Police, Bomb Squad, & FBI Surround Google Whistleblower; Google Turns Bomb Robots, Police Dogs & Gun

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: facedye

I made that statement because I have seen too many laws that we thought had limited application turn into laws that were much more widely interpreted then we the people had originally thought them to be. To see this law being used already in this manner only suggests to me that in the writing, the intent was much greater than what the public was led to believe.

What? i'm not trying to be rude, but are you seriously doubting the scope of a gun violence prevention law that couldn't be any more black and white in this context?

Let's observe the commonly accepted definition of what the Red Flag Law is:

In the United States, a red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.

The contention Google is making here is that he held onto a laptop/sensitive company information for longer than they permitted. Are you seriously trying to arbitrate the very obvious definition above pertaining to people being a danger to themselves or others? Is holding onto sensitive private information the same as holding a gun with the potential to shoot one's self or others around them? Are they even REMOTELY similar?

No, they're not. There's now good reason to believe you're being disingenuous. Do you typically have problems admitting when you're wrong? If not, then I have no idea why you think someone "stealing" a laptop should be treated the same as a potential mentally ill shooter who's ready to act on their intentions.

Furthermore, with reference to your second point:

But as you have experience within a private corporation and suggest that in cases such as this they litigate may I ask you is this a common occurrence that people steal corporate information and threaten to go public with it. Is it not possible that within that stolen information there were some tid bits that a long process of litigation would leave open for dispersal and that this ''raid'' was hoping to grab before it became public? What do you think?

You're literally implying that in order to prevent him from disseminating information that would damage google's image and integrity, it might be better to have the police surround him and "steal" it back instead of sue him for damages. Lol, there's no way around saying this so i'm just going to say it - that's a ridiculously totalitarian point of view. Quick question, what's your opinion on whistleblowers? Do you take issue with someone being arrested to face criminal charges over trying to tell the truth and keep the general public informed?

It doesn't matter what "tid bits" do or don't come out from information that was allegedly stolen from google, or any other private company that (presumably) simply provides a public service. You're acting like you can't tell the difference between a hostage situation and a data hack. If you're taking yourself seriously regarding the above, then I find that absolutely hilarious.

originally posted by: Assassin82
Well, there's a reason I don't watch the news or have anything to do with any mainstream websites. But when your search results are ideologically biased....just another day in the U.S. of A.

Pretty much. They're either being manipulated ideologically or for marketing. In a way, it's kind of the same thing.

I'm with you and the news. I just glance at the headlines when I pass through Yahoo! News to see what they're mocking Trump for these days, and I can spot it even though I'm neither pro- nor anti-Trump. All these sites want to do is push buttons and generate clicks, and I think my button was broken long ago. Probably during the Carter presidency.

a reply to: Iamonlyhuman

This sounds oddly familiar. Where have a I heard similar behavior?

Scientology has a reputation for hostile action toward anyone who criticizes it in a public forum; executives within the organization have proclaimed Scientology is "not a turn-the-other-cheek religion".[18] Journalists, politicians, former Scientologists and various anti-cult groups have made accusations of wrongdoing against Scientology since the 1960s, and Scientology has targeted these critics - almost without exception - for retaliation, in the form of lawsuits and public counter-accusations of personal wrongdoing. Many of Scientology's critics have also reported they were subject to threats and harassment in their private lives.[19][20]

a reply to: facedye

Face. You might be under the impression that I am attempting to justify that action. I am not as I have stated numerous times thoughout this thread. My point was trying to delve into how this corporation might be attempting to set precedent here. If this is not shot down as a miss use of that law then this will serve as an example of the extents that the law can be used.

Lol, there's no way around saying this so i'm just going to say it - that's a ridiculously totalitarian point of view.

I'm not saying I justify it and I'm not saying it would be better to do as they have done rather than choose other channels. . I'm attempting to look at Googles motives and actions and understand them I have no trust in Google but they are a good example of a business that has sprung up out of now where, just like Amazon and Facebook and have majorly significant cultural and social sway in the hands of a few owners to a degree we have not seen in a democracy before.

Whistle blowers should have protection by law. Is there a whistle blower protection law? Right now, I might have heard of one but if there is is it enforced? Is it enforced indiscriminately? In this fellows case though it seems not. It seems that the shoe is on the other foot and that Google has the upper hand, er, foot.

So do you think that Google will suffer for this action? I' certainly don't know. I know that they have wedged themselves into the popular consciousness enough to have their name inserted into our brains as a general label for internet searches.
I know that right now there is considerable buzz about some of these recent internet concerns but whether or not they are even touchable any more is a real question as well. That is the question Im trying to get at here. Yes this action was dramatic, but dramatic enough to turn around our public perceptions of trust in corporations like that?

I think that my original objection to the trend of this thread was everyone lining up to complain about Google when I doubt that those complaints will amount to anything but a bi-weekly moan and rant fest.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

is it wrong or useless to have a bi-weekly rant fest about this serious abuse of power? why would you even bring that up?

and who cares what precedent they're trying to set? if this went down like the OP's link says it did, it's nothing but illegal and deserving of a full investigation.

if someone is trying to set a new precedent by completely abusing the application of a currently existing law, wouldn't you consider that unlawful? who cares about what precedent they were trying to set, or why they were trying to set it? whatever it is they're doing is **already** illegal.

i'm confused by how you're so confused over this. he stole a laptop and they "lied" to the FBI & police by telling them he's suicidal, prompting them to completely raid his neighborhood. there is no legitimate precedent one can set to legally achieve this result. how exactly is this not an instance of knowingly filing a false police report? what's the precedent for that? can i file a false police report legally?

I got a buddy writing these programs , real weird stuff.

Its Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and many more creating these algorithms.

Let's says someone posts a pro trump comment on YouTube.

The post may only be viewed by half the public while you think its viewed by everyone.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
I got a buddy writing these programs , real weird stuff.

Its Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and many more creating these algorithms.

Let's says someone posts a pro trump comment on YouTube.

The post may only be viewed by half the public while you think its viewed by everyone.

a reply to: facedye

wouldn't you consider that unlawful?

What I consider it it moot. Why do I think it is moot?

is it wrong or useless to have a bi-weekly rant fest about this serious abuse of power? why would you even bring that up?

Not wrong, but useless other than to let a bunch of people cry into the wind. To me it's taking all of these abuses of power as single events rather than driving to the heart of the matter. It's crying about one abuser here and one abuser there when it could be that in a larger context they are all connected.

and who cares what precedent they're trying to set? if this went down like the OP's link says it did, it's nothing but illegal and deserving of a full investigation.

I do even if others do not. The growth of corporate influence has been growing for decades. I see them as the real powers that be, not government or aspects of government. Government to me is just the tool of a corporate world. Hiding behind the facade of government they corporations have managed to dodge much of the scorn that in the last few decades has been heaped on government when what government was doing was for the most part doing the corporations bidding.

I'm wondering when the corporations will fee so secure that their power over the world will no longer need to hide behind the facade of government and just step up and admit that it is they that have the power, that is if they are big enough.

This action seen from that point of view could be Google saying , ah, # it, we're the real boss here so let's just get to we want our stuff back and we want it now.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

you needed to write out all that to just basically say that you're interested in dissecting corporate abuses of power?

corporations abusing power and attempting to usurp established law is, was and never will be anything new. why you're taking so much time focusing on how they're trying to change a law vs. that act being illegal in and of itself is absolutely beyond me. you're coming real close to sliding this discussion.

also, are you really saying that knowingly filing a false police report for alternative motives is not unlawful, and merely moot? are you not aware that knowingly filing a false report is a crime, and potentially a felony considering the context?

a reply to: MrBuddy

We don't have to let them amass so much power that they usurp the rights of the people by merely tweaking an algorithm.

This is about a lot more than making business demands of a corporation. They are the gatekeepers of democracy and it is high time we take back the keys.

Thanks for playing.

a reply to: facedye

Moot to me. I take if for granted that power brokers do and will usurp the law whenever they want.

I hope you had fun with me today Face. See you around, or maybe not.

wow. Gotta agree that was a blatant misuse of power, but we all know they are in a different class and won't be held accountable for calling SWAT, FBI, SFPD and Fire (and bomb squad too?) for someone who was supposedly suicidal. Riiiiiiiiight...
As for Google, I ditched them long ago and hope most on here have. Try Duck Duck go or Yippy. I just tried this as a test, searched ".. Google calls FBI on suicidal.." on Yippy and Google. It is the 13th link on Yippy's 1st page. I looked through the first THREE PAGES of google search and it's not even mentioned. LOLOLOL.. O Google, so cute. PLz dump them if you haven't already!!

a reply to: carsforkids

Informative video. Thanks for posting it

a reply to: butcherguyGoogle assists the Chinese government in subjugating its people with their facial recognition teck- looks like its in our future along with a citizens rating ,

a reply to: MrBuddy

Judge rules lawsuit accusing Google of bias against conservatives can proceed
By Anna Hopkins | Fox News

www.foxnews.com...

A judge has ruled that a class-action lawsuit filed by two former Google employees claiming discrimination on the basis of gender, race and political bias can move forward, and an attorney representing the plaintiffs told "Fox & Friends" that Google has been making every effort to impede the case.

a reply to: MrBuddy

Google prototype for China "complicit in human rights violations"

channels.theinnovationenterprise.com...

Cynthia Wong, senior internet researcher with Human Rights Watch, commented: "This is very problematic from a privacy point of view, because it would allow far more detailed tracking and profiling of people's behavior.

People think trump is bad? Yet Google is building technology to aid the Chinese government with its goal of oppressing human rights?

People here in the States flip out over a wedding cake? But turn a blind eye to google aiding the Chinese in censoring and spying on its citizens? And we know the Chinese government never throws their citizens in jail for false allegations or political views.

Reply to TerryMc's comment

The law was written to help to keep control over the populace. That control, though often seen as being in the hands of government, to me is really in the hands of the world wide corporate structure, who happily use governments as tools of their bidding.

Well, finally I see what is your fundamental fallacy of understanding the US and the COTUS. This is a very important aspect of being 'self governed'.


THEREFORE,

We don't control the Populace we control the criminals.

The Populace are free to do as they please as long as they don't turn to crime.

SAtr

originally posted by: MrBuddy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

However this is a private enterprise and it is private information, not ours, but the corporations.

But if a company is conspiring to keep its breaking of laws, bribing, and infringing on human rights secret, that’s called conspiracy. Which is not protected by law.

What law breaking is Google accused of doing? None.
Bribing? None
Infringing on human rights? None

Much like leftists scream, "Orange man bad!" conservatives scream, " Corporation bad!"

Google is not violating any laws. They are a private company that can make ANY rules it wants. Don't like them...don't use Google.
It is not your right to see search results how YOU feel they should appear. It is Google's right to manipulate any damned thing it wants while flipping you the bird.

I'm not a fan of corporations but I prefer them over thieves that somehow have this moment of altruism and decide (arbitrarily) to undermind their boss. It is not up to HIM to decide what is right or wrong, that is what regulators are for.
I hope the guy gets prosecuted and black balled from ever working again. It's what he deserves.

Star only because some of this is right. But to send in the goons over this? SICK!

Send someone to the gray bar motel is what should happen over just the swatting.

a reply to: neutronflux

That's all nice but a civil suit has zero to do with breaking any criminal law.

This all boils down to searches and how they're placed by Google. It is not illegal to do that. In fact, Google could just remove every single conservative thought in a search and it's still not criminally illegal.
If I post here, and you FEEL that I have lied or given a result that you don't feel is right, you just have to deal with it, you can't try to charge me criminally because I don't share your views. This is Capitalism and Democracy.

a reply to: projectvxn



Your logic is completely unhinged. You're claiming that the "People" have some sort of right to information that's compiled to coddle their biases. We have no such right, nor is there an implication of such a right.

If you don't like corporations, vote Bernie 2020 and perhaps he can help your triggered feelings by taxing Google to death.

And honestly, save the "thanks for playing" nonsense for a time when you actually put together a coherent sentence resulting in a mic drop. Otherwise you just come off as a tool.