 |
|
Topic started on 20-2-2006 @ 07:51 AM by Beachcoma
|
In the follow up to demands from the US Department of Justice (DoJ) for a weeks worth of search query data, Google has submitted a formal letter of
rejection. Google said that in addition to violating it's users privacy and revealing it's trade secrets to rivals, handing the data over would not
help the government achieve it's stated objective.
news.bbc.co.uk
Google has formally rejected a demand from the US government to hand over a week's worth of search records.
The rejection was made in court documents Google filed in response to official demands for search data.
In the strongly-worded papers Google said the request would violate the privacy of its users and reveal trade secrets to its rivals.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Google has come under criticism because of it's decision to censor search results in China. However one must realise that Google is just like any
other business, and therefore subject to local laws.
The US DoJ request is a violation of privacy laws and it is unclear how compliance would help it achieve it's objectives. Google's fight against this
erosion of civil liberties should represent not only the company's fight against government overreaching, but also that of the public.
Related News Links:
news.bbc.co.uk
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2006 @ 10:29 AM by iceofspades
|
*kudos to Google*
I had sort of lost a lot of faith in Google after their decisions in China, but this brings my spirits way back up. If the big guys stand up to the
illegal and immoral bullying of the government, it shouldn't be long before everyone else does the same.
Again, kudos to Google; they've done the right thing.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2006 @ 12:08 PM by Nygdan
|
Google isn't standing up to the US gov't on principle. Its doing so because it is economically feasible for it to do this. Opposing the chinese
government in china isn't economically feasible, and thus it capitulates to any demands.
Don't bother looking to corporations for morality or ethics, they are governed, and this is the way it should be for corporations anyway, by economy
and market.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2006 @ 12:15 PM by omega1
|
Yeah Google!
I lost all hope in google, and I was looking for a replacement. This decision by google is the best decision they have made so far. Way to stick it to
the man google.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2006 @ 01:49 PM by grover
|
Good. These blanket sweeps for information are intrusive, and most probably illegal too. I seem to recall Attn. Gen. John asscrack tried that with
data from abortion clinics and I am not sure but I think the courts shot him down. Just like they did with the Oregon right to die law. The
Republicians make such a big deal about how they are the party that stands up for individual rights and seems like they are the first ones to stick
their noses right into it as well.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2006 @ 03:47 PM by St Udio
|
at best, this action is only a hollow victory
and the Gov't turning tail just leads me to believe this was a
'managed confrontation'...to give the masses a false trust & confidence
check out www.applefritter.com...
begins with : Data Mining 101:_________
they use Amazon as the experiment site in this actual case
which examples how one (be it a citizen or a IntelAgency)
can or could have even 'Google' surrender datamined info fromtheir own servers & without their knowledge or permission....
imo, this could be a stunt &/or a level of 'dis-info', rather than the popular image of 'sticking-it-to-the-man'.......................i remain
dispassionate
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 20-2-2006 @ 04:57 PM by junglejake
|
And that's exactly why they did it. As Nygdan said, this was an economical move, not one on principle. If it were based on principle, Google never
would have censored its searches for China.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 07:10 AM by curme
|
Originally posted by junglejake
And that's exactly why they did it. As Nygdan said, this was an economical move, not one on principle. If it were based on principle, Google never
would have censored its searches for China. 
Would you rather no searches? Don't you think a little information is better than none? That is how the wars of the future are going to be
wages, with ideas. We are already learning the futility of ground combat in the countries we recently occupied, and how we are loosing the war of
ideology (look at the recent elections in Palestine and Iraq). Wouldn't you rather have have a Bible with every other page, than no pages at all?
I know your not doing this JJ, but I have seen some people turn this into a "If you don't support Bush, you support the Commies!"
We've had almost eight years of that, I thought that people were tired of the "with us or against us" mentality.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 07:17 AM by XphilesPhan
|
Originally posted by Nygdan
Google isn't standing up to the US gov't on principle. Its doing so because it is economically feasible for it to do this. Opposing the chinese
government in china isn't economically feasible, and thus it capitulates to any demands.
Don't bother looking to corporations for morality or ethics, they are governed, and this is the way it should be for corporations anyway, by economy
and market. 
thats right on. this is only because this is in google's best ECONOMIC interests.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 03:13 PM by SFRemmy
|
I'm proud of google for this stand. Telling the US government with a firm resounding NO is just what we as the people need to start doing. We can't
just allow our leaders to trounce all over our rights and use their powers to their hearts content.
Right on google.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-2-2006 @ 03:42 PM by junglejake
|
curme, do you think Google is doing this on principle and not for economic reasons? If so, why?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |