Interesting news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4630694.stm

What do you think ?

---

:: Forceflow.be :: Nuclear Dawn developer

I think google has done the right thing here, if only because we wouldn't know about this if they weren't resisting it!

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

Google isn't a crime fighting body.

You cant do s**t like this with Journalist (as seen last year).
Google has no obligation to give anything to the government unless
google held some kind of information about a murder.

Google is a look inside peoples minds, its our inner thoughts, what we
think about, what we want to know more about. That isn't the
Governments to take.

Just a few more years untill we are a complete Police/Oligarchy state.

I respect Google for not bending to the will of big brother like MICROSOFT and Yahoo.

This whole world is doomed.

As with any system, it can/could be abused. That said, I firmly believe, perhaps naively so, that ONLY guilty people have concerns. I have always believed that people ARE fundamentally stupid. 99.9% of everything stupid has people doing it.

Traffic jams, people lane swapping cause it.
90% of auto accidents, stupid actions cause them.
Range fires, Stupid people again.
Litter, more stupid people
disaster areas, even MORE stupid people.

People on some level are stupid about many issues. Not every people is stupid about the same issues of course but on a certain plateau, all people are about equally stupid. They just divide the percentages around to their own life styles.

Now here. Google just so happens to be on the side that sees negative connotations. They probably are among the percentage of folks who like thieves feel that everyone steals, or liars who think everyone lies. If someone is searching for something wrong, then by all means wrong things will show up in the database. Trade secrets? like Moguls are using Google to see the price of pork bellies on the wall street stock exchange? Gimme a break.

People NEED big brother mentalities. I do NOT like the concept but I am basically a realist and can envision the need to have it. Every good thing has some stupid people abusing it.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

i can understand someone, living in a country that voted bush into power, thinking that people are inherently stupid. but that aside, the US gov has no right to know what i've searched for on the net. i'd find that just as objectionable as the police banging on my door, demanding to search my house without a search warrant. maybe some people would say that i've got something to hide, but like Orph says, people will judge my actions by their own standards, not mine.

---

i eat paint

Ah, but you aren't envisioning the kind of use I have frequently put the internet to. I search for "bad" things all the time, just because I am curious... how to make meth, explosives, etc. Mostly I find that the schemes online are rather stupid, and as a professional chemist I'm frequently disgusted by them. Still, they give me good ideas for common sources of interesting chemicals that I can play around with. For me it's entirely innocent, much like a kid playing with a chemistry set in the back yard. I like to make loud bangs, but I'm not out to hurt anyone. I suppose I've probably violated the law in these activities, but who cares? I don't worship the law. Besides, I'm smart and educated enough to determine what should not be tried by anyone, so I've hardly ever made any of the things I like to search for, but it's still an interesting intellectual activity. I'd rather not have the FBI coming to hassle me about being a terrorist when I'm really just curious about dangerous things.

I just want to clarify that I do not like the concept. It has side effects that are detrimental to many innocents. I am however aware that criminal will demand the same rights as non-criminals in spite of the fact that in most cases the criminals infringed on someones rights in becoming a criminal.

Realistically speaking, its a sad fact that innocent people will be harmed in the course of capturing misuse of certain events. If one criminal is brought to justice by employing a big brother action, then the unfortunate injustice of the innocent can at least be justified. To an extent anyway. I would absolutely HATE for someone to come into my home without a warrant, but I would not blame the enforcers. I would blame the criminals who created the need for such an event. In the end, they would find only a poor mans home without any criminal intent or paraphernalia and I would be left with nothing more than hurt pride and a major inconvenience of the act.

Again, only guilt need worry.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

99.9% of everything stupid has people doing it.

[snip]

People
NEED big brother mentalities. I do NOT like the concept but I am
basically a realist and can envision the need to have it. Every good
thing has some stupid people abusing it.

It's the other .1 % who matter... only that .1 % can make a difference to fix what's wrong, and no government wants that.

fraggard said:
It's the other .1 % who matter... only that .1 % can make a difference to fix what's wrong, and no government wants that.

I read this multiple times. Care to expand on it a bit to prevent misinterpretations?

You do realize that when I quote numbers, I am just using my opinion of the numbers. In other words "ball park" numbers to illustrate my intent? There are no real facts behind my claims of the 99.9%....

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

You do realize that when I quote numbers, I am just using my
opinion of the numbers. In other words "ball park" numbers to
illustrate my intent? There are no real facts behind my claims of the
99.9%....

What I'm trying to say is that these over-reaching measures don't help
in any way. All they do is harm people who legitimately need that
information. I don't follow american politics too closely, but your
DHS, no-fly lists, wiretaps, etc are basically only getting in the way
of your daily life. This will be like that too.

Just to give you a contrived example, the terrorists aren't going to be
searching for terms like "how to build a backpack nuke for chicago"...
but a sociology student's queries about jihad and islamic law might
well be picked up and put him on some list somewhere that blacklists
him for life.

Your belief that only the guilty need worry, i think, shows that you
have a very unshakeable faith in your country's administrative
policies. That may be true now, but you may need to think about the
future when this same information could be used against you... I do not
trust anyone enough to leave my future in their hands.

It says the order will not violate personal privacy

Nooooooo, of course not! What could
possibly be violating in someone looking at my attempts to find some
pr0n and having my IP and ISP right next to the entries?

fraggard said:
I do not trust anyone enough to leave my future in their hands.

The unshakable truth is, the future will be there when you arrive Fragman. The best that you can hope for is to be there when it arrives. The older I get, the more attuned to the fact of how inconsequential I am in the grand scheme. My only hope is to remain faithful to myself and hope that others continue to view me in the same light.

I know what you are saying and believe me I understand it. I also believe that in some/many cases, the end justifies the means. If a student is searching out legitimate items for a research paper, it will show up as such because there will be no history of mal-intent from that student. I frequent sites (or did when I had DSL) that had pron as a part of its content. I was not there for the naked bodies. I was there for... other questionable content. I would probably be on a list for nakedness, but my visits would undoubtedly be confirmed to the other content I was really after. (to some, just as wrong I grant)

In the end, I am a staunch believer that you yourself will prove your position and that if you need the info on a backpack H-bomb, that it will show that it is a school dissertation project and not a true terrorist one.

I hope that made sense... In the end, read my signature. I believe it with all my heart.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Andrei's got a point there.

---

:: Forceflow.be :: Nuclear Dawn developer

I don't have a huge problem with the US government seeing it if its for something critical to stop a terrorist or something, but if Google were to give in here could China or Equador do the same thing? The USA says they want to maintain control over ICANN, which I believe they should being one of the few countries that protects free speech as much as we do, but if Google gave all the information to US and not to China, Japan, or Iran, the idiots in France would be demanding UN control again. And don't even get me started on that. Hell, in France its illegal to say the word diaper or email.

Edit: I realize that Google is not the "internet", but it is the largest search engine and is the gateway much of it.

---

Help stop the arsehole: http://ebaumsworldsucks.com/

I also believe that in some/many cases, the end justifies the means.

[snip]

In the end, read my signature. I believe it with all my heart.

OK, so maybe there are no right ways to do the wrong thing. I think the more important issue here is: are there any wrong ways of doing the right
thing? Is there a "wrong" way of researching that sociology project?
Because your post seems to imply that there is. Maybe I'm reading too
much into what you posted, but you seem to think that one must follow
some specific set of government-ordained rules for any task ¹, and
breaking those rules leads to punishment...

Does the end always justify the means, or is it just when it benefits the powers that be?

¹: I know there are rules for how research is carried out, but they're
not set down by arbitrary politicos, and that's not relevant here.

You know, the funny thing is that if the USG offered to buy it they'd sell it, provided that no names were given out. Thats part of their business. Instead, the demanded it like idiots.

---

Help stop the arsehole: http://ebaumsworldsucks.com/

what about putting cameras into every library in the world, so the US gov can see what books people browse. or microphones in every house so they can hear if anyone is plotting against them.

is there any real difference?

---

i eat paint

<span style="color: lightblue;">
How about counters mounted at the tip of the penis, to measure the effects of the pr0n I mentioned earlier?

</span>The solution is this one, though: turning everyone into stalker-like creatures.

so george dubya would have a counter on his head?

---

i eat paint

LOL [re-edited]

I see your point Orph, but your position is predicated on the assumption that the criminal justice system is perfect. We know for a fact it isn't. I believe innocent people are sometimes convicted of crimes in this country, albeit very rarely. We have a very good system, but part of that system is the warranted search and seizure clauses in the constitution. Measures that are aimed at making it easier to catch the bad guy all too often have the collateral effect of making it easier to catch the wrong guy.

It wants:

[list]
[*] A list of terms entered into the search engine during an unspecified single week, potentially tens of millions of queries
[*] A million randomly selected web addresses from various Google databases.

[/list]

Nothing in that article suggested the information demanded would be personally identifiable.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

You know, for the most part I am used to being more/less "on my own" during most of the more important topics where "Opinion" is the primary deciding factor when determining the sides the members chose to be on but I had hoped that there would be someone here now who thinks like me considering the massive member count we now have. :sad:

Anyway, onward....

OK, discounting the blue text because all humor/sarcasm aside, nothing was said in it to entice a response since I felt it was out of place in a conversation of import. ( I am not saying blue text is unimportant, just that I saw nothing to comment upon)

@ Fragman- As I tried to say, I disagree with the big brother concept but feel that because people are basically stupid that its a necessary evil. I feel that there is no right way to do a wrong thing because no matter HOW it is employed, it will always hurt someone needlessly. The truly evil thing is, so many people make the concept a necessity. To answer your statement, I say "Yes" there are plenty of examples of doing a right thing in a wrong way. I am not sure if this topic should deviate enough to discuss them before we establish how you are viewing ME in this but yes I feel there are wrong ways of doing right things.

Also, as I said, there are some/many cases where the end justifies the means. I did not insinuate that "all" ends do so.

I would also like to point out that in almost every example, you all are determined to enlist the "exception" to the rule. Try to use the non-exception for a change and see if you can make as compelling a case for your side of the discussion. Are their examples where you can imagine a big brother action being beneficial or are you totally dead set against the idea period?

@ Obie- I do not predicate anything sir. I know that anything can be nonperfect by design. The law being chief among them. What I am trying to say is that the system might be necessary simply because so many people have their own system when determining "right from wrong"

If we could somehow have a set parameter for these things then there would be no need to anyone to watch OVER anyone else. Sadly, this will never be the case. We have a major drought around here. There are several hundred signs pointing this out and yet people are still tossing their cigs out the window lit. We have people who think nothing is wrong with this. Now how do we handle these people. Remembering that fires are a much smaller issue than terrorism. How do we enforce a burn ban?

People seldom realize that small wrongs add up eventually. People are under the false assumption that if enough people do a wrong thing long enough it somehow becomes less wrong. I even hear people say "get a life" or "you worry to much about small things" Try telling that to the people who's houses are gone now because of the cigarette. try telling that to the people who now have no pasture to feed their livestock.

Anyway, if we cannot enforce the little things how the hell will we ever convince people to enforce the bigger ones?

/rant

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting DrGlass</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Just a few more years untill we are a complete Police/Oligarchy state.

I respect Google for not bending to the will of big brother like MICROSOFT and Yahoo.

This whole world is doomed.
</DIV></DIV>Jesus Christ, Glass, I thought more of you. Are you really one of the poor saps who reads a little Orwell and then proceeds to spout his phrases in normal conversation?

Here's a wake up call for all those of you who seem to be confused: there are no motherf**king Thought Police. America is not Oceania. It's not going to be.

I'd be a dumbass to argue that the government demanding access to our search queries, essentially on a whim, is justified. The difference between me and you, however, is that I don't let loose with cynical, paranoid, completely retarded predictions of a dysotopian America as soon as I see something I disagree with. I swear to God, 1984 absolutely breeds idiocy.

Cassius, in my eyes you have redeemed yourself.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

wil5on said:
Cassius, in my eyes you have redeemed yourself.

I was never under any impression that his redemption was in question.

Cass and I do not always agree but we always disagree amicably. His positions have always interested me and I have often found myself questioning my views because of his. I am not saying he sways my views, but I do broaden them on occasion because of him.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

cass, for a pup, yer still a favorite hero of mine...

as i understand it, yahoo, and aol turned over said requested info pronto....and the reason google didnt is because of the nature of the personal info they collect whilst being used, and the nature of their search protocols, ie, the guts of it that makes it tick....now, i understand the need for competitive secrecy as far as that goes, and i understand the need for client confidentiality....but, plain and simply, if the government wants the info bad enough, they'll find a way to get it....and theyll act on it, no matter what they tell you, whether its correct or not.....if they want to fight with me because ill spot the occasional tits and ass page, so be it....your government dollars at work....

makes me wonder just how deep google can get into my "life"....

....heres the kicker.....once they have theyre finger in the pie, they will use it in every way BUT what was originally intended, under the guise of "national security".... the thought of that really frosts my ass, and yet.....

Doc B.... :dodgy:

no, there's no drive by the US government to be a police state. more of a military led world order that oppresses anyone that stands against the 'dream', whatever the big word for that might be.

i think there may have been a slightly different reaction had pakistan launched a similar attack on US soil without as much as a by-your-leave, or didn't they show you that in the states?

---

i eat paint

hell would have broken completely loose in that case fishman.....but i think pakistan was intimately involved in that scene, simply because the intel would be virtually impossible to get otherwise......white folks in the poshtoon region (sp?) stick out like a sore thumb.. :heee: .....why do you think we are kissing pakistans ass? musharef......hes the "in"....

Doc B...

Again, I see your point, Jon, but I disagree. I think the real difference between us here is a judgement call on the balance between catching criminals, and avoiding hurting the innocent bystander. Sure, certain measures are required to keep the public safe, you just have to balance the benefit to the public against the potential harm for any given measure. In this case, I guess I see a potential for harm that outweighs the law enforcement value of the measure in question.

Oh, and Cass...

Tracer Bullet said:
Again, I see your point, Jon, but I disagree.

The neatest thing is, I see nothing wrong with you doing so either. I am actually quite glad as a matter of fact.

I wish all my differences were so easy to distinguish around here.

Oh, and Cass...

My thoughts...Exactly.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

i may have missed this somewhere in this thread, and not to be contrary TB, or Jon (btw, its nice to see ya tracer.. :wink: ) but i dont think the problem is going to be that cut and dried on either hand, nor is it the main point of worry....my opinion only, the ramifictions of just being allowed to "put the finger in the pie" is whats going to set the precedent....this mask of "national security" is exactly that.....come on man, how much do you, or i, or anyone in the public really know....occasionally they (nsa, cia, nis, etc etc etc... ) get caught with their pants down, but for every such incident, the ones that get by are a thousandfold....

if i felt i could actually implicitly trust the government, i probably wouldnt sound quite as "orwellian" (((waves at cass))) but look back and tell me that the government, or most people, for that matter, dont take what they can and run with it, as absolutely far as they can....its just the simple fact that this is one of the things we fight for, that its private, that makes it imho, intolerable.

Doc b.

Dr Brasso said:
.... intel would be virtually impossible to get otherwise......white folks in the poshtoon region (sp?) stick out like a sore thumb.. :heee: .....why do you think we are kissing pakistans ass? musharef......hes the "in"....

it's a bit of a thin arguement to say the intel came from the pakistani government because a w.a.s.p. would be noticed over there. don't ethnics get into the cia/millitary? don't the cia/millitary pay locals for info, good or bad?

---

i eat paint

....sorry fish, i didnt think youd take that quite so literally...

yes, ethnics are in the services.... the point was we rely heavily on the local tribesmen for intel...in pakistan....which the government of pakistan hasnt alot of control over, never has, and yet, the country has nukes at its disposal...instability cant be fostered....too late... its tough enough, because the money paid for said intel isnt as important to them as we think it should be....honor among thieves if you will....***i figure that a WASP, or even an outsider tribesman will raise an eyebrow in a heartbeat if the folks all know Osamas in town....to alot of these folks hes actually revered as a god of sorts....

pakistan would have picked these guys up on radar 150 miles out from any direction....sams or silkworms or whatever in the air in a matter of minutes, seconds if deemed an imminent threat. anywhere along the land borders is like flting from omaha to either coast, and try to go un-noticed. a predator drone onlty has a range of 500 miles or so....you do the location math....the point is, they had to know, or at least turn a blind eye....stage the local obligatory anti bulls**t protest, mutter some political utterings, wave a few papers, pee in a few cheerios.................back to business, see ya next time guys.

<div class="quote"><div class="quotetitle">? quoting Tracer Bullet:</div><div class="quotetext">Again, I see your point, Jon, but I disagree. I think the real
difference between us here is a judgement call on the balance between
catching criminals, and avoiding hurting the innocent bystander. Sure,
certain measures are required to keep the public safe, you just have to
balance the benefit to the public against the potential harm for any
given measure. In this case, I guess I see a potential for harm that
outweighs the law enforcement value of the measure in question.
</div></div>

Well put. My thoughts exactly.

As has been said - if you don't do anything "wrong", then you have nothing to fear.

And he who shall raise me on "WHAT IS WRONG, REALLY?" - come on, get over yourselves.

The Government will seek to persecute you if you speak in favour,
advocated and instruct/incite bombings, attacks etc etc so forth
against civil institutions. If you're writing a blog saying "I THINK
BLAIR/BUSH IS WRONG AND THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WRONG", you're like millions
of others. You are not special, there is no thought police.

Maybe analyse how you consume, don't vote and hold no opinion on other
socio-political effects of your government and people will take you
seriously. Until then you are just raging against the machine with a
propaganda wagon which is just as malicious and effective as the right
wing politics you so rile against.

</2cents>

Gwil said:
As has been said - if you don't do anything "wrong", then you have nothing to fear.

Herein lies the crux of the discussion methinks. At what point does wrong become wrong enough to warrant scrutiny?

Don't fool yourselves fellas, we are truly discussing scrutiny here not right and wrong. People tend to shy away from close scrutiny on most, if not all matters. This tendency lends to the idea that in doing so we are being accused of something even if there is nothing erroneous at all going on.

If I read Obie's post correctly he in effect is against any action that can cause harm to innocents. I postulate that inaction can do at least as much harm, albeit in a different way or method, but harm none the less. Inaction has caused at least as much grief as acting rashly, or prematurely throughout out histories.

Bottomline, scrutiny seems to be what balks the mind of everyone who dislikes the "big brother" activity.

Does that about sum it up?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

yep.....sums it up nicely.....and in that context big jon, i vehemently disagree with you. anyone at any time can look at me as an open book....all they have to do is ask....but you wanna sneak in thru what amounts to an electronic side door or a loophole? bah...ill fight you to the death. you do not have my permission, you are a trespasser...

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

seems pretty open to interpretations, within the original confines...which i believe to be pretty cut and dried...

Doc B...

....it is still called "the bill of RIGHTS"...not "the bill of priveledges"... :smile:

Ouch guys, just to defend
myself for a second. I was an art student in a bad mood when I wrote
that.

To be honest, Cass, I've never read 1984... and I stand by the "the US
is an oligarchy" thing.

Back on topic,

In my humble opinion the government of my time seems to be untrustworthy.
If I didn't have the thought in the back of my mind that some big wig is looking
through my history folder, not because I do "wrong" or am a criminal,
but because I don?t trust "them".

I nice man who worked for my dad found his stock accounts frozen after joining
a gay rights group and getting a slot on the patriot act's black list.

I can also bring up the WMD stuff.

Hidden amendments snuck into bills in congress.

From what I see through the filter of network news scares me a little
bit.

So... while we aren?t going to all be in matching shirts and shoes with chains
around our ankles, we seem to be on a road to something worse than where we are
now.

Orpheus said:
I am not sure if this topic should deviate enough to discuss them before we establish how you are viewing ME in this but yes I feel there are wrong ways of doing right things.

I'm not viewing you in any new way based on this Orph. I'm arguing issues, not people.

Orpheus said:
Also, as I said, there are some/many cases where the end justifies the means. I did not insinuate that "all" ends do so.

For your/my/any government, does the end always justify the means? If you believe that, then, quite frankly, there's no point arguing at all. Obviously, you feel that there should be some limits. The founders of your country knew this, and put in a lot of safeguards to make sure that power doesn't pool in the hands of future governments. Your current government is slowly, but surely chipping away at those same safeguards by saying the end justifies the means. How far are YOU willing to let it go?

Orpheus said:
I would also like to point out that in almost every example, you all are determined to enlist the "exception" to the rule. Try to use the non-exception for a change and see if you can make as compelling a case for your side of the discussion. Are their examples where you can imagine a big brother action being beneficial or are you totally dead set against the idea period?

Now that's a good point. My personal leanings are that there are situations where complete government oversight is necessary, but not in civilian issues. The defense, maybe.

Orpheus said:
People seldom realize that small wrongs add up eventually. People are under the false assumption that if enough people do a wrong thing long enough it somehow becomes less wrong. I even hear people say "get a life" or "you worry to much about small things" Try telling that to the people who's houses are gone now because of the cigarette. try telling that to the people who now have no pasture to feed their livestock.

Same thing... small erosions of your civil liberties may add up. Fight it if you can now, despite cassius's blanket predictions that it'll never happen. You might not become Oceania, but do you want to become Singapore? Dystopic orwellianism might not occur, but do you want to turn into a nanny state? At least, those guys had a Big Brother to feel safe with... all you have is dubya

Orpheus said:
/rant

Ditto.. I think I needed to rave for a bit to get my mind off things.

I am actually beginning to feel that this may possibly be our first ever discussion without the usual "parry/thrust/parry/jab" tactics.

Just in case no one ever says so, Thanx guys.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

***covers face with left.....circles right

it has actually been a good one ....nice to see. yer all full o' s**t, but wth....///runs

Doc B... :dodgy:

no, seriously, ive actually found myself coming back incrementaly to see whats been said....been awhile since i felt like that around here....***/// me thinks of the good ole days....

.......and i was kidding about the fullos**t thing.... :heee:

Dr Brasso said:
nice to see. yer all full o' s**t, but wth....///runs

Cryptically speaking your words had me laughing till I almost peed myself. It reads "Nice to see you're full of s**t but with the runs"

Yeah, life is grand then we wake up. Oh well.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

yeah, well, im still working on my first cup o joe bud.....yer up... :heee:

may i suggest a heavier lead content in yer coffee sir??

Doc b... :dodgy:

Dr Brasso said:
yeah, well, im still working on my first cup o joe bud.....yer up... :heee:

may i suggest a heavier lead content in yer coffee sir??

Doc b... :dodgy:

glances down at first cup as well
nah, lead is no good but I hear that generic creamer has more fiber in it. Course its prolly fiberglass but I'm not telling.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

evil twin crawls from under rock....

"fiber my ass....creamer makes ya s**t like a goose..."

crawls back under rock/////

---

MUHAHAHAHA!!!! the Evil twin Lives!!!

[DRS said:
Brasso-Kona-]evil twin crawls from under rock....

"fiber my ass....creamer makes ya s**t like a goose..."

crawls back under rock/////

"Black is beautiful" only extends so far and doesn't usually include my morning coffee.

I can drink java any way its made. A trick I picked up in my years of the Service but, I prefer it poisoned with cream/sugar when I can get it.
The only way I refuse to drink it is flavored. I hate mocha coffee or any of those other yukky kinds.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

could you imagine a caramel mocha late' (sp) in the field, right after the morning "single swipe constitutional" ....ahhh....life is good....

Doc B... :dodgy:

Dr Brasso said:
could you imagine a caramel mocha late' (sp) in the field, right after the morning "single swipe constitutional" ....ahhh....life is good....

Doc B... :dodgy:

What I can envision is:

"Sarge, this coffee tastes funny."

"Drink it private."

"Sarge it has lumps."
"Chew it then."

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

roflmao....touche....

Doc B... :dodgy: