it. Why should I be restricted in purchasing such materials?
-Mike - drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"The 18-page brief filed Friday argues that because the information provided would not identify or be traceable to specific users, privacy rights would not be violated." -Article
Aparently the RIAA can do it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah, we'll need to check inside your house so we can "better identify the hazards of online websites that young users might be exposed to." Brought to you by the fraudsters that sold a war on WMD snake oil.
- eccramer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thank god for Tor.
- silentvirus, on 10/25/2008, -0/+3why could they not search stuff on google themselves and look at the results if thats what the point of it is?
- ziffel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I request Bush's impeachment.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8shut down myspace
- elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Let me share an observation. Any time someone says they're doing something for the children, they're lying: they're doing it for their own self-interest.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Privacy is such an antiquated concept in Bush's America..." (kin242)
...unless you're bush and company, then you can have all the privacy you want and then some. - siestaguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3OK, if "the government hopes to prove Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography and other inappropriate material online" wouldn't they need to identify whether those accessing this stuff are minor or adults? Oh, wait, I get it now - the right wing conservatives really just want to use this as their rationale for eliminating anyone's access to it (that pesky Constitution keeps getting in the way, doesn't it).
- Snarfy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Everyone saying 'shutdown myspace' is an idiot. Shutting down myspace would stop nothing and only promote censorship and the further erosion of our rights.
Where are the parents when their children are signing up to myspace.com? Couldn't the children just as easily be signing up to something like bangbus.com or stileproject.com? Without parental supervision, they sure can. - rickst13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2FTA: "By showing the wide variety of Web sites that people find through search engines, the government hopes to prove Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography and other inappropriate material online."
Of course they aren't. How about we look and see if things such as seeing nudity are actually bad for children. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"A hearing is scheduled before U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Jose March 13."
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>> What I fail to grasp is why the DOJ can't just _use_ Google to find this information..
First, someone has to teach them HOW. - burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.google.com/search?q=The+US+Government+should+leave+Google+alone
Click as many times as you mean it ;) - sporkman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3quick, everyone start searching for "how to build a bomb" and "kill George bush" and "disband the US government" and various "unpatriotic" things.
- koberman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google is fighting the DoJ in court over their subpoena- the fact that the DoJ filed a brief in court is not news. the trial goes on.
- Mysidia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hm.. what about Google's own privacy?
Specifically: its right to protect proprietary information from leakage, including: what kind of things people search for, what kind of results it gives for popular searches.
It's one thing if people research Google results using publicly available information, but it's totally inappropriate for Google to have to release information, that may ultimately be used to the benefit its competitors in some manner, or may otherwise be used in a way that hurts Google.
What kind of things people search for in general (as opposed to just top-10 lists which provide little information) is information that is incredibly valuable, just for marketing and advertising purposes.
It seems totally bogus that Google should have to give up its privacy and release general information that is not needed for any investigation, whereas Google is perfectly justified in rejecting the request for information.
Just because you're a politician, or a researcher, and you work for the government, doesn't mean you get a blank cheque to demand any data you want.
How about subpoenaing Coca-Cola for their secret formula and Vending machines for average purchases
of certain products, out of concerns related to health legislation? - jramos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From TFA: "The department believes the information will help revive an online child protection law that has been blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. By showing the wide variety of Web sites that people find through search engines, the government hopes to prove Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography and other inappropriate material online."
What I fail to grasp is why the DOJ can't just _use_ Google to find this information... - jahutch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Geez a lot of you people are idiots.
(1) Learn a little about how government structure works. The Department of Justice (DoJ) is an EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT. The president is the chief executive - that is, head of the executive branch. The Attorney General, who is head of the DoJ, is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the president. So yes, DoJ is "under the control of Bush." That said, no president is likely to have day to day involvement in minor matters, which in the grand scheme of things, this is.
(2) One of DoJ's jobs is to argue the constitutionality of bills passed by Congress. That is, when someone challenges a law, its DoJ's job to defend it.
(3) DoJ is not being political, they are responding to the COURT OPINION that struck down the law. From what I know of the case, the Supreme Court basically said, "there isn't enough evidence filters aren't working so we are striking the law down." Implicit in this decision is the idea, if and when you have such evidence, we may go a different route. This law wasn't passed by George Bush, it was passed by CONGRESS, and DoJ is simply trying to find additional evidence to support it, per the Court's suggestion. DoJ's motivation is not suspect. They are not seeking "new power." They are using the good old fashioned subpoena power.
(4) That said, PERSONALLY, I feel that Google is in the right here - but the Judge will be the final decision on that front.
(5) Keep you ***** political views out of this. Not everyone in this forum is a flaming liberal with nothing better to do than stare at porn and rail against Bush all day. If you have better ideas, by all means, share them, but "Bush sucks" is not an idea or a policy, its just drivel. Reducing the democratic party to "Bush sucks" is precisely the reason they get beaten in elections. In any case, this is a technology web site and hearing ignorant people's political ***** becomes annoying very quickly. - birdadderley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Anotherwards"... ... ... . . ."Anotherwards".... . . . are you f***ing kidding me?
- xodex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think if google wants to keep the privacy they need to start advertising what the gov wants to take, it might not help legally but it could put alot of pressure media wise, maybe even get people to parade around TV with signs in front of places.
I'm sure with all that billions of wasted money spent on things like AOL :p they could at least put a couple million to show ad's on TV, on the news.
The infomercial would have to be very direct and insulting to the government, why they want it, how google doubts that they will use it like they say they will, OH and just to make it profitable... Tell the viewers that MSN, Yahoo, AOL, Have already turned in this information willing fully, Well we here at google respect your right to privacy... Stand up with us! the whole nine yards.... - Mysidia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's impsosible that they remove identifying information from all data without going through the list of searches by hand and manually editing some of the data.
Simply because, sometimes people type something in the search box that in some way identifies them or can directly be connected to the searcher.
An example would be a case where someone searched for their own name and included possibly some other keyword.
The privacy that would be compromised by revealing the data
(1) Their use of google or that someone who knows of them searched google
(2) A linkage between name and the additional keyword(s) - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"if you don't have it downloaded, installed, and running, you have little or no right to complain about privacy. there are steps to take to remain almost completely anonymous on the web, and if you choose not to take them, it's your fault. if you DO have Tor running, you aren't complaining about privacy :)
idiot: "i bought one of those 'DOOR' things from XYZ Door Company.. i left it open and now i'm at risk! it's XYZ's fault! sue them!"
response: "umm... maybe you should go to ABC Lock Company and put a lock on it. then close and lock your door.""
While I do agree about tor, and applaud your diligence, I must disagree on about the right to complain and your comparison.
Let's say I have a door without a lock and someone steals my TV. Granted I should have had a lock, but they still committed a crime. What if I had a lock, but they broke in the window? Was is my fault for not having bars on my windows?
I don't surf anonymously. I don't feel the need, I don't don't search for anything illegal. And if I did, I was committing a crime. But the government should not be monitoring my activity regardless. Sure, if I was accused of a crime and there was sufficient evidence to obtain a warrant monitor then that is a different story.
In addition to what I believe is a violation of my 4th amendment rights, I think it is a stupid waste of time, effort and expense. The government already has proven that they cannot make accurate use of intelligence they have, simply collecting more without good reason or direction is just spinning wheels.
So I will complain, and not sit idly by and watch my rights be eroded and tax dollars wasted, regardless of the protections I choose or choose not to put on my computer. - smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"@Smhill
"In addition to what I believe is a violation of my 4th amendment rights...."
Would you care to explain how a subpoena for Google's search results constitutes an unreasonable seach and seizure of YOUR person or property? That's right, you can't, because your person or property isn't involved. If the search queries belong to anyone, they belong to Google. You wouldn't even have standing to challenge this in court."
Umm... I never said it was. I was responding to the larger issue of tracking individuals activities, not the google case. My response was to the issues brought up in the post that I quoted. That is why I quoted it. Did you see anywhere that I mentioned google? I realize it is fun to take a single line out of context and rant, but It is important read completely and comprehend first. It might prevent you from looking like a fool in the future.
As to the google issue. They (Google) may be able to make a claim along those lines. Unless specific crimes or potential crimes are being investigated, blanket investigations are exactly why the 4th amendment is there. I applaud their stance on the issue. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0LOL, I love getting modded down by bush-worshipping chimpophiles. more, more!! We all know they can't handle it when anyone, including google, stands up and puts their monkey god in its proper place.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How 'bout everyone starts using the search string:
"The US Government should leave Google alone"
or
"Google searchers have a right to privacy" - josuemedia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@duch - Dude, its what i've been saying so about the US govern. what right do they have over all of Google's index records that involve everyone in the world and not just the US only.
Question for you diggers ... I have not read fully Google's EULA and have nothing to hide but can anyone tell me, if i erase all of my Google Search History, does Google keep a backup record my data and if so for how long? - Yanks2435, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Atleast Google has the balls to fight their records being released, unlike Yahoo.
- TuxFan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What I would like to know is how can they determine the age of a person by their IP address. Seems like another excuse to spy on people and ID dissenters.
And for the losers that still support Bush, I can't wait till Hillary Clinton gets into office with these new powers. Hahahahahaha!! - CoolSilver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Pulling out the "Protecting out Youth" card.
No better than the maniacs that want to take all digital freedom. - interglenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree oxuultae. Happiness is not all freedoms removed for the sake of saftey.
I want to feel safe, but I go outside
I want a safe community, but I want a healthy one with room to grow.
Glenn - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0burke said:
http://www.google.com/search?q=The+US+Government+should+leave+Google+alone
Click as many times as you mean it ;)
=======
Thanks for taking it a step further. :) - duch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People who live in the United States arent the only people who use google. What gives the US government the right for google's data of what gets googled by everybody in the world that uses it?
Also how do they know if its a 14 year old boy who is googling for porn or if ita a 40 year old man?
If kids want to find it, they will. - Chas555, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If the government wants these files let them HIRE ACLU to look them over for them.
That way we would be insured our privacy. - halogenandtoast, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0SO I've got this great idea for a website. It's a google interface in which I dump the logs of searches every hour in order to mask IP addresses.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They should hand over the search records.
All of them.
One per page.
In the order that they happened.
"Sorry, we don't keep electronic versions, these are the archives."
:) - locojones, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Waterdragon
"What if certain people in that government want to remove their own search tracks...so naturally they have to try to get google's records, to destroy evidence pointing to themselves!"
That may be the dumbest comment I've seen all day. You're obviously correct. Google will turn over the one and only copy of their search databases to the government, so the big baddies there can alter URL results, and then give the modified database back to Google. Why, oh why, didn't I see that coming!??!
Your's is a much simpler explanation than, say, turning over a COPY. - MalDON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@sk545
Well put. I'm 17 and I think all this age restriction is a bunch of bs. My dad when I was 11 sat me down and gave me the talk, and showed me female pics even though I had already seen them (come on, who hasn't?). I simply haven't the need to use Google of all places to find porn, besides, searching for porn gives you nothing but pay sites. - TheNik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Google, whether it helps their statistics or not, shouldn't log search terms.
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the article says the DoJ filed a brief. the DoJ filed the original subpoena, too. the court, however, has made no decision - so nothing has changed, and nothing has been declined.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 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