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

Kevin W. Miller wrote:

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

Read the motion and get back to me with those questions that it doesn't answer satisfactorily for you, and we can bat them around.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.
.

Relevant Pages

  • RE: Google Attitude was RE: Unclassified Disk "Sanitizers"
    ... ask the moderator to kill the thread after this. ... It IS rude to say "use ... just aren't used to the setup of the lists. ... Subject: Google Attitude was RE: Unclassified Disk "Sanitizers" ...
    (Security-Basics)
  • Re: SATB Choral Arrangements For Sale
    ... of web-based portal (Google?) Google munges the email ... Portals like Google are convienent ways to access Usenet newsgroups, ... The reason people disguise their email addresses is because spammers automatically harvest adresses to add to their loathsome lists. ...
    (rec.music.makers.choral)
  • Re: Fedora aint playin around w/Firefox 3.
    ... from Google "lists of reporting phishing and malware sites". ... that url AND google cookie information is uploaded back to Google. ... download these lists from, ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: OT: This Administration is starting to worry me.
    ... Seems to me, and it's just an opinion, that the reason Google prefaced the statement with "it could" in regard to privacy is that an IP address isn't, in itself, giving the name of the searchee. ... by being outraged and suspecting the gummit - and Google gets what's left - the benefit of the doubt. ... If it would be in those lists, they would Know it, and could demonstrate it. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT: This Administration is starting to worry me.
    ... Why aren't you outraged that they're essentially requesting the list ... Every institution that registers with the Google search engine can ... Google has also said that it could be a violation of privacy. ... real question about the 2 lists. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)