Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/20/2006 7:01:45 AM EDT
Just got off the phone with Senator Cornyn's office in D.C. Just to let them know that I was agaisnt the Justice Dept asking for Google's data regarding searches. The person I spoke with said that the senator was out of town. But will return and issue a public statement on the matter. He also told me that I was the only one who called regarding this matter. So, am I the only one who cares about this?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:06:28 AM EDT
Yep.


Well, no, but if I called someone every time some government agency did something silly I would be on the phone all day.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:12:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Joaquin:
Just got off the phone with Senator Cornyn's office in D.C. Just to let them know that I was agaisnt the Justice Dept asking for Google's data regarding searches. The person I spoke with said that the senator was out of town. But will return and issue a public statement on the matter. He also told me that I was the only one who called regarding this matter. So, am I the only one who cares about this?



Apathy..... aint it grand! Does it change monday night football or make it harder to buy beer? No? Then nobody cares.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:20:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:
Just got off the phone with Senator Cornyn's office in D.C. Just to let them know that I was agaisnt the Justice Dept asking for Google's data regarding searches. The person I spoke with said that the senator was out of town. But will return and issue a public statement on the matter. He also told me that I was the only one who called regarding this matter. So, am I the only one who cares about this?



Apathy..... aint it grand! Does it change monday night football or make it harder to buy beer? No? Then nobody cares.




This is about pr0n! Good god man, call your senator!
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:21:59 AM EDT
Not really.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:26:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:30:43 AM EDT
Why do people believe they have any right to privacy on the internet? There is no right to privacy on the internet. Your messages is transmitted, in the open, across dozens of servers, all of which keep a copy for backup purposes, to people that you don't know.

If it was sensitive information that had been encrypted, then maybe, but things that people type in on Google's website? No.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:31:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:35:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



They've already tried the 4473 thing before, for your information, under Clinton, and it has nothing to do with google. And I don't expect privacy on the internet.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:36:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 7:36:18 AM EDT by No_Serfing]
Just becasue there isn't a right, doesn't mean there shouldn't be. I find it very troubling that the government would gather information from search engines. If the British had done it to the Colonialists, do you think they would have thought it OK? As the world changes we don't have to believe that we are only allowed the rights thought of in the 18th century.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:36:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 7:36:36 AM EDT by Melvinator2k0]
NO
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:37:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



They've already tried the 4473 thing before, for your information, under Clinton, and it has nothing to do with google. And I don't expect privacy on the internet.



Your ability to rationalize bad things done under a republican administration never ceases to amaze me.


Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:39:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



They've already tried the 4473 thing before, for your information, under Clinton, and it has nothing to do with google. And I don't expect privacy on the internet.



Your ability to rationalize bad things done under a republican administration never ceases to amaze me.





Your ability to pull out of your ass false motivations for those arguing with you never ceases to amaze me.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:39:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.



It's not about "posts" on the internet.

It's about the government fishing just to see if it can.

As has been stated, they're allegedly looking for information that proves COPA would have worked.

How?

By issuing a subpoena for all searches during a week at online search engines.

To see if kids are googling for porn.

You tell me how they can determine what age a person doing a google search is.

The answer is they can't.

So then ask yourself why they really want this.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:41:31 AM EDT
This is a big deal. The internet is the last place to express truth.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:42:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.



Stuff we post on the internet may have no right to privacy, but that doesn't mean I want the government to be snooping through it.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:43:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By No_Serfing:
Just becasue there isn't a right, doesn't mean there shouldn't be. I find it very troubling that the government would gather information from search engines. If the British had done it to the Colonialists, do you think they would have thought it OK? As the world changes we don't have to believe that we are only allowed the rights thought of in the 18th century.



Yes, they would have thought it ok. If I stand in the middle of a crowded room and yell out information about myself, or if me and a friend were talking in a crowded elevator, should I be surprised when someone overhears us? Do I have a right to privacy in those situations? No. Sending information to Google is the same thing. Heck, they even have websites that display what people are searching for at that very moment.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:45:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



They've already tried the 4473 thing before, for your information, under Clinton, and it has nothing to do with google. And I don't expect privacy on the internet.



Your ability to rationalize bad things done under a republican administration never ceases to amaze me.





Your ability to pull out of your ass false motivations for those arguing with you never ceases to amaze me.



Bullshit, rik. and you know it.

You can be good when things are justifiable. But you get into quisling mode when other people attack this administration for doing something bad. Like on the border issue.

You give up the lame excuse "do you think clinton was any better?"

Of course, that ignores the fact that they WERE better in prosecuting employers of illegal aliens - a certifiable fact.

But let's get to the heart of your pathetic, see through rationalizations. "Other people have done worse". That's not a defense. That's an excuse, and it only serves to make you and them look bad.

"Sure, my wife had a 3 man gangbang behind my back, but my ex girlfreind had a 8 guy gangbang behind my back. So my wife is better than my old girlfriend."

That's the same sort of idiotic rationalization you are using. And I know from your postings that if someone was doing that on another subject, you'd call them out on it.

But for whatever reason, you resort to a false argument that does NOTHING to address the actual issue - it's just a diversionary attempt to say "gee,it could be worse" instead of addressing what THIS administration has done.

I guess it was a mistake to expect better from you.

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:46:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.



Stuff we post on the internet may have no right to privacy, but that doesn't mean I want the government to be snooping through it.



You don't think people don't snoop already? You don't think that advertisers don't look at what people are searching for and targeting ads from that data?
If you believe that the only person who is paying attention to what you search for is just you and Google, you are sadly mistaken. The government can snoop through it, and people should be aware of that when they post stuff on the net.

Do we have an expectation of privacy within these posts here at AR15.com? No. What's the difference then?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:48:32 AM EDT
I'm more against Google KEEPING that kind of information than I am against .gov ASKING for it.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:49:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Bullshit, rik. and you know it.

You can be good when things are justifiable. But you get into quisling mode when other people attack this administration for doing something bad. Like on the border issue.



Bullshit right back at you. FIND me a cite where I excused anyone on the border issue. Betcha can't. In fact, if you had ANY fucking clue what you're talking about you would know that OVER AND OVER I have stated that the immigration issue is the one area I disagree with the Bush administration's handling of an issue.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:50:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.



Stuff we post on the internet may have no right to privacy, but that doesn't mean I want the government to be snooping through it.



You don't think people don't snoop already? You don't think that advertisers don't look at what people are searching for and targeting ads from that data?
If you believe that the only person who is paying attention to what you search for is just you and Google, you are sadly mistaken. The government can snoop through it, and people should be aware of that when they post stuff on the net.

Do we have an expectation of privacy within these posts here at AR15.com? No. What's the difference then?



Again, it isn't about what you post, it's about what you search for.

There is no way they can get the information they claim they are looking for out of this subpoena. You can't determine the age of an internet user from an internet search engine's logs.

If you think they can, maybe you should get a patent on the idea, because you can make billions with it.

So they are just fishing to exercise their power. And they're setting up a precedent for the next (possibly democrat) administration.

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:52:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pale_pony:
I'm more against Google KEEPING that kind of information than I am against .gov ASKING for it.



I thought I was the only one thinking that...
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:52:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 7:56:45 AM EDT by bastiat]

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Bullshit, rik. and you know it.

You can be good when things are justifiable. But you get into quisling mode when other people attack this administration for doing something bad. Like on the border issue.



Bullshit right back at you. FIND me a cite where I excused anyone on the border issue. Betcha can't. In fact, if you had ANY fucking clue what you're talking about you would know that OVER AND OVER I have stated that the immigration issue is the one area I disagree with the Bush administration's handling of an issue.



Well ,since I dont' have my active topics now, you'd probably have to find it. It was some newbie posting about the border within the past 3 days.

You want to find it, I'll find out out what I'm referring to. If I was wrong and it was somebody else, I'll apologize.

If I'm right, and you indeed did make a "he's no worse than any other president" comparison, will you admit I'm right?

ETA:

My apologies. I was wrong. I confused you with LarryG somehow, who was the one doing what I (falsely) accused you of doing. Sorry.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:54:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pale_pony:
I'm more against Google KEEPING that kind of information than I am against .gov ASKING for it.



Now thats a good point pale_pony.

I have no problem with the government asking for info. I have no problem with a company saying yes or no to that request. I do have a problem with forcing a company to release info that is not directly related to a criminal investigation.

Shok
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:56:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Bullshit, rik. and you know it.

You can be good when things are justifiable. But you get into quisling mode when other people attack this administration for doing something bad. Like on the border issue.



Bullshit right back at you. FIND me a cite where I excused anyone on the border issue. Betcha can't. In fact, if you had ANY fucking clue what you're talking about you would know that OVER AND OVER I have stated that the immigration issue is the one area I disagree with the Bush administration's handling of an issue.



Well ,since I dont' have my active topics now, you'd probably have to find it. It was some newbie posting about the border within the past 3 days.



I haven't commented on any border issue thread in the last 3 days. Just checked active topics to be sure. And any time I HAVE commented on it, I have not defended the laissez faire attitude of President Bush wrt illegal immigration.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:57:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Bullshit, rik. and you know it.

You can be good when things are justifiable. But you get into quisling mode when other people attack this administration for doing something bad. Like on the border issue.



Bullshit right back at you. FIND me a cite where I excused anyone on the border issue. Betcha can't. In fact, if you had ANY fucking clue what you're talking about you would know that OVER AND OVER I have stated that the immigration issue is the one area I disagree with the Bush administration's handling of an issue.



Well ,since I dont' have my active topics now, you'd probably have to find it. It was some newbie posting about the border within the past 3 days.



I haven't commented on any border issue thread in the last 3 days. Just checked active topics to be sure. And any time I HAVE commented on it, I have not defended the laissez faire attitude of President Bush wrt illegal immigration.



See my edit above. Somehow I confused you and larryG who used the argument listed above.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 7:58:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.



Stuff we post on the internet may have no right to privacy, but that doesn't mean I want the government to be snooping through it.



You don't think people don't snoop already? You don't think that advertisers don't look at what people are searching for and targeting ads from that data?
If you believe that the only person who is paying attention to what you search for is just you and Google, you are sadly mistaken. The government can snoop through it, and people should be aware of that when they post stuff on the net.

Do we have an expectation of privacy within these posts here at AR15.com? No. What's the difference then?



Yes you're right, but are YOU happy with that? would you rather they not snoop? Just because we don't have a right to privacy on the internet doesn't mean we shouldn't have that right. I would like to see privacy rights extended to the internet.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:03:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

... Just because we don't have a right to privacy on the internet doesn't mean we shouldn't have that right. I would like to see privacy rights extended to the internet.



Agreed.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:10:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 8:11:49 AM EDT by guardian855]

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.



Stuff we post on the internet may have no right to privacy, but that doesn't mean I want the government to be snooping through it.



You don't think people don't snoop already? You don't think that advertisers don't look at what people are searching for and targeting ads from that data?
If you believe that the only person who is paying attention to what you search for is just you and Google, you are sadly mistaken. The government can snoop through it, and people should be aware of that when they post stuff on the net.

Do we have an expectation of privacy within these posts here at AR15.com? No. What's the difference then?



Yes you're right, but are YOU happy with that? would you rather they not snoop? Just because we don't have a right to privacy on the internet doesn't mean we shouldn't have that right. I would like to see privacy rights extended to the internet.



That's the point. You CAN'T extend privacy rights to the internet. It is the same thing as talking in a crowded elevator. The only difference is personal or business correspondance where encryption is involved in an attempt to break privacy. Do you guys know how easy it is to set up a sniffer on a server that handles internet traffic to see and record all data that passes by? Even if encyrption was involved, I can still listen to it, it'll just be illegal to break the encryption.

And they shouldn't have to extend the right to privacy, people should realize that what they talk about on the internet is free domain.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:26:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



Stuff you post on the internet has no right to privacy. So what if the govt subpoenas all google searches for guns, anything you type on an open internet that is exposed to the world is fair game.



Stuff we post on the internet may have no right to privacy, but that doesn't mean I want the government to be snooping through it.



You don't think people don't snoop already? You don't think that advertisers don't look at what people are searching for and targeting ads from that data?
If you believe that the only person who is paying attention to what you search for is just you and Google, you are sadly mistaken. The government can snoop through it, and people should be aware of that when they post stuff on the net.

Do we have an expectation of privacy within these posts here at AR15.com? No. What's the difference then?



Yes you're right, but are YOU happy with that? would you rather they not snoop? Just because we don't have a right to privacy on the internet doesn't mean we shouldn't have that right. I would like to see privacy rights extended to the internet.



That's the point. You CAN'T extend privacy rights to the internet. It is the same thing as talking in a crowded elevator. The only difference is personal or business correspondance where encryption is involved in an attempt to break privacy. Do you guys know how easy it is to set up a sniffer on a server that handles internet traffic to see and record all data that passes by? Even if encyrption was involved, I can still listen to it, it'll just be illegal to break the encryption.

And they shouldn't have to extend the right to privacy, people should realize that what they talk about on the internet is free domain.



Clearly you know more about the internet than I do. However I am tired of software being downloaded onto my PC without my consent for the purposes of tracking which websites I visit. (If companies can do it, so can the government)

I don't like that there are hidden files on my PC which can also be used to determine where I visit on the internet. Microsoft should have an option, say an icon on the desktop, which when clicked on would erase all histories, cookies and other such files leaving no trace regarding my internet use.

I understand that it may not be practical to completely protect my privacy on the net, but it should be protected as much as possible.

...perhaps this is a dumb question, but why can't we surf annoumonously(sp?) on the net.

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:34:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 8:39:35 AM EDT by guardian855]

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Clearly you know more about the internet than I do. However I am tired of software being downloaded onto my PC without my consent for the purposes of tracking which websites I visit. (If companies can do it, so can the government)

I don't like that there are hidden files on my PC which can also be used to determine where I visit on the internet. Microsoft should have an option, say an icon on the desktop, which when clicked on would erase all histories, cookies and other such files leaving no trace regarding my internet use.

I understand that it may not be practical to completely protect my privacy on the net, but it should be protected as much as possible.

...perhaps this is a dumb question, but why can't we surf annoumonously(sp?) on the net.




Oh, I agree with you on the spyware problem. Something has to be done about that. That's a completely different issue than the government is trying to do. The govt. is asking for a weeks worth of what people are searching about, basically what has been typed into google to search for. It doesn't include any private info like your address or who you are, just what was seearched for (unless someone searched for an address or something. )

The problem with hidden files is that yes, they do cause a problem with spyware, but they are also pretty usefull. You can log into AR15.com, and then close the page, and when you go back to AR15.com, it will remember who you are so you don't have to log in again. The server does this by placing a cookie on your computer. Being able to run programs and execute files is also useful, such as when you go to the Windows Update page, or when Crucial scans your system to see what type of memory you have. Of course, as we all know this is easily used for evil purposes.

They do have programs that will erase all cookies and prevent hidden files from executing, but again this eliminates some of the functionality of your web browser.

As far as surfing anoynmously, it's just the way the internet works. The servers have to know where to send data to get back to your computer, so it will keep track of the IP address of your machine, so it knows how to get your data back to you. Your ISP (Internet Service Provider) provides you with that IP address, so if someone has your IP address (like the govt) all it has to do is ask your ISP who has been assigned that address. Think of it as a correspondonce using the postal service. You write the address of who you are talking to on it, and you include your return address so that you can recieve replies back, but there is no envolope, the message is in the clear. Every postal station has to analyze your message, and keeps a copy of that message before forwarding to the next one. Once the recipient recieves the message, he responds. Same thing in reverse, all postal stations analyze becuase they have no way of knowing its destination without reading it and finding the return address and keep a copy of the letter as it is sent back to you. It can't be anonymous because everyone has to know where it is going and where it's coming from. And obviously, you can't have an expectation of privacy, as the message has been handled by dozens of people who have probably made backup copies of it while the message has been transmitted.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:35:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



They've already tried the 4473 thing before, for your information, under Clinton, and it has nothing to do with google. And I don't expect privacy on the internet.



+1 I with Rik on this one. It's no different than the public airways. Talk on any RF device and your
privacy has it's pants down.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:53:44 AM EDT
not really, but I think I'll start using an anonymous proxy from now on when Googling
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 8:57:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Grunteled:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:
Just got off the phone with Senator Cornyn's office in D.C. Just to let them know that I was agaisnt the Justice Dept asking for Google's data regarding searches. The person I spoke with said that the senator was out of town. But will return and issue a public statement on the matter. He also told me that I was the only one who called regarding this matter. So, am I the only one who cares about this?



Apathy..... aint it grand! Does it change monday night football or make it harder to buy beer? No? Then nobody cares.



You call that apathy? HA! I don't give a crap about football. And, I live in a dry town and have to drive nearly two miles to buy beer and I've never called my Congressman about it.
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:25:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

Clearly you know more about the internet than I do. However I am tired of software being downloaded onto my PC without my consent for the purposes of tracking which websites I visit. (If companies can do it, so can the government)

I don't like that there are hidden files on my PC which can also be used to determine where I visit on the internet. Microsoft should have an option, say an icon on the desktop, which when clicked on would erase all histories, cookies and other such files leaving no trace regarding my internet use.

I understand that it may not be practical to completely protect my privacy on the net, but it should be protected as much as possible.

...perhaps this is a dumb question, but why can't we surf annoumonously(sp?) on the net.




Oh, I agree with you on the spyware problem. Something has to be done about that. That's a completely different issue than the government is trying to do. The govt. is asking for a weeks worth of what people are searching about, basically what has been typed into google to search for. It doesn't include any private info like your address or who you are, just what was seearched for (unless someone searched for an address or something. )

The problem with hidden files is that yes, they do cause a problem with spyware, but they are also pretty usefull. You can log into AR15.com, and then close the page, and when you go back to AR15.com, it will remember who you are so you don't have to log in again. The server does this by placing a cookie on your computer. Being able to run programs and execute files is also useful, such as when you go to the Windows Update page, or when Crucial scans your system to see what type of memory you have. Of course, as we all know this is easily used for evil purposes.

They do have programs that will erase all cookies and prevent hidden files from executing, but again this eliminates some of the functionality of your web browser.

As far as surfing anoynmously, it's just the way the internet works. The servers have to know where to send data to get back to your computer, so it will keep track of the IP address of your machine, so it knows how to get your data back to you. Your ISP (Internet Service Provider) provides you with that IP address, so if someone has your IP address (like the govt) all it has to do is ask your ISP who has been assigned that address. Think of it as a correspondonce using the postal service. You write the address of who you are talking to on it, and you include your return address so that you can recieve replies back, but there is no envolope, the message is in the clear. Every postal station has to analyze your message, and keeps a copy of that message before forwarding to the next one. Once the recipient recieves the message, he responds. Same thing in reverse, all postal stations analyze becuase they have no way of knowing its destination without reading it and finding the return address and keep a copy of the letter as it is sent back to you. It can't be anonymous because everyone has to know where it is going and where it's coming from. And obviously, you can't have an expectation of privacy, as the message has been handled by dozens of people who have probably made backup copies of it while the message has been transmitted.




thanks for explaining it to me, I didn't know these things. You said that messages are analyzed, yes but by machines and they don't(or do they) analyze content or just the address? I assume that the Postal station will only keep a copy for long as it is necessary and no longer(why would they store that info long term?).
Isn't it like the postal system, yes your letter is handled by many people but they don't read the letter only the address and they don't keep a record of it.

...another thing, if the government wants to know what's being searched on the net through google, are they only interested in searches queried in the US or world-wide? Aren't there more internet users outside the US than in? So won't this "contaminate" the search data they want?

Link Posted: 1/20/2006 11:54:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/20/2006 12:04:01 PM EDT by guardian855]

Originally Posted By Joaquin:
thanks for explaining it to me, I didn't know these things. You said that messages are analyzed, yes but by machines and they don't(or do they) analyze content or just the address? I assume that the Postal station will only keep a copy for long as it is necessary and no longer(why would they store that info long term?).
Isn't it like the postal system, yes your letter is handled by many people but they don't read the letter only the address and they don't keep a record of it.



Well, it gets a little more complicated than that. Technically, the servers don't read the content of the message, but they send it one byte at a time. In our postal analogy, instead of each postal system sending the message intact on a piece of paper, they send the message by calling up the next postal station and communicating the message verbally by telling the other station the message, one letter at a time. They don't pay any attention to what the message actually is, but they are generating a copy of the letter at each station so they can repeat it to the next station. They also don't throw their copy of your message away right away, but storing it for an undetermined amount of time. Also, they break your message up into parts and transmit the parts through different sequences of stations, so each station might or might not get the whole message. The point is though, there's dozens of people transmitting your message all over the place and storing copies of it. How long do servers keep a backup of their traffic? No one can really say. Another thing to realize that most servers are not owned by the government but by private corporations like Qwest, Pacific Bell, Cox, Comcast, etc, and they can read your traffic anytime they feel like.

Historical example, a lot of the damning evidence of the Iran Contra affair was electronic messages that Oliver North was sending back and forth. He had deleted them before the whole thing broke out, but they were able to retrieve the emails from servers that had backed them up (and this wasn't intentional, they were only backing them up in case they crashed.) Now consider that this happened in 1986, so I imagine the ability of servers to retain stuff like that is a lot better.



...another thing, if the government wants to know what's being searched on the net through google, are they only interested in searches queried in the US or world-wide? Aren't there more internet users outside the US than in? So won't this "contaminate" the search data they want?




That's actually a good point, and I am not sure what it will do to the govt.s ability to work with the data. I am not sure what the government is going to do with it, or even what the government is going to do with it. I hope the government has considered that, but who knows?
Link Posted: 1/20/2006 10:38:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Not really.



That's good.

Hope you show the same apathy when the next democrat administraion subpoenas all google searches for 'guns', or wants all 4473 records to give them the 'evidence they need' that the AWB would have worked.



They've already tried the 4473 thing before, for your information, under Clinton, and it has nothing to do with google. And I don't expect privacy on the internet.



don't you care about the principle of the issue ?

it's the PRECEDENT it would set for future use on other issues !
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:05:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Bullshit, rik. and you know it.

You can be good when things are justifiable. But you get into quisling mode when other people attack this administration for doing something bad. Like on the border issue.



Bullshit right back at you. FIND me a cite where I excused anyone on the border issue. Betcha can't. In fact, if you had ANY fucking clue what you're talking about you would know that OVER AND OVER I have stated that the immigration issue is the one area I disagree with the Bush administration's handling of an issue.



Well ,since I dont' have my active topics now, you'd probably have to find it. It was some newbie posting about the border within the past 3 days.



I haven't commented on any border issue thread in the last 3 days. Just checked active topics to be sure. And any time I HAVE commented on it, I have not defended the laissez faire attitude of President Bush wrt illegal immigration.



See my edit above. Somehow I confused you and larryG who used the argument listed above.



More bullshit. I have never defended them on the border thing. I have stated clearly several times that I do not agree with the administration on the border issue.

Go ahead, who you gonna blame next????????????

No, I aint' gonna search it for you. You made the accusation, now YOU prove it.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 9:11:53 PM EDT
If the Feds want to see what sites show up when kids type out words on google's search engine why don't they just type out stuff on google's search engine themselves?

DUH!
Top Top