US govt seeks google user search info

Post by **MKJ** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:13 pm

for the win

Post by **Dek** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:35 pm

MKJ wrote:for the win

originally fuck the world.

Post by **Foo** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:38 pm

Dek wrote:
MKJ wrote:for the win
originally fuck the world.

originally nothing. It's an acronym you spastic.

Post by **werldhed** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:02 pm

jester! wrote:Why use anything but google? But then, while they can tell them to fuck off now, given enough time and desire I have no doubt that these kinds of requests will eventually be filled.

It's not really likely that Google will have to comply, as long as warmongering facists don't stay in power for too long. Legally, the gov't doesn't have much of a case if the only reason for the request is to confirm something that's already known (i.e. The Child Protection Act or whatever it's called).
In contrast, as soon as someone (*cough* Bush *cough*) starts saying that it's neccessary for fighting terror, then we have a problem.

Post by **seremtan** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:19 pm

theoretically, bush bending over and accepting a speeding locomotive into his rectal cavity may be necessary for fighting terror

let's hope, eh

Post by **Fender** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:23 pm

dzjepp wrote:customizegoogle ftw

nice!

Post by **Lenard** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:42 pm

On the other hand...

"Leading internet company Google has said it will censor its search services in China in order to gain greater access to China's fast-growing market."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm

The censors undoubtedly include material that the Chinese government doesn't want viewed by it's people for political reasons.

Sprry to burst your booble.

Post by **4days** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:54 pm

4days wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm

google self-censors in china

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:29 pm

Lenard wrote:On the other hand...

"Leading internet company Google has said it will censor its search services in China in order to gain greater access to China's fast-growing market."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4645596.stm

The censors undoubtedly include material that the Chinese government doesn't want viewed by it's people for political reasons.

Sprry to burst your booble.

4days already burst your booble, sprry.

Post by **Lenard** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:47 am

"Last year, Yahoo was accused of supplying data to China that was used as evidence to jail a Chinese journalist for 10 years."

What do you mean? It still seems pretty fucked to me that they are deliberately cutting out information that encourages people to think about things the government doesn't want them to.

Post by **Scarface** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:50 am

We should get as manny people as possible to search the the phrase. " Fuck USA". That would be some nice search info for them to find

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:02 am

I really don't see the issue here to be honest. So what? I mean it's not like it should even be private information, plus I've already seen search engines that actualy allow you to SEE what other people are searching for so as long as no personal information is being passed on I don't see why this is such a big deal personaly. There are good reasons to even obtain info like this just for statistical reasons.

Post by **S@M** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:18 am

what would those be Kracus? AND why do governments need them?

Post by **Lenard** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 5:30 am

It is appeasement plain and simple. That is the problem and that is why we have to keep our restrictions tight and leave no grey area.

Post by **Ryoki** » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:32 am

Heard an interview with some Google bigwig in charge of policy... he was saying the decision to censor stuff in China was one of the hardest Google ever made (yadda yadda) and that limited, censored information is always preferable to hardly any information at all (point).

Post by **Lenard** » Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:18 am

I suppose, but it is like negotiating with terrorists. It's really the same principle.