The new Patriot Search allows you to help governments around the world by making your search activity public. Also, special search syntax (like the terrorist operator) allows for easier processing. Give this a try...
The Patriot Search is Google' response to this:
Earlier today, I asked a Justice Department spokesperson which search engines other than Google received requests to provide search records. The answer: Yahoo, AOL, and MSN were also asked to supply search records information, and all complied. Google did not, and that is why the DoJ asked a federal judge on Wednesday to order the company to do so.
(link)
How is this not an invasion of privacy?
Screw you Patriot Act.
The terrorists are winning...
p.s. points for Google.
14 comments:
Oh, Ookami, chill out. Look, like the wire taps, they will only be used for a select few things.
The government has neither the time nor the resourcefulness to actually keep a file on everyone. I think they'll only be looking at people accessing websites from outside the U.S. performing searches that contain the word "bomb" in them....stuff like that.
In an era of 9/11, 7/7 and the bombings in Spain, I have absolutely no problem with the government doing something like this. Giving up some of our freedoms will be worth it.
If doing this will help prevent another 9/11, then the program will be well worth it.
In most cases I agree, but this is going too far. Forcing Google to give up search records is not OK. There is no way to just investigative just terrorists, this will be done on all citizens.
Clearly this is something that our founding fathers would not approve of.
Also... Lance... Might I remind you that we had not "records of someone searching for bombs on Google or talking on telephones" but actual intelligence records of public speeches of Al Qaeda saying they were going to attack the U.S. with airplanes. Now if we can ignore the direct admission of an attack what makes you think a few words picked up on a telephone or from a search are going to make a difference in stopping the terrorists? You are welcome to give up your own freedoms. But I am not! I have no problem with Bush getting a court order to tap phones or get search information, but he does not have the right to do it without an order! Hmm... which seems worse... lying about having sex with a willing participant... or lying to all of America to get them to go to war and then illegally invading their privacy with phone taps... That is a tough call...
Remember; Clinton’s lying was under oath.
Braveharte - Yes, we already know that Al-Qaeda wants to attack us. What wire taps and other intelligence will hopefully reveal is the actual "when, where and who" of the next attack(s).
If President Bush publicly announces an order to use wire taps, he may as well send a telegram to Osama Bin Laden detailing exactly how to avoid us. The point of circumventing the courts was to keep it SECRET.
Remember that back in 1999, we had a phone tap on Osama. We knew where he was, who he was talking to and pretty much what he was up to...24/7. Then a "hero" inside the system leaked that we had a phone tap. The result: Osama stopped using phones.
Yes, we knew Al-Qaeda wanted to use planes, but we could have known when and where he was going to strike.
Interesting thought experiment: Let's say all this surveillance prevents another 9/11 from happening. Is it worth it?
You bet your life it is.
"Interesting thought experiment: Let's say all this surveillance prevents another 9/11 from happening. Is it worth it?"
Nope. Freedom and liberty trump safety. You know this, public smoking vs. gov. mandated smoking bans.
I bet people in "1984" were never attacked by terrorists, but I don't want to live in that world.
ah crap that last one was me... but nicole was still signed in.
i read in USA Today that they were asking for search records as a way to try and push a new (actually started in 1998) anti-porn law. despite my complete hatred of all this kind of snooping, the reaosn it is not an invasion of privacy is that the ISPs and info about the actual search-ees would not be shared, just the search terms, without being tied to a user.
Ookami - You're confusing personal safety with national security. I agree with you completely that on issues of government regulation vs. personal responsibility, we should always err on the side of personal responsibility.
However, when it comes to defending the nation, I think this is a very prudent and reasonable move.
Worst Weather makes an excellent point. We're not going to be turning over all this information to some collection agency. Years from now, if I decide to run for office, the American public won't be able to go back see that I Googled "How to torture squirrels" or something like that.
We're looking for evidence first, and then the person who's linked to the evidence second.
If you're not:
a. Regularly conversing with people overseas in terrorist hotbeds
b. Regularly logging in from a known terrorist hotbed
c. Googling certain keywords like "Bomb" or "How to assassainate Bush," etc.
...you really shouldn't have a whole lot to worry about.
Spare me the Orwellian reference. Yes, I know that this is an infringement of our freedom, but it's a pretty small one given the stakes at hand.
Lance...
Bush wouldn't have to "publicly announce" his wire taps if he had gone through court to get them. There is a secret court that judges the need for wire taps and the threat the person shows. They then decide whether Bush can tap. Thus the need for a warrant. Furthermore, we knew a pretty good range of when and where... we new it was going to be fall and that it was going to be "symbols of America". If they are monitoring 500 people's phone conversations (which is the estimate of the number of illegal wire taps Bush has put into place), what is the likelihood that they will be able to track all the information anyway? I truly doubt that there efforts to infringe on our rights will help anything at all. Get a court order and I will happily let you tap any of the evil terrorists' phones you want. As a side note... I loved Bush's speech on his welcoming of debate... "Yes we welcome people who have different view points but those who think wire tapping is wrong or the war is wrong are unamerican." Yea real welcoming of debate there.
Braveharte - Knowing that they were going to attack "symbols of America" is still pretty vague. That's not a "pretty good range" of what was going to happen. Otherwise, we would have been able to prevent 9/11.
In 1999, we knew almost PRECISELY Osama's every move.
And Yes, President Bush is completely in-line by saying that disagreeing with wiretaps is Un-American. It was a measure taken during a time of war to protect America. Protecting our country is an American value. Thus, I have no problem labeling opposition to this as inherently Un-American (Note: He wasn't un-including people in the debate. He's just calling them "Un-American.")
Um... where have you been...
Published on Thursday, December 18, 2003 by CBS News
9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable
"For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston."
If we gave a damn about protecting America, we would have actually found Osama bin Laden and gotten rid of him. Don't give me the "they couldn't find him" bull shit... we found Sadam if we wanted to we could find Osama. Soldiers have been criticizing the lack of effort put into finding him. Bush (even in war time) is not above the law. And I think destroying the freedoms of America while claiming to free another country from dictatorship is a bit hypocritical and most certainly unAmerican!
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" - Ben Franklin
Enough said
Post a Comment