Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Feds Demand Google Search Records

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Aww crap, politics again.
    "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by theprez98
      Aww crap, politics again.
      while your trepidation or frustration with this theme may be warranted due to how some people behave on a topic like this, i have to be honest about the fact that it irritates me to no end that we have to walk on eggshells around here when someone sails their ship close to "political" waters.

      want to ban discussion of religion? whatever, i don't see the sense of prohibiting any meaningful discussion, really... but i understand the logic and reasonging behind that. there is a tradeoff that is considered... the potential for flame wars to break out (probably more likely that we'd care to admit) is weighed against the relative usefulness and value that a religion discussion could have for this community (a rather limited value, i'd assert... since religion and technology matters are quite unrelated)

      however, that same opportunity cost equasion shakes out quite differently if applied to the realm of politics. first of all, political matters have a much wider spectrum of coverage. whereas discussions of religion often compare the beliefs of one group of individuals with the beliefs of another group, political discussions are much more multi-faceted. there can be traditional left/right debates (a political model that is getting more and more outmoded everyday) or there can be discussions of individuals' interaction with the power structure. there can be discussions of how world leaders and governments implement policy and legislation... all of which bears on matters like encryption, DRM, intellectual property, copyright, code export, etc etc etc.

      to use the term "politics" as a single wide brush is to discount the wide array of sub-topics that can fall under this general heading. while it is true that discussions along the lines of...

      alice: george bush is a fuckwad
      bob: no he's not, you're just lame
      alice: you suck
      bob: fuck you

      ... don't lead anywhere and are a nuisance on most forums, discussions like the one in this thread are (a) incredibly meaningful and relevant to our community (b) highly unlikely to devolve into faction debates and (c) tremendously important to how our country and our world will develop in the future.

      if we keep the rule of "no religion and no politics" in place, can we at least clarify it as "no party politics" or "no flamewar polticial nonsense which doesn't bear directly on the hacking community" instead of the blanket notion that anything remotely related to governments and world affairs is taboo and unworthy of our attention? the mods here have shown themselves quite capable of discerning when participants in a thread are engaging in meaningful discussion and debate versus when people are just being fucktards.
      Last edited by Deviant Ollam; January 24, 2006, 09:13.
      "I'll admit I had an OiNK account and frequented it quite often… What made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store… iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc... OiNK it existed because it filled a void of what people want."
      - Trent Reznor

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by grimnocturnal
        Thats Bush for you.
        Now this is "too" politicial. (It is not the only example in this thread.) There is a suggestion in the above that a political figure is better/worse than the rest of the population and that has become "the norm" of what is expected.

        This thread started out as a news story on laws, and google being asked to hand over private information about how its customers use their services. Some discussion was offered as to why this happens and the problems created for users. On topic? Hackers do use google. In this way, this story is of interest to hackers. This part of the discussion has generally been tolerated, and (IMO) of interest to DefCon people.

        Complaining about leaders, and/or politicial parties, or agendas of specific leaders or parties are "too political." Calling people to action is too political. Asking people to vote one way or another is too political. Attacking other posters for thier views is also too political, and then the person attacking and their target may suffer.

        You want to discuss how this may impact future use of google, if google gives in? That might work. Maybe guess how profitability of google could be an issue based on their decisions? That might work too. Perhaps even a discussion of how to "hack" and obfuscate your searches so as to not appear to be searching for what you really want. However, complaining about leaders, or parties risks dissention within our ranks, and more off-topic discussion.

        Remember, there are two big things to consider when posting politically related topics to the forum:
        1) Is this something that is on-topic for the people who attend DefCon?
        2) Is this "too political" ?
        If you don't know for sure, then don't do it.

        Facts are usually safe, opinions are risky, and condemnation or praise for parties or leaders are likely too political.

        Remember, all it takes is one mod to decide a thread is too political, and to close it and/or warn/ban users; It's not like mods get together to decide what to do with a thread; each mod moderates according to their own ideas on what is acceptable and what is not.

        Comment


        • #34
          Understood.
          A Signature

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
            while your trepidation or frustration with this theme may be warranted due to how some people behave on a topic like this, i have to be honest about the fact that it irritates me to no end that we have to walk on eggshells around here when someone sails their ship close to "political" waters.
            Deviant,

            First let me apologize to you for perhaps running you a bit astray.

            I was a political science major, I have been involved in politics and political campaigns since before I could vote. It is my first love.

            I also have a habit of saying things tongue in cheek without realizing that the receiver may not understand my goal. My comment was a "roll my eyes/not this again" reaction with a bit of irony that clearly did not get transmitted (duh, me).

            I am not suggesting that we can never talk about politics or religion. Besides, we cannot really have a good discussion about virtually any issue without delving at least a little bit into politics.

            The problem, as you noted, is the meaningless bashing that every issue seems to lead toward. It seems to me as if the moderators have been pretty good about keeping threads on topic, and keeping the (Bush, or whatever) bashing out.

            As you and I both know, politics can be intelligently discussed without party banners and name-calling. If we can keep it at that level, I'm all for it.
            "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by theprez98
              First let me apologize to you for perhaps running you a bit astray.
              no apology necessary, my good man... i was making more of a general comment than one directed at your remark. i see how it could have sounded like that, tho.

              Originally posted by theprez98
              I was a political science major, I have been involved in politics and political campaigns since before I could vote. It is my first love.
              sweet.

              Originally posted by theprez98
              As you and I both know, politics can be intelligently discussed without party banners and name-calling. If we can keep it at that level, I'm all for it.
              as am i. i'll keep playing by the rules so as not to make life difficult for the mods, etc... but i will also continue to be very vocal about my dissapointment over our lack of a tinderbox type forum within /dev/nul where we could all speak our minds without watching what we say.
              "I'll admit I had an OiNK account and frequented it quite often… What made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store… iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc... OiNK it existed because it filled a void of what people want."
              - Trent Reznor

              Comment


              • #37
                The information that the government is requesting is already compiled. I can't understand why they would need to do an independant study. Just another waste of taxpayer money IMHO.

                http://searchenginewatch.com/facts/article.php/2156041

                If all they want is to know the top search terms they can Google it....
                I enjoy talking to myself...it's usually the only intelligent conversations I get to have.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Floydr47
                  The information that the government is requesting is already compiled. I can't understand why they would need to do an independant study. Just another waste of taxpayer money IMHO.

                  http://searchenginewatch.com/facts/article.php/2156041

                  If all they want is to know the top search terms they can Google it....
                  Google certainly modifies the data. Case in point:

                  I have a difficult time believing that "joe pichler" is the top Google search for the Week Ending January 16, 2006. I didn't even know who Joe Pichler was until I actually Googled it. Some random kid actor. #1 search? Whatever.

                  Perhaps Google Zeitgeist perpetuates itself by further entrenching search queries simply by linking searches to their list.
                  "\x74\x68\x65\x70\x72\x65\x7a\x39\x38";

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X