Bush administration wants Google records of what users search for

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
It's not about pornography like they claim. It's about absolute and total control. America's 230 years of civil liberties are being eliminated over the past 5 years. Impeach the chimp NOW.

Feds seek Google records in pornography probe
Bush administration wants details of what users look for with search engine

Updated: 11:32 a.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006
SAN JOSE, Calif. - The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google’s practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.

Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company’s privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government’s efforts “vigorously.”

“Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,” Wong said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/

This should frighten everyone here. If it doesn't, then read up on your Constitution.
 
Dammit, I saw the thread title and was prepared to make a joke about the government getting truckloads of google results slightly less substantive than "Jennifer Lopez fistfuck." As it turns out, it wouldn't be a funny response, but rather a relevant one.

fuck them for killing my joke dead.
 
Ha! That's why I use Dogpile.

Seriously, this is less about privacy fears, and more about the fate of the sadsack interns who will waste countless hours looking for jack in piles of internet jism.
 
[quote name='vherub']Ha! That's why I use Dogpile.[/QUOTE]

Why? Because they won't stand up and fight for your right to privacy, and instead will hand it right on over to the government when asked like good little Big Brother assistants? Although this report doesn't mention it, other stories on this article say that the government claims that other search engines have complied and handed over the information requested. As far as you know, Dogpile already sold you up the river.

The only reason that we even know what's going on is because Google has stood up for our rights (and they'll probably have to spend a lot of money on lawyers to defend their position.) They deserve praise for their actions.
 
I think good 'ol GW is looking out for himself. Just do a google search for 'miserable failure' and you'll see why Dubya is gunnin for Google ;)
 
i find this topic ironic with the ad at the bottom of the page. Here it is incase it changes

irony0gl.jpg



I know the Republican party likes to pretend to be prudish and such but cant they just leave one thing they are "morally" against alone.
 
You're all communists, fascists and traitors for suggesting that our Glorious Leader(TM) has anything but our best interests at heart. If you were less determined to destroy the moral fabric of this country with your country music and your illegal prescription drugs, you might realise how dangerous pornography and those Internets can be!

But you're too busy pitchforking your aborted fetuses into trucks driven by undocumented Mexican'ts, not even noticing the horns and cloven hooves you're sprouting while listing to Air America and nodding to everything the bloated fat fuck has to say.

Either all that, or it's just not that big a deal for them to ask for search records, it's not like there is personal information there, and I truly believe that they're just trying to push this ridiculous "no pornography" agenda.
 
I FULLY expect Google to sell us out considering this is the company that wouldn't comment when questioned about the nature of their relationship with the government. I trust Google about as far as I can throw them. Seriously they don't give a fuck about us, they're probably selling us out right now yet people act like they're the next sliced bread.
 
Both parties claim to be against big government interference in the lives of individuals, yet both parties do shit like this. You party-line voters are hypocrites.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Both parties claim to be against big government interference in the lives of individuals, yet both parties do shit like this. You party-line voters are hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

Tell me why a far left (in the u.s. anyway) voter would ever vote republican? A vote for the green party benefits the end result as much as if I had stayed home or gone out for a beer. The greatest good comes from showing up and voting for the party most likely to get results I want. Greens don't have the power to do it and, if any liberal 3rd party gained strength, they would fracture the left leading to cakewalks for republicans across the board. They'd also force the democrats to move left (away from swing voters) to hold onto the more liberals parts of the party.

I do what I think is right, and I believe in certain goals because they will (hopefully) have a good result. If the methods cannot accomplish those goals then the methods need to change. Voting, or supporting, a party that I am more ideologically similar with will not have as much of a benefit as voting for the democrats. Its an odd thing to say, but voting my conscience here (ie. the party I agree with most) would require me to vote against my conscience (ie. working for the best result).
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Tell me why a far left (in the u.s. anyway) voter would ever vote republican? A vote for the green party benefits the end result as much as if I had stayed home or gone out for a beer. The greatest good comes from showing up and voting for the party most likely to get results I want. Greens don't have the power to do it and, if any liberal 3rd party gained strength, they would fracture the left leading to cakewalks for republicans across the board. They'd also force the democrats to move left (away from swing voters) to hold onto the more liberals parts of the party.

I do what I think is right, and I believe in certain goals because they will (hopefully) have a good result. If the methods cannot accomplish those goals then the methods need to change. Voting, or supporting, a party that I am more ideologically similar with will not have as much of a benefit as voting for the democrats. Its an odd thing to say, but voting my conscience here (ie. the party I agree with most) would require me to vote against my conscience (ie. working for the best result).[/QUOTE]

If your voting your conscience includes voting for one of the corrupt and self-serving two main parties in this country, by all means vote for them. I think it's a well-established fact that most people only vote for them because they believe they are the only two reasonable choices. The sad reality is until people wake up and start to seek another choice beyond the severely flawed and markedly corrupt two-party system, all we'll ever get is the lesser of two evils, something we've talked about before on this very board.

I think in the end you (and most people) take a very short-term view of politics, while I think the long-term outlook is much, much more important and worthy of attention. But as we undoubtedly all know, the long-term outlook is not very popular in politics because it suggests a responsible course of action to reach a desirable goal rather than a better-but-still-bad fiasco.
 
el, what overriding good is going to be done by giving up the next few decades to your political opponent? The environment is a particular issue that the next few decades are crucial. And if we have a 3rd party then what? One of the main parties becomes unelectable due to the fracture of that political side (liberal or conservative). To have multiple electable parties the system itself has to be changed. When the system can accomodate a change then fine, but it seems little more than idealistic hope right now, one that will just harm things and, in most likely, change nothing except which of the major 2 win. Even one of the most well known far left liberals, chomsky, advocates voting democrat when elections are close and supporting 3rd parties when republicans cannot win anyway.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']el, what overriding good is going to be done by giving up the next few decades to your political opponent? The environment is a particular issue that the next few decades are crucial. And if we have a 3rd party then what? One of the main parties becomes unelectable due to the fracture of that political side (liberal or conservative). To have multiple electable parties the system itself has to be changed. When the system can accomodate a change then fine, but it seems little more than idealistic hope right now, one that will just harm things and, in most likely, change nothing except which of the major 2 win. Even one of the most well known far left liberals, chomsky, advocates voting democrat when elections are close and supporting 3rd parties when republicans cannot win anyway.[/QUOTE]

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that when you always vote for one of two choices, one of those two choices will always win. I don't know what else to say about that. And you assume another choice has to arise out of the far left or far right, while I feel it is more likely that another choice will arise out of the forgotten middle.
 
That can be said of everything. Some things can be changed and are worth actively striving for, somethings can be changed but are not worth actively working for due to all the problems that will arise from it, and some things cannot be changed until something else is changed first. For me, this is a combination of the last 2. If the system changes, then it may be worth working for.

But for me, a group left of democrats will get my vote on pure ideological grounds. Can they ever win? Without changing the way our system is set up, can that ever benefit things? And what benefit, to me, is there if a moderate group takes elections away from democrats?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']And what benefit, to me, is there if a moderate group takes elections away from democrats?[/QUOTE]

More reasonable policies? But perhaps not a benefit to you per se ;)
 
And you two arguing about this reminds me of how completely valid runoff voting is and WHY we need it and need to force both parties to institute it.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']And you two arguing about this reminds me of how completely valid runoff voting is and WHY we need it and need to force both parties to institute it.[/QUOTE]

It definitely would be an improvement over the current system because it would allow people like alonzo to vote for someone they truly supported the first time around instead of just the lesser of two evils, and then if he had to he could switch to the Democrat. That way more people might be willing to vote outside the two-party duopoly and therefore have better long-term political choices in the end.
 
I think that I want to send a form letter to the White House documenting what I've been searching for.

Dear Mr. President,

blah blah blah blah blah (that part needs some work). So, to help satisfy your interest in what people search for on the internet, I hereby voluntarily submit many of my recent google searches.

Mega Man X Collection
Lily 2005 Pinot Noir
effete
Samuel Adams Chocolate Bock
St. Fuellien Brune
Alice White 2005 Chardonnay
Coffee Roaster
Mortal Kombat 2
Mortal Kombat 3
Ramones Havana Affair Lyrics
Ramones Commando Lyrics
Anal Plumbing
Angela Lansbury Bestiality
Fruit fuckers
Love in an Elevator NOT Aerosmith
Wet Teen Librarian Blood Orgy
Nuns Get fucked
Donkey Punch! The Motion Picture
Condoleeza Rice Naked
Gary Bauer Leather Daddy
The Passion of the Christ
Mahi Mahi Recipes

I hope you find this as enlightening and useful in your research as I did.

Sincerely,

me.

Thoughts? Suggestions?
 
Do what I do...

Just type in "Bush is an ass" a few dozen times. That way if they think I'm looking at porn I'm really just looking up president Bush.

They have family filters, and unless the kid is smart enough to type in "cock" or "pussy" there isn't a problem. Plus if you are 14-16 you are a "child" and of course they are looknig at porn.

Republicans want to take all the fun away.

*Goes and searches for hot sex on Google*
 
[quote name='David85']Republicans want to take all the fun away.

*Goes and searches for hot sex on Google*[/QUOTE]

Funny and ignorant how you couch that as a partisan issue. Who has been behind calls for more regulation on sale of "mature" video games? More Democrats than Republicans. Who were the most outspoken at hearings last week before the Senate Commerce Committee on broadcast indecency and Internet porn? Democrats. Sure, many Republicans are agreeing with them, but the point is this is not a partisan issue as politicians from both sides of the aisle smell electoral opportunity here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think that I want to send a form letter to the White House documenting what I've been searching for.

Dear Mr. President,

blah blah blah blah blah (that part needs some work). So, to help satisfy your interest in what people search for on the internet, I hereby voluntarily submit many of my recent google searches.

Mega Man X Collection
Lily 2005 Pinot Noir
effete
Samuel Adams Chocolate Bock
St. Fuellien Brune
Alice White 2005 Chardonnay
Coffee Roaster
Mortal Kombat 2
Mortal Kombat 3
Ramones Havana Affair Lyrics
Ramones Commando Lyrics
Anal Plumbing
Angela Lansbury Bestiality
Fruit fuckers
Love in an Elevator NOT Aerosmith
Wet Teen Librarian Blood Orgy
Nuns Get fucked
Donkey Punch! The Motion Picture
Condoleeza Rice Naked
Gary Bauer Leather Daddy
The Passion of the Christ
Mahi Mahi Recipes

I hope you find this as enlightening and useful in your research as I did.

Sincerely,

me.

Thoughts? Suggestions?[/QUOTE]

What about bomb building sites?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']What about bomb building sites?[/QUOTE]
include a few search results for "I'm a terrorist" and "arrest me"
 
The way our civil liberties are eroding, it won't be long until the police show up at your neighbor's house, arrest him, take him away, and not hear from him for months. Without even knowing what he was arrested for. All under the guise of "patriotism".
 
Why are people so trusting of google, aol, or msn? Yet, automatically the govt has evil intentions for your search results?
Personally, why are any of these companies tracking search results? I would be much happier if Google said, "we believe searches are private, we do keep aggregate data, but have no individual serach results that could be matched up to private IPs. If you would like to codevelop a program that screens for certain phrases that target chiild pornographers/kidnappers and their ilk, we would be happy to comply."

Oh wait, they run a business, that's really the bottom line why google is refusing. My friends who work at google I wouldn't trust to take care of my fish, this googly-eyes, corporate master hypocrisy is rather odd.
 
[quote name='vherub']Why are people so trusting of google, aol, or msn? Yet, automatically the govt has evil intentions for your search results?[/QUOTE]

I don't think people are trusting of these companies, however if you decide to do a free search on the internet then it's the risk that you take. When I perform a free search on google, I know that I'm basically giving my permission for the CEO of google to see what I'm looking for, yet I did NOT give George W. Bush permission to see what I'm looking for. It's the reason I don't use MSN search - after the government I have the greatest distrust for Microsoft - and I don't use gmail because by using it you authorize google to read your emails.

I don't think it's accurate to say that people assume that the government has "evil" intentions for search results - rather that their actions are intruding on the peoples' right to privacy.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's about absolute and total control. [/QUOTE]

Google is all about submitting to absolute and total control. Don't believe me? They will bend over backwards for a dictatorial totalitarian government if it means more dollars for them and additional market share.

Google Agrees to Censor Results in China
Jan 24 7:34 PM US/Eastern
Email this story
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP Business Writer

SAN FRANCISCO

Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company planned to roll out a new version of its search engine bearing China's Web suffix ".cn," on Wednesday. A Chinese-language version of Google's search engine has previously been available through the company's dot-com address in the United States.

By creating a unique address for China, Google hopes to make its search engine more widely available and easier to use in the world's most populous country.

Because of government barriers set up to suppress information, Google's China users previously have been blocked from using the search engine or encountered lengthy delays in response time.

The service troubles have frustrated many Chinese users, hobbling Google's efforts to expand its market share in a country that expected to emerge as an Internet gold mine over the next decade.

China already has more than 100 million Web surfers and the audience is expected to swell substantially _ an alluring prospect for Google as it tries to boost its already rapidly rising profits.

Baidu.com Inc., a Beijing-based company in which Google owns a 2.6 percent stake, currently runs China's most popular search engine. But a recent Keynote Systems survey of China's Internet preferences concluded that Baidu remains vulnerable to challenges from Google and Yahoo Inc.

To obtain the Chinese license, Google agreed to omit Web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisons on guidance provided by Chinese government officials.

Although China has loosened some of its controls in recent years, some topics, such as Taiwan's independence and 1989's Tiananmen Square massacre, remain forbidden subjects.

Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted "don't be evil" as a motto. But management believes it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

Let me lay down how the internal debate went in the Google boardroom meeting where they discussed this topic. Google Exec #1 "Hey guys, we have a shot at capturing another $5,000,000,000 annually within 10 years in China if we "partner" with their government. We just have to...." ***CUT OFF FROM ROARS AND BOISTOROUS APPLAUSE***. MOTION PASSED!

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

Google's decision rankled Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog group that has sharply criticized Internet companies including Yahoo and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.com for submitting to China's censorship regime.

"This is a real shame," said Julien Pain, head of Reporters Without Borders' Internet desk. "When a search engine collaborates with the government like this, it makes it much easier for the Chinese government to control what is being said on the Internet."

When Google censors results in China, it intends to post notifications alerting users that some content has been removed _ to comply with local laws. The company provides similar alerts in Germany and France when, to comply with national laws, it censors results to remove references to Nazi paraphernalia.

Google is cooperating with China's government at the same time it is battling the U.S. government over a subpoena seeking a breakdown of one week's worth of search requests _ a list that would cover millions of terms.

Reflecting its uneasy alliance with the Chinese government, Google isn't releasing all its services.

Neither Google's e-mail nor blogging services will be offered in China because the company doesn't want to risk being ordered by the government to turn over anyone's personal information. The e-mail service, called Gmail, creates a huge database of users' messages and makes them instantly searchable. The blogging services contain a wide range of personal background.

Yahoo came under fire last year after it provided the government with the e-mail account information of a Chinese journalist who was later convicted for violating state secrecy laws.

Initially, Google's Chinese service will be limited to searching Web pages and images. The company also will provide local search results and a special edition of its news service that will be confined to government-sanctioned media.
Link

If you think Google management cares a lick about privacy, the free and open exchange of ideas and information you are so blind, so mistaken and so naieve. Their only concern is selling, for the highest CPC (Cost per click.), those paid search results on the right hand side of every search users conduct.

They now have a market capitalization of $139,940,000,000 (Closing date 1/24/.06) that compares to Wal Mart's $190,350,000,000 and they are the largest company by sales volume in the world. They now have millions of stockholders to answer to. They have a board of directors. If you think they give a lick about their users individual rights or collective rights of all internet users worldwide I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Google is the private enterprise version of the NSA and what they can compile on individual users is staggering. Their search engine is getting so pervasive that you're going to see, in the next 5 years, for a fee, public records on any individual in this country as part of your search results.

Their search results going to be as dangerous to individual privacy as getting IRS tax returns and they'll have all the compassion and care about individual rights as any other corporation users on this board love to hate. You're going to think the government subpoenaing child porn search data is legitimate before long.
 
How do shareholders benefit from providing information? If anything, I'd argue that if google does capitulate, fewer people will use it (I for one, will not). Depending on the size of the user reduction, revenue will similarly be affected.

In short, they stand to gain nothing financially from kowtowing to the government; the comparison you're making is one of them capitulating to *enter* a market versus a market they're already in. As a matter of fact, they could feasibly lose something (even if trivial) if they do submit. You claim to be a smart dude, why make such a bullshit comparison?
 
Privacy and censorship are two different issues. If Google starts selling my information, then I will no longer use their search engine.
 
Guess what E-Z-B, they do sell your information.

I've been to two SES events (Search Engine Strategy) in NYC and google.com is all about telling advertisers what you search for and how good they are at delivering you to them as potential customers.

How the hell do you think they make their money???

Amazing how, collevtively, people don't see the connection between a company kowtowing to a dictatorial governments requests to make money as being a company that isn't far away from delivering anything to any government asks of them if effects the bottom line. MSN and Yahoo have both turned over users to Chinese authorities for activities conducted on their sites.

If you think Google won't do either abroad or here if it would hit them on the bottom line.... see bridge, Brooklyn.

Oh, google.com is already in China. Read the article again. Google's China users previously have been blocked from using the search engine or encountered lengthy delays in response timey manner, the ChiComs have throttled their response times delivering incredibly slow search results, to the point of being unusable, and since they want to play ball they "partner" with the REAL fascist capitalistic society in the world.
 
I can see google's desire to catalog search strings as well as times and results. But, why does google need to record individual IP addresses?
 
Their answer to that is to localize advertising sales. The real future of search engine sales is getting local businesses to use it instead of the Yellow Pages.

There's no way to sell locally unless you're measuring IP addresses and where searches are being initiated.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Their answer to that is to localize advertising sales. The real future of search engine sales is getting local businesses to use it instead of the Yellow Pages.

There's no way to sell locally unless you're measuring IP addresses and where searches are being initiated.[/QUOTE]
But, there's no reason to record the IP addresses. They can use the IP address to produce the internet ad, and discard it immediately. Recording them is just frivolous.
 
Think of it as their equivilent of Nielsen Ratings.

If you produce an ad that only shows up when certain IP numbers request a search on that term it's like broadcasting a TV show without knowing how many people are watching the show. You can guess that more people in Pittsburgh will be watching the Super Bowl on February 5th than This Old House on HGTV but how many more? That's what the Nielsen diaries and meters are for.

If they're able to tell advertisers that 100 people searched for a certain term they have further qualitative data of knowing who their ISP was (Dial up, cable, DSL, Fios etc.) what their OS was, which browser they're using. That way they can say something like 73% of people using this search criteria were broadband users, had the latest OS and were using browsers bundled with that OS. Meaning, people willing to pay for the best in end user technology.

The more sellers of advertising space can tell clients and prospects about how their ad dollars are being spent and who they're reaching and how the more they can charge. Don't be surprised when google starts tying search results and ads to a combination of your gmail and google and froogle activity.

Like I said, they fully intend on being as intrusive as any company on Earth as ever dreamed on being. With google though it's all about the illusion of custom experiences for their end user. The truth is you're being bundled, sorted, packaged and shipped to someone that paid google to deliver you.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']The way our civil liberties are eroding, it won't be long until the police show up at your neighbor's house, arrest him, take him away, and not hear from him for months. Without even knowing what he was arrested for. All under the guise of "patriotism".[/QUOTE]


Some living next to a person who is detained in Gitmo may say this has already happened.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Privacy and censorship are two different issues. If Google starts selling my information, then I will no longer use their search engine.[/QUOTE]

Wow, you finally came to a rational realization without an emotional attachment. You may just be smarter than a chimp after all. Now try re-reading the constitution (if you've ever read it in the first place) and tell me where it says you have an absolute right to privacy when you use a publicly available search engine on the web.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Just how many Gitmo detainees are American?[/QUOTE]
Well James Yee for one
 
I am going to seartch for "hot bunny terrorist fluffer banana" and "Osama lolita pancake lube explosives yaya" and "homemade nuke porn lollipop kiddie nipple bomb." Hope this will throw the government off.
 
It's a shame that I won't be getting specialty mail anytime soon as the result of google's direct-to-buyer advertising. I was looking forward to the catalog of Duran Duran singles and lawnmower implements.

There's an article about this, but some of you scaredy cats who've conditioned yourselves to treat the New York Times in the same way you regarded diving boards as a 5-year old, so best of luck in turning down your defenses long enough to *read the news*.

In other contexts, Google and other Internet companies say they are serious about protecting privacy. But their privacy policies acknowledge that they will comply with valid requests from the government and private litigants. Google's policy, for instance, says it may share users' personal information if it has "a good faith belief" that disclosure "is reasonably necessary to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable government request." Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel, said in an interview that the company "complies with valid legal process."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/t...9f833a74d52&hp&ex=1138338000&partner=homepage

Truth be told, a quote like this is supposed to make me feel better, but has enough caveats in place so that, if the money is right, I will be getting that Duran Duran catalog after all.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Wow, you finally came to a rational realization without an emotional attachment. You may just be smarter than a chimp after all. Now try re-reading the constitution (if you've ever read it in the first place) and tell me where it says you have an absolute right to privacy when you use a publicly available search engine on the web.[/QUOTE]

God damn, bmulligan really has a hard-on for me. But here you go -- the 4th Ammendment, two down from the only ammendment republicans know, the right to bear arms:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The same applies when you use a publicly available pay phone.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']The same applies when you use a publicly available pay phone.[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn't apply to a publicly availible pay phone. The police department can collect any information they want about phone records without a warrant on a pay phone or even your home phone. They aren't even asking for users, unique identifiers or websites visited, just search results. Your privacy is not being invaded by the info they are requesting and, furthermore, tell me where the guarantee of privacy is when you are surfing the web? If you were to walk down main street and walk into 14 of 15 buildings and I was watching you from the other side of the street and taking notes, does that invade your privacy? Things would be different if the feds wanted to extract information off of your personal computer for their needs without a warrant or subpoena, but they aren't, which means you are completey off base here.
 
If Dubya says it's legal to wiretap Americans without warrants and getting the courts involved, what makes you think it won't expand from just aggregrate search results on search engines?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top