Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Feds Demand Google Search Records

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

  • theprez98
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Floydr47
    replied
    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....

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • theprez98
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • grimnocturnal
    replied
    Understood.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheCotMan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • theprez98
    replied
    Aww crap, politics again.

    Leave a comment:


  • grimnocturnal
    replied
    Thats Bush for you.

    I agree whit GBHis on the opinion that like most governments (and for that anyone with power) the states want control and by finding out what we search for by ordering google to handover millions of searchs they are just going one step further towards crossing "the line"

    Leave a comment:


  • Xodia
    replied
    Originally posted by Deviant Ollam
    personally, i am unbelievably fed up with our corporations and our government taking the nation of china out for an ice cream cone every fucking afternoon simply because they're the largest emerging market on the horizon. yes, i understand that we want their citizens as conumers for our goods (and if we piss off the totalitarian overlords they'll erect artificial economic barriers) but i'd love to simply counter their stubbornness with the power of the marketplace. there is unbelievable demand for american (and western in general) culture and what we produce over there. if i were in control of this crazy ship called the united states i'd pull us out of the WTO, say to hell with phony-baloney rules and restrictions that were negotiated at the tip of a bayonet, and create a cabinet-level position... Secretary of Smuggling. we'd find hundreds of ways to get what we want into nations like china and still turn a profit. and if they get sick of missing out on tax revenues, etc... we smack them with a list of human rights abuses.
    I totally agree. Still though, China was following one crime (stupid or not) with a very defined cause. That makes it at least justified to some extent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    Originally posted by Xodia
    When using information to track down a specific individual who is suspected of a crime in a very specific area I find it acceptable to demand records from search engines.
    i would agree if it was something like a matter of domestic terrorism and the authorities were trying to located someone who searched for "fertilizer bomb making" or something. the "crimes" in these chinese incidents, however, were merely ones of dissent and publishing against the state's will. i find it repugnant that search engines would have complied with this.

    personally, i am unbelievably fed up with our corporations and our government taking the nation of china out for an ice cream cone every fucking afternoon simply because they're the largest emerging market on the horizon. yes, i understand that we want their citizens as conumers for our goods (and if we piss off the totalitarian overlords they'll erect artificial economic barriers) but i'd love to simply counter their stubbornness with the power of the marketplace. there is unbelievable demand for american (and western in general) culture and what we produce over there. if i were in control of this crazy ship called the united states i'd pull us out of the WTO, say to hell with phony-baloney rules and restrictions that were negotiated at the tip of a bayonet, and create a cabinet-level position... Secretary of Smuggling. we'd find hundreds of ways to get what we want into nations like china and still turn a profit. and if they get sick of missing out on tax revenues, etc... we smack them with a list of human rights abuses.

    "clean up your act and we'll play by your trade rules" should be the name of the game. until then, your citizens get what they want, we get what we want, and your economy will scream and bleed to death on a world stage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xodia
    replied
    This is not the first time that Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft have readily complied with a government's demands. The Economist reported that the Chinese government requested and received from Yahoo Inc. the information needed to track down the identity of a Chinese internet user, Shi Tao. He was arrested in late 2004 and sentenced to ten years in prison on charges of revealing secrets by email. Microsoft shut down a blog on its MSN service earlier this month at the request of the Chinese government. The blog was hosted by a vocal Chinese dissident, Zhao Jing.
    That doesn't bother me nearly as much. When using information to track down a specific individual who is suspected of a crime in a very specific area I find it acceptable to demand records from search engines. Making a very general statement ("We need to find out who is searching for content harmful to minors") it is unacceptable.
    As Ck3k said, alot of people would find religious sites harmful. For me to have any chance of supporting this they would have to nail down EXACTLY what they are looking for. Of course, that would eliminate their opportunity to spy on people. :)

    Leave a comment:


  • Deviant Ollam
    replied
    just found out these follow-up details. (is anyone surprised that these facts weren't reported in the MSNBC article)...

    Google's competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo Inc. have already complied with the Justice Department's request. Both Microsoft and Yahoo Inc. agreed to hand over the data because there was no "personal information involved" and complied on a "limited basis."

    This is not the first time that Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft have readily complied with a government's demands. The Economist reported that the Chinese government requested and received from Yahoo Inc. the information needed to track down the identity of a Chinese internet user, Shi Tao. He was arrested in late 2004 and sentenced to ten years in prison on charges of revealing secrets by email. Microsoft shut down a blog on its MSN service earlier this month at the request of the Chinese government. The blog was hosted by a vocal Chinese dissident, Zhao Jing.
    damn, i'm upset that SeaLand shut down their hosting. i look forward to the day when space travel is so cheap and easy that hosting companies start putting their rack systems on orbiting satellites, out of reach of any jurisdiction. (of course, by then our psychotic government will have fully militarized space and will just indescriminately blast anything out of the sky that irritates it.)

    Leave a comment:


  • theprez98
    replied
    Originally posted by Xodia
    Politics and Religion are not good bedfellows with this forum.
    It's also an easy way to run afoul of the rules.

    Leave a comment:


  • Xodia
    replied
    Originally posted by GBHis
    For the freedom and privacy of the Public: Discuss!!
    -GBHis
    Ok, when I started the thread I wanted this to stay on the issue of privacy in general. Not politics as much. Its going to the right way for the most part, but make sure it stays focused.

    Politics and Religion are not good bedfellows with this forum.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X