seamore Premium Member join:2009-11-02 |
seamore
Premium Member
2013-Jan-24 8:25 am
I've got nothing to hideand 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! |
|
|
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. |
|
|
freenetuser
Anon
2013-Jan-24 8:58 am
this info should be made publicall 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. |
|
Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
to praetoralpha
Re: I've got nothing to hideyou'll need a warrant for that.
/sarcasm |
|
|
said by Duramax08:you'll need a warrant for that.
/sarcasm Or invoke the T or P words. (terrorist, pedophile) /sarcasm |
|
Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
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 |
|
exocet_cmWriting Premium Member join:2003-03-23 Brooklyn, NY |
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 dont 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. |
|
easoninRock Ridge, FL join:2008-07-08 |
to Duramax08
Re: I've got nothing to hideThe 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! |
|
1 recommendation |
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. |
|
jc10098 |
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 |
to jc10098
Re: I've got nothing to hideVery 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." |
|
|
to jc10098
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. |
|
Relic (banned) join:2003-09-29 |
Relic (banned)
Member
2013-Jan-24 9:46 am
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. |
|
exocet_cmWriting Premium Member join:2003-03-23 Brooklyn, NY |
to jc10098
Re: Accuracy?said by jc10098: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. |
|
seamore Premium Member join:2009-11-02 |
to gruntlord6
Re: I've got nothing to hidesaid 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. |
|
seamore |
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. |
|
seamore |
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
NOVA_UAV_Guy |
to seamore
Well, weren't you the one that said you have nothing to hide? LOL |
|
NOVA_UAV_Guy |
to easonin
I'll agree 100% about the guns, but only 50% about the drugs. Firearms ownership is a right specifically granted to us; consumption of specific substances is not.
That being said, I wouldn't have an issue with laws that treated marijuana on par with alcohol and other substances. Allow personal consumption up to a point (as this consumption doesn't hurt anyone but the consumer), and disallow certain activities (such as driving, operating heavy machinery, etc.) while under its influence to prevent others from being hurt. |
|
seamore Premium Member join:2009-11-02 |
to NOVA_UAV_Guy
said by NOVA_UAV_Guy:Well, weren't you the one that said you have nothing to hide? LOL I was talking about nothing to hide when it comes to breaking any law or engaging in any nefarious activity. Anyway, the government already has my SS number |
|
|
to exocet_cm
Re: Accuracy?I'd suggest that if Google really wanted to be transparent on this, they would create a searchable archive of all the search requests and place it online for all to see.
The government should have no issue with this, if they requests are indeed righteous and made in good faith. The problem is that lack of respect for the law seems to run rampant in the very agencies whose members swore an oath to uphold it... and the higher up you go in scope (local to national) the worse the corruption becomes. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden : Personal attacks
|
firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
to Duramax08
Re: I've got nothing to hidesaid by Duramax08:lol, so what are you hiding then?
... or company espionage, theres nothing to worry about. You included the primary target of allowable snooping by accident. The greatest ideas that result in the biggest profits are most always taken from someone else, by various means. Do you seriously think all these multi-billion dollar corporations who roll over on their back when it comes to data privacy are doing it in the name of patriotism? They allow it because it gives them a free get out of jail ticket when they can just say the data they may or may not of seen was also seen by the gov't so "anyone" could of seen it or given it away so they shouldn't be liable for all the money they may or may not have made from seeing it or using it. But yea, what I had for dinner and where I bought a pack of gum is "nothing to hide" so who cares... |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
easoninRock Ridge, FL join:2008-07-08 |
to NOVA_UAV_Guy
Re: I've got nothing to hideCorrection, that right was not given to us, it was only listed as a human right. Just as we have a human right to do with our own bodies what we wish. I really hope you're not saying that it is right for other people to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body! Because I don't want to tell anyone what they can or can't do, as nobody should be able to tell me the same. So, yes, all drugs should be decriminalized, not just cannabis or alcohol or aspirin. |
|
pawpaw join:2004-05-05 Asheville, NC |
to NOVA_UAV_Guy
said by NOVA_UAV_Guy:Firearms ownership is a right specifically granted to us; consumption of specific substances is not. Let me introduce you to the 9th and 10th Amendments, which are there for this exact reason. However, I agree with protecting others. "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." John Stuart Mill |
|
SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature. Premium Member join:2000-08-05 united state
1 recommendation |
to easonin
We have more important things to worry about. Like getting firearms away from law abiding citizens. We can't keep them out of the hands of criminals, so we might as well take them away from the people that obey the laws.
Besides, I don't care if the government walks into my house and helps themselves to anything they want. I have nothing to hide, and I'm not afraid to share anything that i own.
*Please note the use of sarcasm.
As a law abiding citizen, I find it offensive when someone out there makes comments like "I have nothing to hide". As American citizens, we are supposed to have rights that prevent the government from spying on us.
That fact that our government has no problem in stepping on those rights, and that their are citizens that don't care if it does, is a damn shame. |
|