Google and the NSA

[Hawk]

Do we, as US citizens, need to be concerned about this partnership?

Do you trust the US Government?

Do you really care?

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2010-02-04-n76.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/group- ... =countdown

http://www.thetechherald.com/article.ph ... -you-worry

[Blackhawk]

Never trust the government. Having read through thousands of FBI documents concerning COINTELPRO-New Left it is amazing how the government will use anything against you and be very petty. The FBI would put smoke bombs in a college ventilation system to try and break up a meeting of a New Left party, or if a girl was protesting the war with a sign that said F*** the War, they would send an anonymous letter to the girl's parents saying she was sleeping around at college and her behavior would ruin the family name. And usually, the parents would pull the girl out of college. (This was back in the 1970s) Of course that was just one of the many FBI's programs, in addition to tracking several famous people, all for Hoover's (and possibly the President's) viewpoints rather than actually searching for crime.
Then there was the MK Ultra program. Or after the Oklahoma City Bombing and 9/11 very large pieces of legislation that impacted habeas corpus as well as other things, which obviously were pre-written as there were only a few days between the event and the passing of the legislation. Which of course I think we've seen how well the government can be trusted with the Patriot Act; Requesting records from AT&T and often they didn't even have the paperwork, and then eventually they just used a few blanket authorizations for their prior requests. And the TSA with their border searches of electronics. If the copyright treaty that is being worked on by several countries, but very little is known or said about it goes through, could the border TSA agents end up becoming the copyright police and viewing your ipod, cell phone, or laptop for mp3s or movies they think are illegally downloaded? They have confiscated many people's laptops and lost several of them. In some cases they make backups of the entire hard drive for themselves, and they also say that the data will be safe, but it's likely not. There's nothing stopping any TSA agent from taking the data for his own use if its worth any value. In addition, the government has already lost several of its own hard drives and flash drives with confidential data, so why would they treat a traveler's laptop any different.

And should the CIA be working with global warming... err "climate change" scientists in the wake of "Climategate"? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/scien ... ss&emc=rss:

More relevant to the story at hand: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448 ... riesArea.1
It seems if you scream we're doing things in the name of chi l d pr 0n you can get people to go along with you. Sort of like some ISP's shut down their free access to usenet groups after the governor of New York was saying they are just a cesspool for illegal things. When in reality the vast majority were legitimate groups. The ISP's just went along with it as a way to make it seem like they were doing something good for people, but in reality it was a way for them to save money and provide one less service. But do we really need the FBI keeping track of every website you visit? If you run for a political spot or are in power and do something the majority disagrees with, but you've look at a pornographic website, I'm sure that would be "leaked" to the media and you'd be out of a job. And if the NSA is working with the most popular search engine, and the FBI is tracking all the websites you go to, won't that in effect prevent you from going to some sites? China (and I think Australia has an internet filter, or is working on one) might block things, but the government will say we aren't censoring you, but if you go somewhere we don't like we'll know and use it against you. Well... with all the extra data that comes in looks like the government might need to hirer more people. Guess those will be the jobs created by the stimulus act.

EDIT:
I guess there's also now a return of the idea of a "driver's license" for the web as well thanks to a UN agency and a Microsoft guy. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201002 ... 8060.shtml
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/agency-call ... web-users/

[Hawk]

If you're interested in an alternative to Google you can check out Startpage or Scroogle.
Scroogle is a contraction of two words. I think you can figure it out. Scroogle uses Google but you search through Scroogle using their IP address and Google sees the search quarry as coming from Scroogle and doesn't know the IP address of the searcher.

Startpage doesn't store your search quarries nor your IP address.

You can read more about both at their sites.

[Blackhawk]

I have heard of Scroggle before, and I was going to say I'll have to check out startpage, although when I clicked on the link I believe I have used it before. Thanks for reminding me about it. I hate to say it but usually I end up going back to google out of habit and it being in the drop down list of sites I've visited.

[Hawk]

I added both to the search drop down list in Firefox, then moved both to the top of the list.

[Stoker]

Well, my feeling on this subject is that we are a LOT more screwed than anyone wants to admit to themselves. Google was in fact started with seed money from the spy agency(s), with the agreement that they would have complete access to every bit of information gathered on every person who used the service. There is however such a glut of information, that the spooks need ways to try to identify "people of interest" (Read: Those who are aware or suspicious of what is REALLY going on these days) and what better way to do this than to start a "non- spying" version of search engines, "Hide my IP" sites, etc? The reality is that trying to hide your internet activities actually puts you on "the watch list", and these sites are of course NOT SECURE, they are either completely infiltrated or actually run by the spy acencies. Those that are concerned about what the Gvt is gathering about their internet activity will flock to these "secure" sites- and viola - the Gestapo has a ready-made list of people who are concerned about being watched without having to try and search them out - a very long and tedious task. After all: If you don't have anything to hide, why would you bother to use one of these "secure" search engines and or sites? I don't know what the "answer" to this problem is, but I DO know there is definitely a serious problem.

Imagining that the fox who is raiding the henhouse can simply put on a sheepdog coat and tell us it is safe to wander in the yard with no fear is illogical.

[Hawk]

It's not a matter of having anything to hide. It's the fact of the ever increasing amount of liberty and freedom we're loosing.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin-

[Stoker]

I agree Hawk, it isn't about hiding. However, just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean that the powers that be won't take the act of trying to exercise your right of privacy as suspicious behavior. They will. They always have. And now, the ability to discern what somebody is reading, and therefore thinking , is greater than even Orwell , Huxley and Bradbury combined ever imagined. I personally have been under constant surveillance for years and I am not a criminal, nor do I have anything to hide. From the little bit of opinion that I have expressed here on this site, I think you can figure out why. It is because I am one of the few that has seen "behind the curtain" , when most people on this planet refuse to even believe that there is a curtain at all. The PTB aren't concerned with "criminals" or "terrorists", although this is of course the reason sold to the sheeple to justify their activities. What they are concerned about is people finding out what is really going on. The truth sucks.

[Hawk]

That I'll have to agree with you on.

[KevinL]

I refuse to use Google because they give 98% of their political donations to democratic candidates.

[Gwizz]

Our government is so easily influenced by grant or lobby dollars, most big companies almost have to do that these days. If they don't, they would suffer under unfair reprisal regulations.

[Blackhawk]

Is it google employees or google itself gave that much to democrats?

I dislike that corporations can give donations to political causes or even to charity as I believe the money should either be directly reinvested into the company or given out to the shareholders, and the shareholders can decide what to do with the money and who to donate it to if they so choose.

According to google's/huffington post's election fund raising donor search, (not sure how reliable it is) ~90% of the employee donations from Google went to Dems, Yahoo employees - 94% to dems, Ask.com donations 100% to dems and 80% of microsoft went to dems.

I'd imagine one of the reasons google supports dems over republicans is that they are looking out for their net neutrality interests. While it's doubtful much of congress even understands what it is, google and company probably believe the dems will look out for net neutrality more than republicans. Google's latest announcement that they will be attempting fiber to the home in some locations would also be the last thing some ISP's would want to hear.

If the internet becomes like cable tv it'll be a mess. Cable tv originally was forced by the courts to carry the local network channels, now some local network channels demand payment from the cable company for the "privilege" of allowing them to carry their station. While it's sort of a reverse example. Websites like google got people to come to the internet and without them people wouldn't spend the money on an ISP, but the ISP would like to charge them money now for the privilege to be accessed on their network. Consequently where Google/Youtube (insert any website here, like Netflix) would have to pay AT&T for the "privilege" of being able to be accessed and use bandwidth on the ISP's infrastructure on their ISP/network the ISP/network gets to become the gatekeeper and gets money from both the consumer and the website/content provider. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Span ... ree-106816

Of course even this isn't enough from a greedy ISP, many are looking into or attempting to implement "caps" on the amount you can download a month, and if you go over there could be overage fees. At&t has it set up in 2-3 test markets. Comcast as a more generous 250 gig cap, which is loosely enforced and I believe it is without overage charges, you just risk disconnection. I think Time Warner attempted to set up a fairly low cap but the public backlash was bad they put off the idea for now. Some other countries already use a cap system for the internet, but obviously with the increase of video bandwidth, the ISPs are trying to get these in place and even if they seem "generous" now, how generous will it be in a few years with even more video being used by people and most likely the caps won't be raised. [Imagine a small family; the parents watch movies off of netflix, dad watches baseball games on MLB.tv as he lives in Denver and his favorite team is from Chicago so it's the only way he can see them, the mom might stream a radio station online while doing things around the house, one kid watch hi-def youtube videos, the other kid downloads his games off of Steam instead of going to the store to buy them on DVD, and of course everyone's computer needs to update it's version of Windows which who knows how big some of those files could be]

Anyway I guess that was sort of a long, pointless off-topic rant. Main point of my post... google and other content providers are just trying to protect their current interests with net neutrality. And in the end does it really matter if they gave to dems or republicans? Both sides are useless and corrupt and don't do what they promise, they only do whatever gets them more money and power.
"A Prince, therefore, should only keep his word when it suits his purposes, but do his utmost to maintain the illusion that he does keep his word and that he is reliable in that regard." -The Prince by Machiavelli

[nedfumpkin]

A corporation exists only to make money for its shareholders. Buying politicians has always been the cost of doing business. Slush funds go back to the birth of the corporate entiity. In Canada we've got laws that persons have a maximum they can contribute to a political campaign, and corporations no longer can. But that just means that all the CEO's etc, families make their maximum contribution...like their 8 year old kids. :)

I'm sorry but neither Google, nor Youtube brought me to the internet. I was here long before either of them were. In fact, I go all the way back to BBSs and Fidonet. Google and Youtube are parasites on the net. The content they offer is nothing more than a vehicle for their advertising. The primary purpose of the internet is to advertise. The rest of it is just filler.

So anthying Google says about net neutrality is just them saying they want to protect their advertising dollars.

[Blackhawk]

Well not every internet user was attractive to the internet by google/youtube/netflix/etc but the majority of people got an ISP after there were content providers out there. Initially in the US in the early 90s AOL was one of the biggest ISP's and to some extent content provider with its news and chatrooms etc. But eventually other content providers like google, yahoo, amazon popped up and drew attention away from AOL. With more variety and content out there the internet use grew. So while the content didn't get you to the internet, it did get my sister's family to the internet as her kids begged for the internet so they could have myspace, facebook, youtube and the ability to Instant message their friends, and I'd imagine it was the content that got many other people to the internet.

While I agree that google, amazon, facebook, yahoo, ebay, etc are all looking out for their own best monetary interests with net neutrality, it would still seem to me that net neutrality overall is the better way to go than to allow a ISP/network to decide what to carry over its network or charge the content providers for access through its network. If AT&T starts its own search engine and throttles the speed of google and yahoo because they don't pay an arbitrary fee that AT&T wants, is that really the best way to go? What about personal websites that provide content? Will they eventually be targeted some day. Will Comcast one day say.... You know HawkDawg.com you've got some followers there and some big download files which use our network, unless you pay us we'll throttle the speed of our users connections to you, and so the next time we download a copy of Trainmaster it's at 56k dialup speed at 3kb/sec?

The end result of an ISP being able to charge content providers, block access, or throttle speed to a content provider would hurt the consumer. At&t already censored a part of a Pearl Jam concert that they were streaming, when Pearl Jam made some Anti George Bush comments. Is it At&t's place to do that or should the consumer have the ability to decide... hmm I'm a republican I disagree with that statement, I think I'll turn off the Pearl Jam concert now? Or if content providers end up paying an ISP for content, I'd imagine they'd figure out a way to increase the cost to their users. Ex. Ebay has to pay not to be throttled on an ISP, so next time you buy something off of Ebay, they'll add on an extra charge to pay for their costs. or news providers might end up going to a pay to view model like the Wall Street Journal and NY Times.

EDIT: I also agree that buying politicians/lobbying is part of doing business. Although in an ideal world, it shouldn't be allowed. And as you say they figure out how to get around donation limits anyway. Just give all the officers, board of directors, CEO etc big bonuses and have them donate it to a politician. Now with the U.S. Supreme Court's latest ruling it could get even worse in the US.

[Hawk]

Will Comcast one day say.... You know HawkDawg.com you've got some followers there and some big download files which use our network, unless you pay us we'll throttle the speed of our users connections to you, and so the next time we download a copy of Trainmaster it's at 56k dialup speed at 3kb/sec?

I've heard that AT&T is already trying to do that. When they bought Bell South they wanted to set that up but the FCC told them they had to wait for a couple of years before they would let them.
Not sure if anything ever came of it or not.

If they (all ISP's) start that crap, well - it's been good knowing y'all.

[Gwizz]

It is too bad that more people don't get involve in what the government and big busness is doing to the people.

But, I was once very active in politics and at different times with both major parties.

I found that most politicians were liars or crooks; and too many times I felt like butting my head against a brick wall. Many people I talked to, didn't seem to care how honest a candidate was. They choose to just followed party lines without using common sense or trying to understand the issues. They just turn control and understanding over to their party leaders.

Now, "Many should be inmates " control "the Sanitation" (sp), and they themselves are the ones that need to be cleaned out.

I'm only passively involved in politics now. I really do enjoy the net and hope it will stay free; but, sometimes I think the old days were more stress free and the crooks and liars less efficient than they are today.

Washinton State voters have passed a law four times in the last 17 years. It required that our state congress, in order to pass an increase in taxes, will need a 67% congressional vote. Well, congress again went against the will of the people and again changed the law back, saying that a new tax only requires a 51% congresstional vote.
As one congressman stated, It was necessary because the state has such a big debt, we have to call on the tax payers for help. Gezzzzzzzzz

[KevinL]

According to google's/huffington post's election fund raising donor search, (not sure how reliable it is) ~90% of the employee donations from Google went to Dems, Yahoo employees - 94% to dems, Ask.com donations 100% to dems and 80% of microsoft went to dems.

I figured the big internet companies would be mostly liberal.

But its really surprising that so many Microsoft donations go to dems. I remember the big anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft in the late 90's, under Bill Clinton, suddenly went away when George Bush took office.

[Hawk]

But its really surprising that so many Microsoft donations go to dems. I remember the big anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft in the late 90's, under Bill Clinton, suddenly went away when George Bush took office.

The Feds needed a better back door to your computer.