even google isnt safe anymore..

using the excuse of protecting children against pornography on the net, the bush administration subpoena'd google inc last year for its records on what people search for and web addresses - CNN
google have refused to comply.

does anyone find this really sickening in the same week that a judge gave a pedeophile who raped a 6 year old for four years a 60 day sentence?



[edit on 19-1-2006 by Nerdling]

Originally posted by justyc


does anyone find this really sickening in the same week that a judge gave a pedeophile who raped a 6 year old for four years a 60 day sentence?

It's absolutely disgraceful, he deserves a LOT more than that, i'd say 10 years with no chance of getting out early for good behaviour!

Only 10? My how lienient....

I would worry more about adults getting access to child porn and not children getting access to adult porn. It should be up to the parents to get filters put on the computer, or better yet don't let your child on the computer when they are not under your supervision.

I've noticed a trend in comments pertaining to the molestation case that's hijacked this thread. The people who are outspoken are the least informed, when it comes to details of the case, and the judge's stated reasoning. The judge's decision may have an enormous impact on the efficacy of imprisonment in the near future. Don't sell the man short without knowing at least a little something about his distinguished career and judicial philosophy.

I bet y'all don't even know the perpetrator's name, nevermind his age, intelligence, medical history, or psychological profile. You don't even know details of the crime that have an important bearing on the sentence. The judge had all that information and more, when he made his decision.

As for the actual topic, I think it sucks. There are much, much more effective ways to neutralize the threat posed by child molestation. Most of them begin in the home, with the parents, and have nothing to do with the government.

America consumes most of the child porn produced every year, so obviously there's a severe problem. But hassling Google and compromising the privacy of millions of people is NOT the answer. Bad dog, no cookie..or rather, bad government, no taxes.

Please stay on the Google topic.

I think they'd be more effective if they just bugged members of their own party???


politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Republican of the Year- activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children. Unless there's another molester of children who's been awarded this title, this guy got it when it was learned that the original recipient was in trouble regarding drug charges....



having a few little toys to play with your drugs with is bad....really bad.....but molesting children???? ya, we can deal with that....

Heh.

Well, what did you expect? Did you think they would stop at wiretapping?

They want to know everything about everyone.

nerdling
Yeah, that seems to be the goal. The irony of course is that they appear to be crippling the analysts with the sheer volume of information that needs attention. It's my understanding that less than half of data 'recovered' (stolen) from Iraq has been translated and analyzed. That's not even considering the enormous volume of information contained in telephone conversations, and on top of it all, e-mail and blogs and such. Now they want to analyze search traffic as well?

The scope of the project is beyond feasibility, it simply can't be done properly by any government, IMO, least of all our own. I fail to understand the purpose of the excercise, if it is indeed as futile as I suspect it is. Is it possible that this overloading of the intelligence community is a purposeful act on part of conspirators inside the govermnet? Could they be engaged in an active campaign of obfuscation, casting out what can only be described as a blizzard of possibly relevant informaiton.

It's one of the few explanations that fits for me so far. Of course sheer stupidity is always a possibility, on the part of our government I mean. Maybe they just aren't aware of the capabilities of the agencies they're supposed to be directing?

You brought a story to ATS not too long ago, IIRC, about the efficacy of intelligence analysis since sept. 11. That was an interesting read, and relevant to the discussion. I'll see if I can find it.

Edit: Here it is - www.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 19-1-2006 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by sinta_ilfirin
Only 10? My how lienient....

I would worry more about adults getting access to child porn and not children getting access to adult porn. It should be up to the parents to get filters put on the computer, or better yet don't let your child on the computer when they are not under your supervision.

THANK YOU!

I was just typing the same thing. Its the parents that have to keep track of what your kids are doing. Its called PARENTING!

I found this Link for more on the story. How can the government ack on a law witch has been deemed Unconstitutional??

the whole wire-tapping thing didnt excatly bother me since i dont really use the phone that much and all my calls are usually local...so i could care less if some1 was wasting there time listening to my calls..but i totally disagree with the goverment wanting records of all the types of searches we do on google ..thats bit extreme IMO..its a total violation on the american people's privacy and i dout there just using it to catch petifilers more like to monitor us..but w/e i have nothing to hide

-sigh- the things this goverment does that makes me question america's future

I'd say it should be the parents watching out for what their kids see, hear, or read compared to what our government wants to shoulder upon us with their filters and their spying and their putting up parental advisory or theaters getting rid of Brokeback Mountain at their theaters.

Originally posted by justyc
using the excuse of protecting children against pornography on the net, the bush administration subpoena'd google inc last year for its records on what people search for and web addresses -
google have refused to comply.

Why say that Google isn't safe anymore? I had been lately sort of mistrusting them lately, but as you say, they have refused to comply
Google Rebuffs Feds on Search Requests


Reading this story has restored much of my faith in Google.

I don't know what's with Bush's excuse he's using that he wants to protect children that the Supreme Court is not. Obviously it's more spying. I think he's getting mixed up a lot more now than ever.



[edit on 1/20/2006 by CyberKat]

Yeah I just hope they never totally go over to the darkside by letting others view personal stuff of whatever we viewed, whether it be porn, or this site or whatever we need to stick it to the man hehe

cyberkat, whilst google have rebuffed the subpeona for now, you have to bear in mind that they are owned by shareholders, and you can bet that a lot of those shares went to people who werent so sympathetic to googles 'do no evil' policy. they will try to buy as many more as they can.

they may also try to get their own people working for google.

either way, they will eventually get those figures by fair means or foul and they wont need any court order to do it.

because if a government is allowed to get away once with breaking the laws designed to protect its citizens against such abuses, it will carry on breaking the law because who will stop them?

This is starting to get very weird, first Bush is listening to all your phone calls & reading all your emails, then he's opening all your mail, & now he wan't to know what you're surfing up on the net!

WHY???

Originally posted by justyc
cyberkat, whilst google have rebuffed the subpeona for now, you have to bear in mind that they are owned by shareholders, and you can bet that a lot of those shares went to people who werent so sympathetic to googles 'do no evil' policy. they will try to buy as many more as they can.

they may also try to get their own people working for google.

either way, they will eventually get those figures by fair means or foul and they wont need any court order to do it.

because if a government is allowed to get away once with breaking the laws designed to protect its citizens against such abuses, it will carry on breaking the law because who will stop them?

justyd, this is a very scary thought. I hadn't thought it all the way through as you have. But you're right, if enough of Google's shareholders are on the "wrong side", what can we do to protect ourselves?

I guess we can only hope that even most of Google's shareholders have by now become awake to the fact that our president is doing us nothing but a great disservice by trampling all over our rghts to privacy, etc....

Surely his weak excuse about protecting children will be seen through by enough of them to make them think twice.

Originally posted by Figjam
This is starting to get very weird, first Bush is listening to all your phone calls & reading all your emails, then he's opening all your mail, & now he wan't to know what you're surfing up on the net!

WHY???

seriously, do yourself a BIG favour and read this in full - www.online-literature.com... and then tell me its far-fetched and could never happen here

Google has always scared me.

To me it is the gel that can bring many different types of technologies and integrate them into our lives.

They're leading the way in internet technology and branching off into real world industries like job hunting and even finding you a taxi.

We now email through google, check maps, buy things, check news and chat to friends. There will come a point where we might conduct our entire day through google, scheduling things, having online video conferences, checking resources and such.

I think the next stage for them will be buying wikipedia or create some kind of all encompassing encyclopaedia that they'll provide free. They have the purchasing power to burn CD's and load them full of google software and give them away for free.

Google is definitely a pawn of someone. Who that someone is we don't really know.

Originally posted by Nerdling
Google is definitely a pawn of someone. Who that someone is we don't really know.

well, that old phrase springs to mind... 'he who controls the present controls the past' and the content i may add to that.

google is such a powerful search engine but under the 'right' supervision, think about all the things you WONT find much information on, or the content of what you ARE allowed to know (ie dumbing it down or ensuring certain agenda's are the top search returns)

as much as i love and am greatful to google, i think they will soon need a closer eye kept on them and their practices