WTF? Google being told to hand over...

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

I don't care. It could have been George Washington acting from beyond the grave and it would still be bullsh!t.

QFT.

Nice to know I need to spoof my MAC and proxy my Google searches now. FFS.

You spoof that Mac address because that is exactly what they are tracking.
This is why people get all up in arms about the internet, they lack understanding on how it works.

 

[1EZduzit]

As far as I'm concerned, this is nothing more then the Neocon's version of gun control. Come on people, wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
OMG

You Republicans have to admit this is 1930's Germany re-visited.

Thank you very much Un-American Anti-American Traitors.

"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"

BINGO!!!

And here's more on that very subject. A little refersher course for those who can't recognize emerging dictatorships.

Tyrant in the White House

Bush Crosses the Rubicon

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Dictatorships seldom appear full-fledged but emerge piecemeal. When Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon with one Roman legion he broke the tradition that protected the civilian government from victorious generals and launched the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Fearing that Caesar would become a king, the Senate assassinated him. From the civil wars that followed, Caesar's grand nephew, Octavian, emerged as the first Roman emperor, Caesar Augustus.

Two thousand years later in Germany, Adolf Hitler's rise to dictator from his appointment as chancellor was rapid. Hitler used the Reichstag fire to create an atmosphere of crisis. Both the judicial and legislative branches of government collapsed, and Hitler's decrees became law. The Decree for the Protection of People and State (Feb. 28, 1933) suspended guarantees of personal liberty and permitted arrest and incarceration without trial. The Enabling Act (March 23, 1933) transferred legislative power to Hitler, permitting him to decree laws, laws moreover that "may deviate from the Constitution."

The dictatorship of the Roman emperors was not based on an ideology. The Nazis had an ideology of sorts, but Hitler's dictatorship was largely personal and agenda-based. The dictatorship that emerged from the Bolshevik Revolution was based in ideology. Lenin declared that the Communist Party's dictatorship over the Russian people rests "directly on force, not limited by anything, not restricted by any laws, nor any absolute rules." Stalin's dictatorship over the Communist Party was based on coercion alone, unrestrained by any limitations or inhibitions.

In this first decade of the 21st century the United States regards itself as a land of democracy and civil liberty but, in fact, is an incipient dictatorship. Ideology plays only a limited role in the emerging dictatorship. The demise of American democracy is largely the result of historical developments.

Lincoln was the first American tyrant. Lincoln justified his tyranny in the name of preserving the Union. His extra-legal, extra-constitutional methods were tolerated in order to suppress Northern opposition to Lincoln's war against the Southern secession.

The first major lasting assault on the US Constitution's separation of powers, which is the basis for our political system, came with the response of the Roosevelt administration to the crisis of the Great Depression. The New Deal resulted in Congress delegating its legislative powers to the executive branch. Today when Congress passes a statute it is little more than an authorization for an executive agency to make the law by writing the regulations that implement it.

Prior to the New Deal, legislation was tightly written to minimize any executive branch interpretation. Only in this way can law be accountable to the people. If the executive branch that enforces the law also writes the law, "all legislative powers" are no longer vested in elected representatives in Congress. The Constitution is violated, and the separation of powers is breached.

The principle that power delegated to Congress by the people cannot be delegated by Congress to the executive branch is the mainstay of our political system. Until President Roosevelt overturned this principle by threatening to pack the Supreme Court, the executive branch had no role in interpreting the law. As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote: "That congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution."

Despite seven decades of an imperial presidency that has risen from the New Deal's breach of the separation of powers, Republican attorneys, who constitute the membership of the quarter-century-old Federalist Society, the candidate group for Republican nominees to federal judgeships, write tracts about the Imperial Congress and the Imperial Judiciary that are briefs for concentrating more power in the executive. Federalist Society members pretend that Congress and the Judiciary have stolen all the power and run away with it.

The Republican interest in strengthening executive power has its origin in agenda frustration from the constraints placed on Republican administrations by Democratic congresses. The thrust to enlarge the President's powers predates the Bush administration but is being furthered to a dangerous extent during Bush's second term. The confirmation of Bush's nominee, Samuel Alito, a member of the Federalist Society, to the Supreme Court will provide five votes in favor of enlarged presidential powers.

President Bush has used "signing statements" hundreds of times to vitiate the meaning of statutes passed by Congress. In effect, Bush is vetoing the bills he signs into law by asserting unilateral authority as commander-in-chief to bypass or set aside the laws he signs. For example, Bush has asserted that he has the power to ignore the McCain amendment against torture, to ignore the law that requires a warrant to spy on Americans, to ignore the prohibition against indefinite detention without charges or trial, and to ignore the Geneva Conventions to which the US is signatory.

In effect, Bush is asserting the powers that accrued to Hitler in 1933. His Federalist Society apologists and Department of Justice appointees claim that President Bush has the same power to interpret the Constitution as the Supreme Court. An Alito Court is likely to agree with this false claim.

This is the great issue that is before the country. But it is pushed into the background by political battles over abortion and homosexual rights. Many people fighting to strengthen the executive think they are fighting against legitimizing sodomy and murder in the womb. They are unaware that the real issue is that America is on the verge of elevating its president above the law.

Bush Justice Department official and Berkeley law professor John Yoo argues that no law can restrict the president in his role as commander-in-chief. Thus, once the president is at war--even a vague open-ended "war on terror"--Bush's Justice Department says the president is free to undertake any action in pursuit of war, including the torture of children and indefinite detention of American citizens.

The commander-in-chief role is probably sufficiently elastic to expand to any crisis, whether real or fabricated. Thus has the US arrived at the verge of dictatorship.

This development has little to do with Bush, who is unlikely to be aware that the Constitution is experiencing its final rending on his watch. America's descent into dictatorship is the result of historical developments and of old political battles dating back to President Nixon being driven from office by a Democratic Congress.

There is today no constitutional party. Both political parties, most constitutional lawyers, and the bar associations are willing to set aside the Constitution whenever it interferes with their agendas. Americans have forgotten the prerequisites for freedom, and those pursuing power have forgotten what it means when it falls into other hands. Americans are very close to losing their constitutional system and civil liberties. It is paradoxical that American democracy is the likely casualty of a "war on terror" that is being justified in the name of the expansion of democracy.

Paul Craig Roberts has held a number of academic appointments and has contributed to numerous scholarly publications. He served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. His graduate economics education was at the University of Virginia, the University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

I don't care. It could have been George Washington acting from beyond the grave and it would still be bullsh!t.

QFT.

Nice to know I need to spoof my MAC and proxy my Google searches now. FFS.

You spoof that Mac address because that is exactly what they are tracking.
This is why people get all up in arms about the internet, they lack understanding on how it works.

:roll:

I spoof my MAC because my ISP assigns me a new IP from their pool. From past experience with my ISP, they don't keep records of these temporary IPs. Resetting my MAC grabs me my old IP back. No trace. Proxy is for added privacy. You can put your arms down now.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

I don't care. It could have been George Washington acting from beyond the grave and it would still be bullsh!t.

QFT.

Nice to know I need to spoof my MAC and proxy my Google searches now. FFS.

You spoof that Mac address because that is exactly what they are tracking.
This is why people get all up in arms about the internet, they lack understanding on how it works.

:roll:

I spoof my MAC because my ISP assigns me a new IP from the pool. From past experience with my ISP, they don't keep records of these temporary IPs. Resetting my MAC grabs me my old IP back. No trace. You can put your arms down now.

Uh if they dont keep logs of temp IP's then you dont need to worry about much of anything. Do you have a router in between your computer and your ISP?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

I don't care. It could have been George Washington acting from beyond the grave and it would still be bullsh!t.

QFT.

Nice to know I need to spoof my MAC and proxy my Google searches now. FFS.

You spoof that Mac address because that is exactly what they are tracking.
This is why people get all up in arms about the internet, they lack understanding on how it works.

:roll:

I spoof my MAC because my ISP assigns me a new IP from the pool. From past experience with my ISP, they don't keep records of these temporary IPs. Resetting my MAC grabs me my old IP back. No trace. You can put your arms down now.

Uh if they dont keep logs of temp IP's then you dont need to worry about much of anything. Do you have a router in between your computer and your ISP?

I know for a fact they don't or I would not rely solely on MAC spoofing and temp IP's. As for the router, I have never been successful pulling a new IP when spoofing my MAC AND going through my router. It can probably be done but I have not been able to. So I bypass my router when spoofing. This works very nicely for evading bans on multiplayer online games as well. Even for subnet bans. My silly ISP assigns all new IP numbers. Not just the last 2 sets. I have done ARIN searches and the IP's that I am assigned do not even appear to be in my ISP's pool. My regular IP is a 2 digit like 66. but my spoofed ends up being 3 digits like 122. I don't complain

 

[Genx87]

Well my point is Mac address's only go to the next router and then get stripped and replaced with that routers mac address in the header.

Unless you are on the same boradcast domain as google, I wouldnt worry about spoofing your mac to save you.

I do question why you get banned from online games

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Well my point is Mac address's only go to the next router and then get stripped and replaced with that routers mac address in the header.

Unless you are on the same boradcast domain as google, I wouldnt worry about spoofing your mac to save you.

I do question why you get banned from online games

One word.... C++

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Luckily Google is the type of company that would go to war with the US government in the courts.

I'm not worried about anything except the US government making asses out of themselves, again.

Like they went to war with China when they demanded the same kind of stuff? Probably not

Remember guys, for google the only thing new right now is the country~ not what they are doing

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

Uhh, this should be filed under "how to waste taxpayer dollars item #855,923,457,098,485,341,472,001."

I can answer that question without Google data. I say . . . umm . . . a whole friggin' lot!!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Luckily Google is the type of company that would go to war with the US government in the courts.

I'm not worried about anything except the US government making asses out of themselves, again.

Like they went to war with China when they demanded the same kind of stuff? Probably not

Remember guys, for google the only thing new right now is the country~ not what they are doing

That was Yahoo, wasn't it?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Luckily Google is the type of company that would go to war with the US government in the courts.

I'm not worried about anything except the US government making asses out of themselves, again.

Like they went to war with China when they demanded the same kind of stuff? Probably not

Remember guys, for google the only thing new right now is the country~ not what they are doing

That was Yahoo, wasn't it?

Yes, but I bet Google China has a whole bunch of 404 errors for words like democracy, human rights, viagra . . .

 

[BMW540I6speed]

'The genie is out of the bottle and there's no way to put it back in.' There are numerous examples of how anonymity is slipping away. Sometimes there are real benefits to the trade-offs of tracking and ubiquitous communication. It will be impossible to stop in the long run without dismantling technology, which we are unlikely to do.

The real issue is not how to keep our privacy, which becomes more and more impossible, but how to enable transparency to give us equal footing with others who have access to that information and to see how it is used. What happens if access to our information is going to be a one-way street away from us where we do not have ways to claim possession over it, nor a voice as to how it is used? If that happens, we are going to be living under informational tyranny, which will become real tyranny over time given human nature. OTOH the more that large groups of people have the means and responsibility to keep tabs on each other, the more difficult it is to take advantage of one another.

For instance, if someone is going to have access to my whereabouts and personal information, I should have a right (most of the time) to theirs as well. Why, if a company wants to see my financial information, shouldn't I be able to see the same of that company?s officers or board of directors?

One of the most overlooked books IMO in the last decade or so is "The Transparent Society - Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom?" by Science Fiction / Futurist Author David Brin. It's out of print though I bought a new copy about a year ago on Amazon.com. While Brin argues that we must be able to retain some real privacy in our homes and personal affairs, he suggests that in the public sphere information should be reciprocal. He argues that in many cases privacy, or worse secrecy, allows those with more resources than us to gain power over us while transparency, which makes information a two way street, builds accountability into the system. Secrecy allows people to do things with information behind the backs of others; transparency allows us to see how information is being used. There is no accountability unless we have transparency that allows us to watch the watchers.

 

[bctbct]

Ok what church group "donated money" to get this info from the whitehouse?

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Looks like they were sued for denying the Government from looking at all that data....
---------------------------------------------------------
Link :http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=...&sid=arCWSKEPoJaE&refer=top_world_news



I aplaud Google for standing up to that. Who does the Bush Administration think they are trying to go on a parade to get as much personal information as they possibly can?!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I surmise they couldn't figure out how to do it illegally and covertly, so they had to ask.

"Oh! it is to protect the children!" :disgust:

 

[Vette73]

Another story

Feds seek Google records in porn probe

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Ok what church group "donated money" to get this info from the whitehouse?

"House of Dobson Inc."

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Too late now. The only thing we can do to stop the madness is invetigate/impeach Bush and that will have to wait until after the elections to even have a chance of happening.

I don't know about you, but if Bush keeps this up, someone will make Chenney president. If you know what I mean.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Too late now. The only thing we can do to stop the madness is invetigate/impeach Bush and that will have to wait until after the elections to even have a chance of happening.

I don't know about you, but if Bush keeps this up, someone will make Chenney president. If you know what I mean.

Bush sux . . . real bad . . . but don't get carried away . . . if you know what I mean.

 

[Quinton McLeod]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Too late now. The only thing we can do to stop the madness is invetigate/impeach Bush and that will have to wait until after the elections to even have a chance of happening.

I don't know about you, but if Bush keeps this up, someone will make Chenney president. If you know what I mean.

But atleast the presidents powers wouldn't go unchecked.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Luckily Google is the type of company that would go to war with the US government in the courts.

I'm not worried about anything except the US government making asses out of themselves, again.

Like they went to war with China when they demanded the same kind of stuff? Probably not

Remember guys, for google the only thing new right now is the country~ not what they are doing

That was Yahoo, wasn't it?

Yes, but I bet Google China has a whole bunch of 404 errors for words like democracy, human rights, viagra . . .

Speaking of Yahoo.....

Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren?t identified.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn?t reveal any personal information. ?We are rigorous defenders of our users? privacy,? Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. ?In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue.?

Microsoft Corp.'s MSN, the No. 3 search engine, declined to say whether it even received a similar subpoena. ?MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested,? the company said in a statement.

MSN Story (page 2)

 

[RightIsWrong]

Even more....

San Jose Mercury News full story

Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online all complied with a government request for data on consumers' Web searches, a Justice Department official said Thursday.

Court documents and sources maintain the information did not compromise users' privacy.

But Google has refused to accede to government's demand, and on Wednesday the Bush administration asked a San Jose federal judge to force the Mountain View search company to comply with the subpoena.

It might be just a PR stunt and they intend to comply in the end......but I have a newfound respect for Google and even less for MS and Yahoo (if possible).

 

[OrganizedChaos]

looks like were about due for a new Sedition Act.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Luckily Google is the type of company that would go to war with the US government in the courts.

I'm not worried about anything except the US government making asses out of themselves, again.

Like they went to war with China when they demanded the same kind of stuff? Probably not

Remember guys, for google the only thing new right now is the country~ not what they are doing

That was Yahoo, wasn't it?

Yes, but I bet Google China has a whole bunch of 404 errors for words like democracy, human rights, viagra . . .

Speaking of Yahoo.....

Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren?t identified.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn?t reveal any personal information. ?We are rigorous defenders of our users? privacy,? Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. ?In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue.?

Microsoft Corp.'s MSN, the No. 3 search engine, declined to say whether it even received a similar subpoena. ?MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested,? the company said in a statement.

MSN Story (page 2)

http://www.whatismyip.com/ << with the right amount of knowledge your IP address is = to your HOME ADDRESS