| I've got nothing to hide and that's all i have to say about that. |
|
| said by seamore:and that's all i have to say about that.
Doesn't mean the goverment should need all your personal emails. |
|
easoninRock Ridge, FL
join:2008-07-08 | Exactly. And, if you don't exercise your rights, you'll lose them. Difficult to do in this case, but just as important. We all need to stand up together against this, even if you do feel the way you do because sooner or later, they'll come after something you do want to protect and there will be no one left to stand with you. Or whatever Niemöller said!
--
You should vote for the Colostomy Bag that I'm voting for! This one appears to be better than that other one! |
|
Reviews:
 ·Earthlink Cable ..
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to seamore
said by seamore:I've got nothing to hide
and that's all i have to say about that.
Then what's your Social Security Number?
and that's all i have to ask about that. |
|
| this info should be made public all these requests should be made public records after a certain time.
if a judge issue a warrant that allows my data to be searched and than i am never charged in a crime i believe i have a right to know about that search. if there is no warrant than google should inform the account holder about the request for information. |
|
 Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX | reply to praetoralpha
Re: I've got nothing to hide you'll need a warrant for that.
/sarcasm
--
»mc-buildville.enjin.com/ |
|
Reviews:
·Earthlink Cable ..
·Verizon FiOS
| said by Duramax08:you'll need a warrant for that.
/sarcasm
Or invoke the T or P words. (terrorist, pedophile)
/sarcasm |
|
Duramax08Win8 sucksPremium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX Reviews:
 ·Millenicom
·Cricket Broadband
| reply to easonin
lol, so what are you hiding then? seriously, if you arent hiding anything like child porn, terrorist activities or company espionage, theres nothing to worry about. you sound like they are going to sell your info to a third party or something. they are only asking for these request probably for some type on investigation going on that could lead to criminal charges.
or maybe they want to know what kind of toilet paper you buy off of amazon? : P
--
»mc-buildville.enjin.com/ |
|
 exocet_cmI am the law - Judge DreddPremium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:2 | Accuracy? From Google's site:
quote:
"68 percent of the requests Google received from government entities in the U.S. were through subpoenas. These are requests for user-identifying information, issued under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and are the easiest to get because they typically don’t involve judges." (emphasis mine)
I know here we have to have subpoenas signed by judges the same as warrants. I typically tell detectives that come to me for assistance to just get a search warrant since the verbiage and paperwork process is almost identical to the subpoena process since it has to be signed by a judge anyway.
I understand this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but making a statement that "x number of data requests are warrantless" without further explaining the process, reads as if the government has unfettered access to our data. If Google really wants to be "transparent", they should break down the number of subpoenas signed by a judge and the number of subpoenas not signed by a judge but issued on "a judge's behalf" from a court.
--
"All newspaper editorial writers ever do is come down from the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded." - Bruce Anderson
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates
|
|
easoninRock Ridge, FL
join:2008-07-08 | reply to Duramax08
Re: I've got nothing to hide The thing to worry about is where does this end? Or rather, what will be next? If we let this happen, what else would YOU let them do and "not worry about"? That's the concern.
And besides, we all know there are safer ways to hide stuff from "them", no matter who they are!
--
You should vote for the Colostomy Bag that I'm voting for! This one appears to be better than that other one! |
|
| reply to seamore
What baffles me is that the NRA and the Right are up in "ARMS" about gun laws, but mum on the Patriot Act, FISA, Warrantless Wiretaps, Facility being built in Bluffdale, Utah to data mine our lives, etc.
As a country, I think Americans are single tracked. While the tech savvy amongst us understand the intrusion, the general populous is too oblivious. They choose to neither question nor complain about the loss of freedoms. To exacerbate the mess is many huge corporations behind the collusion are also in charge of our Media. Cox, Time Warner, etc etc. Thus, very little press time is given.
Ultimately, we have the country united around guns but not united around the fundamental gutting of our constitutional rights. |
|
| reply to exocet_cm
Re: Accuracy? The whole definition of a warrantless is the absence of a judge's signature. If you read the statement you quoted, the verbiage is emphatic about these types don't typically involve a judge.
So either they've factored in that to their estimates or the amount having a signature are negligible. Maybe the other 32 percent are signed and follow protocol? Then, they aren't considered warrantless. |
|
easoninRock Ridge, FL
join:2008-07-08 | reply to jc100
Re: I've got nothing to hide Very good points! I'd like you to check out »www.gunsandweed.com/ , parallels what your saying to a degree.
"Guns and Weed: The Road to Freedom shows, in no uncertain terms, why Freedom of Ingestion and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are equally indisputable civil rights, and why the War on Drugs and the War on Guns are both entirely immoral."
--
You should vote for the Colostomy Bag that I'm voting for! This one appears to be better than that other one! |
|
| reply to jc100
Re: Accuracy? While maybe I don't have much to hide - a lot of info is nobody's business but my own. I don't even like public records. You get spam from collectors of info. |
|
|
|
| wondering about "request" Because to me request doesn't sound like a demand.
It's more like holding out one's hand, and if Google were to slap the papers of data from those requests in the government's hand without an actual demand (i.e. warrant) to do so, obviously that means Google handed over information wilfully and set themselves up for litigation.
To me this is just a ploy to reinforce this image that Google cares extensively about privacy and/or rights.
--
Politicians realized from business that marketing is sufficient over quality, which is why politicians try and market their personalities rather than the quality of their work. |
|
exocet_cmI am the law - Judge DreddPremium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:2 | reply to jc100
Re: Accuracy? said by jc100:The whole definition of a warrantless is the absence of a judge's signature. If you read the statement you quoted, the verbiage is emphatic about these types don't typically involve a judge.
So either they've factored in that to their estimates or the amount having a signature are negligible. Maybe the other 32 percent are signed and follow protocol? Then, they aren't considered warrantless.
Typically don't, according to Google. In my/our city's case, they dp require a subpoena and I'm sure they do in other jurisdictions as well.
To say "68 percent" are warrantless, as in without a judge's signature, is/can be misleading.
If Google is all about transparency, I'd like to see the amount of subpoenas that require or had a judge's signature affixed to the subpoena.
--
"All newspaper editorial writers ever do is come down from the hills after the battle is over and shoot the wounded." - Bruce Anderson
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Xenocrates
|
|
| reply to gruntlord6
Re: I've got nothing to hide said by gruntlord6:said by seamore:and that's all i have to say about that.
Doesn't mean the goverment should need all your personal emails. Believe me, they wont find anything exciting.
People should worry about things that MATTER. |
|
| reply to praetoralpha
said by praetoralpha:said by seamore:I've got nothing to hide
and that's all i have to say about that.
Then what's your Social Security Number? and that's all i have to ask about that. LOL, dont be stupid. |
|
| reply to gruntlord6
said by gruntlord6:said by seamore:and that's all i have to say about that.
Doesn't mean the goverment should need all your personal emails. Im more bothered by my info being collected by a corporation and sold to the highest bidder. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Duramax08
said by Duramax08:lol, so what are you hiding then? seriously, if you arent hiding anything like child porn, terrorist activities or company espionage, theres nothing to worry about. The concern here isn't whether or not one has anything to hide.
It's whether or not a government constrained by a social contract known as the Constitution and its various amendments continues to act within the confines of those supposed constraints. Unfortunately it does not, and has not for quite some time.
said by Fourth Amendment :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. The portion of the Fourth Amendment relevant to our discussion is in bold above. Note that there are no "except if it's more convenient to do otherwise" or "except if the current administration doesn't like it" exceptions spelled out anywhere.
If, as some will undoubtedly argue, "times change" or "nobody could have foreseen a need", then our Founding Fathers did build outline a method of updating the government's contract with its people: a Constitutional Convention. Rather than secretly doing things by dark of night under clouds of suspicion with barely legal (and somewhat illegal) methods, our government should at least attack our rights out in the open and tell us that it intends to take them away. I'd rather that the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments die a heroic death out in the open than be shredded by a bunch of wimpy bureaucrats and die of a thousand paper cuts.
We have a government that's out of control, not operating within the scope of its legal authority, and some citizens find that acceptable. I guess that President Reagan was right when he said that freedom is always only one generation away from death. It's too bad that it has to be the current generation that wants to kill it in the names of "safety and security", "political correctness", "fairness", or whatever other nonsense they want to call it today. |
|
