Re: OT: This Administration is starting to worry me.

In news:x7Wdnct8GoyMg0neRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
bill horne <redydog@xxxxxxx> typed:
> Kevin W. Miller wrote:
>
>> From: "bill horne" <redydog@xxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: OT: This Administration is starting to worry me.
>> Date: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:36 PM
>>
>> Kevin W. Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In news:UMSdnZpg4Jdmfk7eRVn-sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>>> bill horne <redydog@xxxxxxx> typed:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Kevin W. Miller wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In news:G5idnQ9DrsC1zE7enZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>>>>> bill horne <redydog@xxxxxxx> typed:
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think you've succeeded - but the real question is about
>>>>>> the 2 lists the gummit want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why aren't you outraged that they're essentially requesting the
>>>>> list through government fiat instead of simply attempting to
>>>>> purchase the information as any other customer of Google might do
>>>>> when requesting "harmless" information?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kevin W. Miller
>>>>
>>>> I thought 'this administration' was already spending too much
>>>> money?
>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't narrowed it to "this administration".
>>
>>
>>> If it's not this administration, who is it?
>>
>>
>> A violation of principle which would apply to any administration.
>
> What principle? Privacy, trying to get info for free, or what?
>
>>> Why do you suppose the government's attempting to steal from Google
>>> data which you believe is available for free?
>>
>>
>>> I don't know that it's available for free. Is it?
>>
>>
>> Didn't you say:
>>
>> ">>But I guess if it's good enough for Princeton, it ought to be
>> good
>>>> enough for the gummit.
>>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>> Every institution that registers with the Google search engine can
>>>> view daily results called "traffic reports" that pool the day's
>>>> most popular search keywords, and the University has been using
>>>> these reports while redesigning Princeton's webpage.
>>>> --------------------------------------------"
>
> Yes, I said that, but I don't know if "registration" is "free" or not.
>
>>
>>
>>> Could it be that Google's data, if
>>> not cleansed, may reveal private information?
>>
>>
>>> It could be. A lot of things could be, but it's not what Google is
>>> emphasizing.
>>
>>
>> Google has also said that it could be a violation of privacy. I
>> think that they would know.
>
> Then if they Know, why didn't they say "would". I contend that they
> Know a list of search terms and a list of random sites is Not a
> violation of user privacy, and are trying to garner support while
> covering their ass. If privacy violation was really an issue, it
> would be a slam dunk, and they weren't stone stupid, they would right
> now be carefully explaining exactly why it was a privacy issue.

Unless explaining why it's a privacy issue might bring them more trouble and
they're hoping to avoid that. Maybe they would have to explain that they're
somehow garnering more informationabout us than they want us to know?

I can think of many reasons why they might say what they have said but you
only seem to be able to come up with one. Is your imaginizer broke?

>
> Since I'm reasonably sure they aren't stone stupid, I'm pretty much
> forced to conclude that they can't at this time credibly support
> "privacy violation" based on what the gummit is currently asking for.
>
>> I have no more reason to think that they're lying than I do
>> to think that the government is lying about its reasons for the
>> request. Do you?
>
> No, I don't. I think they are simply looking for a way out. "could",
> as opposed to "would", matters here. It it "would", why don't they
> show the proof, and end this?
>
>
>>> Of course it's not "Google's fault". IMO. Where did you get that?
>>
>>
>> When you said, "Maybe you should ask Google why they don't try that
>> approach instead of the red herring they're using." Why should
>> Google use any "approach"?
>
> The approach is to get out of doing what the gummit asked.
>
>> It's not them seeking the data. Wouldn't it be more appropriate
>> to ask why the government didn't try that apporoach?
>
> I don't know what you're trying to ask. The gummit has asked for info
> they think they're legally entitled to have. They did that with a
> legal writ - a subpoena. That's their approach. If you're suggesting
> that their approach should have been a purchase request, I can't
> argue with that based on what I know.
>
> But what is obvious here to me is that the gummit has asked for
> something that Google - for whatever reason - doesn't want to give,
> and all they've come up with so far is "emphasizing" the possible
> revealing of "trade secrets", while only insinuating that there could
> be a user privacy violation, while not providing any reasonably
> credible proof for either claim.

Won't they be doing that when the supoena is challenged in court (if indeed
it is)? Why should they provide more than that now?

>
> When I see some, I'll rethink my position on this. You got any you
> can point me to?
>
>>>> And what about the real question about the 2 lists?
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps answering the question why the government is using supoenal
>>> powers to steal something that is freely available on the web (you
>>> say) or that they should first have attempted to purchase from
>>> Google would answer the real question about the 2 lists. Could the
>>> answer be that the data that they're looking for isn't available
>>> freely elsewhere? That they were hoping
>>> Google would fold quietly as the others did?
>>
>>
>>> Nearly anything is possible, but the stuff I've seen so far doesn't
>>> make it probable. Do you have some new information that I should
>>> ponder?
>>
>>
>> I've provided answers to all of your questions that I can answer and
>> provided plausible explanations for others. But I can't force you to
>> accept them. Or even to consider them.
>
> I have considered them - I wouldn't ask questions if I didn't to
> consider them. But I don't see any facts to support them - all I see
> so far are unsupported speculations.
>
> Show me just one fact that demonstrates that a list of search terms
> and a list of random web sites will include and reveal user personal
> information.
>

Since I don't work for Google (dang the luck!) I don't suppose I could
rightly do that as you well know. But, if they ever decide to give me free
access to all of their raw data I'll be sure to post the answer.


Kevin W. Miller



.

Relevant Pages

  • Risks Digest 24.06
    ... Google, Privacy, and Masochism ... Legal docs expose various risks in routine Diebold maintenance in NC ... Re: Mea culpa: How we got it wrong on CNID ...
    (comp.risks)
  • OT - U.S. Obtains Internet Users Search Records
    ... but the data trove stirs privacy fears. ... government could seek more detailed information later. ... The issue came to light this week only when Google Inc., ... Government lawyers filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Jose ...
    (sci.med.diseases.hepatitis)
  • U.S. Obtains Internet Users Search Records
    ... but the data trove stirs privacy fears. ... government could seek more detailed information later. ... The issue came to light this week only when Google Inc., ... Government lawyers filed a brief in U.S. District Court in San Jose ...
    (soc.rights.human)
  • Google Defies US Over Search Requests
    ... Internet search giant Google is vowing to "vigorously" fight a legal ... for online databases to become tools for government surveillance. ... The motion also includes a request for the internet search giant to ... Privacy Concerns ...
    (soc.culture.somalia)