Desktop

Ask something
Discussion Locked

hmmm yet another Microsoft screwup....

0 helpful
82 replies

by jaqui 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This one in the PRIVACY DEPARTMENT!!!!!
They admitted, publicly, that they took data from your msn searches and handed it to us government, to allow the us government to illegally tap your phones and monitor your internet activities.
That is SPYWARE in action..oh, it's Microsoft in action, the largest spyware company in the world.
Use Microsoft?
Not when they have just proven beyond all doubt that their sole intention is to screw you over, by denying you the rights of existing privacy legislation at thier whim.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/82910/microsoft-admits-to-handing-over-search-data-to-feds.html

You can if you want, just don't expect to be getting any respect from people that Respect Privacy laws.

82 replies

by stress junkie

Most ISPs and Google, at least, state that they require government authorities to obtain a search warrant/court order before handing over customer information. Then they only hand over enough information to comply with the order. I know that Verizon has a good record in this department.

The United States has specific procedures to enable the government to search private information and to seize private property. When the citizens, such as the employees of MSN, just allow the law enforcement officials to take what they want without a warrant then those citizens are guilty of undermining our Constitutional protections from government bullying.

By the way, where in the alphabet does |_| appear? I've never seen that character before. It must be a Unicode character because I can't find it on my keyboard. :D

by jaqui

way past the censors isn't it?

lets you use explicit term without triggering the **** that the original term would have

by shellbot

how about we make up new curse words?
like Battlestar Galactica..Fracking..

gets past censors..

That fracking microsoft, frack them.

;)

by neil higgins

as much info as required.The DJ,dont know who,or where you are? Yeah,right.When my firewall says I am being scanned,I can "back-track",to see where the attack is coming from.I'm all for protecting us from loons,terrorists,and the basic scum,but I only search Google on pc questions,or general "boring" info.I'm sure they want to log that I tried to find out the capital of Paraguay,to help my son with his homework?

It's Asuncion,by the way MS.

by jaqui

activity is logged, that is normal.
I use logs like that to trace performance issues, as I'm sure you do.

The activity that is objectionable is in handing over data without making them jump through the legal hoops to get it.

You want the logs from my system? hand over the court order, or get lost.
That data can be used to violate privacy laws.
That data can be used to enable identity theft.
That data contains information that comprimises the security of my network. [ specific path and file location data ]

If the Government came asking, I would delete the logs they are wanting before they could get a court order.
Then: I'm sorry we don't keep the logs that far back.

by noyoki

That can get you into trouble. If you don't have a written policy of when and how much data you are destroying, and/or a damn good reason to do so (ie server space), you can get sued for negligence. If you do have one, and fail to abide by it, that's even worse...

by jaqui

We only have to keep financial data, or any data explicitly entered into a database as customer record, and only for 7 years. after 7 years it can be destroyed.

logs are not required records, they are simply a listing if activity for your hardware / software.

by husp1

it seems that more and more companys are being intimidated by the goverement and the two other leading powers in the world (that's the RIAA and MIAA) to hand over our personell info on threat alone . hope sombody stands up to these bullys before there is no internet users left to log on to a server. seems that every contry is caveing into these fiends. 300 homes and offices in germany raided for P2P fileshareing. thousands of lines tapped in the name of security. ISP's releasing logs without court orders. goverment sites using cookies to track our movements that can't be removed from the system for 16 yrs. (never seen a build last 2 yrs. let alone 16) so far the only country that seems to have taken any type of stand against them is Canada, by keeping their puppet out of office. Hail to thee canada!

by jaqui

a couple of Companies standing up to therm.
Google and Sun Microsystems are working together to fight the US government over this one.

on top of teaming up on the spam adware spayware battle.

by alphun

I have been watching with great interese how the likes of Yahoo, Microsoft and Google have been bending over backwards to assist the Chinese govenment with what ever data it so desired about their users in China, including e-mails, search logs and the like. Obviously this taking of the moral high ground will not help those imprisoned over there, and if a court order is issued, will they still continue the legal battle, or will they capitulate and give Bush what he wants? The thin end of the wedge!

by noyoki

Google, didn't know about Sun. Kudos to them both.

(Even though I've heard rumours that the former was doing it for the wrong reasons. IE: it being "in vogue" to jump on the privacy bandwagon and that there's no money in just handing it over. However it costs to go through backup after backup to get all the information organized for the gov't.)

by stress junkie

I think that they are trying to obey the laws of the country when they give up information to the Chinese government about Chinese Internet access. We hate the idea of this sort of thing happening anywhere. As citizens of countries where the government is restricted we enjoy a lifestyle that is not available in China or other places. We have to understand that either Google and others obey the laws of China or their operations in China will be shut down.

by deadly ernest

MS have no set intention of doing you over, their only intention is to get all your money by selling you inimal standard software and they just don't give a damn about you or your rights. in other words their intentions are basically the same as RIAA - milk you dry and allow you no rights.

by jaqui

they don't want the competition. ;)
It's always been standard business Practice to follow the laws for the Country and City you are operating in, as this reduces legal costs fighting the fines for illegal business practices, so, While I don't agree with the way the Chinese Government acts, and how much they censor what the chinese people get access to, I cannot blame google for "tailoring" their service for the Country it is being offered in.

All Multinational business does this, or they don't do business in the other country.
{ Picture one of Amsterdam's coffee shops, that sells weed legally, trying to do that in the US, shut down in minutes I would guess. ]

by the ref

This is not spyware in action - if it were then every web site is spyware as all sites keep logs. Many sites, including this site, have the most requested data listed on the front page. In replying I see the "Hot discussions" with the 7 most hit pages listed. Is this really any different? Is this not taking search data and publishing it? The only different is that it is not being sent to the government.

The MSN Privacy policy clearly indicates "We may access and/or disclose your personal information if we believe such action is necessary to: (a) comply with the law or legal process served on Microsoft; (b) [snip](c) act in urgent circumstances to protect the personal safety of users of Microsoft services or members of the public."

I dont care which company complied, aggregated data sent to determine the "extent of child pornography on the Internet" is only a threat to peadophiles and child pornographers.

This is not an example of the government spying on individuals, but getting aggregated data to try to stop the exploitation of children.

But hey, it's another excuse for a bit of Micro$oft bashing.

Just my $0.02(AUD)

by jaqui

"(a) comply with the law or legal process served on Microsoft;"

There were no legal documents served, no court order for the data requested.
It's the US government attempting to stamp out porn asking for the records to make their case.
No Judge said to release the data.

that is in violation.

by the ref

"(a) comply with the law OR ..."
and "to protect the personal safety of users of Microsoft services or members of the public."

A company does not need to be forced by a judge to do what it thinks will help law enforcement stamp out child pornography.

by hughw44

I'm sure the Paraguayans will want to know, why the sudden interest in their capital? Careful, you could be extradited.

by stress junkie

Whenever the U.S. Government wants to abolish one of the Constitutional restrictions on its behavior they always start by making it an issue of child safety. Then once the precedent is established they expand their unconstitutional activity.

Each generation has to deal with some faction of people in government that try to undermine one or more of our Constitutional protections. Local police used to completely disregard the requirement for a warrant when they wanted to search someone's house. Then the Exclusionary Rule made any evidence that was obtained illegally unusable in a trial. This is the only reason that the police started obeying the requirement to use warrants. Now when some business hands over whatever law enforcement officials ask for without requiring the law enforcement officials to get a warrant they are creating a precedent of attitude. If more people begin to give up this protection then more people might forget why the protection is there in the first place.

We have to protect our protections from government in all situations. We cannot allow the police or society at large think that it is okay for the government to ignore procedures that have been mandated for it to obey. It's the same thing with the NSA spying that was "authorized" by GWB. The President doesn't have the authority to "authorize" a government agency to ignore the Constitution. We have to be vigilant. We have to make politicians and law enforcement people know that we will not roll over and go along with activities that are unconstitutional. And we don't say that just because this incident was for a good cause, such as catching pedophiles or Al Queda, we can allow it just this once. We must never allow the government to make exceptions to the rules that they are obliged to obey.

by tony hopkinson

The claim of using it to stop child pornography is an intention. If they wanted this they could have asked MS et al to provide them an extract. They could have asked for all the data in a sanitized form and then got a caught order when they had reasonable evidence that a uniquely identifiable but as yet anonymous individual was participating in a crime. Either would be acceptable. Ask for all the data to see if ANY crimes may have been committed no, that's against the law.

Wonder how many film buffs are going to get the desk lamp and rubber hose threatment for searching out a copy of Lolita.

Hmmm, someones knocking at my door, wonder who it is at this time of the morning and why on earth I they wearing jackboots. Do you think I used a keyword on the internet ?
That said I hope they catch thousands of child molesters and rip their balls off and kill them, if only so the end can justify the means.

by rkuhn040172

Who killed Kennedy?

Why does there always have to be some conspiracy behind everything?

How do you know that TechRepublic isn't tracking your habits on this website?

If they are, I could care less.

And why is the government always them? Isn't our government, police, etc just people like you and me?

I know several police officers. Nicest guys in the world. They wouldn't do the things that that people imply on here.

For every bad nut in the world, there are 100 that won't let them get away with anything.

Ya'll have no faith in the human race.

by gregk

The article I read when I followed the link said they were given an extract, with personal identifying information removed.

by noyoki

> "That said I hope they catch thousands of child molesters and rip their balls off and kill them, if only so the end can justify the means."

Does that ever work? How about we kill all of the people for searching for porn. How do you know they weren't looking for child porn? How do you know that it wasn't 22 year old Joe, but his 35 year old roommate, John, using his computer?

OR! I know! We can imprison everyone! No more pron searches, no more child-porn makers...

Hmm.... That's not gunna work is it...

by johnnysacks

"It's to protect the children"
"The Communists are taking over"
"9-11, 9-11, 9-11"
"If you're not with us, you're against us"

It is appalling that mainstream America is willing to let their government roll back the very freedoms the country was founded upon in response to the slightest seed of fear planted. This behavior is accepted despite the absolute clarity of historical fact regarding an over-empowered government disregarding personal freedoms.

Our public education fails us if our history classes do not teach this, especially the classic example. Adolph Hitler was elected by an overwhelming majority of Germans. Unlike GWB, Hitler's policies were not a covert agenda, they were clearly presented. His initial persecution of Gypsies, gays, and Jews was openly accepted and by that acceptance, mass murder was just a small step further.

The birth of this country involved a methodical extermination of indigenous people that Mr. Hitler couldn't even match. It took over 100 years to outlaw something as clearly repugnant as slavery then required a civil war that cost over 400,000 lives to actually enforce it. It took over 100 years before women were allowed to vote.

Our constitutional freedoms have been challenged continuously for 230 years and are not open to any negotiation or presidential override whatsoever for any reason, including our own safety.

by finite_sa

"Adolph Hitler was elected by an overwhelming majority of Germans." - Not correct

Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in the honest elections that occurred before he became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was generally quite strong. Hitler therefore would have never seen the light of day had the German Republic been truly democratic. Unfortunately, its otherwise sound constitution contained a few fatal flaws. The German leaders also had a weak devotion to democracy, and some were actively plotting to overthrow it. Hitler furthermore enjoyed an almost unbroken string of luck in coming to power. He benefited greatly from the Great Depression, the half-senility of the president, the incompetence of his opposition, and the appearance of an unnecessary backroom deal just as the Nazis were starting to lose popular appeal and votes.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

not the best spot to get the info but best headline I could find

by stress junkie

Americans don't understand how rare our freedoms are in the world. They don't believe that there are plenty of people here in the United States that would like to remove this or that freedom or protection from government. We make a mockery of all of the people who fought and died to preserve our freedoms when we allow our government to ignore the restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

by chartech

Even though I don't know that all your facts are straight about Hitler, I still like your point.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

by user223

What's really appalling is your completely twisted view of history. You are way off topic; I think the originating topic was a thinly disguised attempt to bash Microsoft but has digressed into some sort of curious form of American self-loathing that one runs into from time to time.
Every great president of note going back to Washington has overridden the Constitution when national security has been threatened. That is in the job description. Lincoln said it best - ?The Constitution is not a suicide pact?. The executive?s use of war-time powers is essential to preserving the Union and is fully and totally constitutional.
The noble and so-called "indigenous peoples" you speak of came here from elsewhere. They practiced both slavery and genocide, as did the "indigenous peoples" of Africa. Furthermore, a country is only your country so long as you can make that so by force of arms. The "indigenous peoples" folks knew this, too. It?s the circle of life, Simba, deal with it whether you like it or not. Believe me when I tell you that if the "indigenous peoples" would have won out in our countries infancy...you wouldn't like the resulting Comanche domestic policy regarding those happening to have a pale face.
Emancipation was a footnote to the Civil War and had nothing to do with the reason it was fought. It was only enacted to further stress the South economically and also to piss them off.
The only thing you were right about is that it took 100 yrs for women to get the right to vote. Whether that was a good idea is another discussion.

by jaqui

The US legal system has adopted the precedent of internet traffic is legally the same as a phone call, with "reasonable expectation of privacy."

They require a court order to legally have access to any log data.

[ It's the same here in Canada, communications medium not withstanding, you expect that your search results are private, unless you post them to a website ]

by rkuhn040172

Ok, so Microsoft is supposed to follow the letter of the law and hand over their source code which so many people want, but when the law ask them to turn over search records, you expect them to fight?

I say the hell with cooperating at all.

Microsoft is like tobacco, just another convenient source of revenue for government and another source of vote getting by public officials pretending they are fighting against bad evil corporate greed.

It's a joke.

The next time another tobacco tax comes up, I want a Big Mac, obseity tax enacted. And why stop there...a lazy, no exercising tax as well.

As far as Microsoft goes, when are they going to get source code from other companies?

by jaqui

I never said they should hand over source code to obey the EU court order, that was their own decision.

I think they should just detail the protocol used for a workstation to connect to a server and release that, which is what the court order from the EU court said.

Microsoft released data to the US government without a court order. That is the mistake, they didn't require that the government follow the laws to get the data.

Why did the government want it? to further erode the rights of US citizens and increase the government's ability to take everything from you just because they want to.
[ putting the powers of the patriot act into more areas of the law in essence ]

If the US Government is successfull with this legal battle, then they could be hauling you off to jail, because you were doing a research paper on snuff, the tobacco product, and [i] some of the search results that showed up were for snuff films[/i], which are illegal in most countries.

by noyoki

> "As far as Microsoft goes, when are they going to get source code from other companies?"

Open Source? :p

by tony hopkinson

The police operate within a legal framework. If they do something illegal, they are no longer police, they are criminals. Our government's on the other hand can define that legal framework and therefore control what is criminal.
As for faith, I have none in the police as a group. Individually I'm sure one or two of them are OK people, but as an organisation they are amoral. They operate according to the law, not morality, not rationality, not fairness, not justice, not compassion, but the LAW, whatever that may be.
If it's legal for them to mess with you, they will.

by jaqui

I actually agree with you on this Rikk.
2 years ago the city police here were under investigation, due to allegations of wrongdoing.

It was such a serous allegation that the Vancouver Police were being shadowed by the RCMP, who were doing the investigation.

One night I saw a cabbie getting a ticket, from a vancouver police officer and commeneted to the person walking nearby, "It's nice to see cabbies getting nailed for traffic violations, they do regularly deserve thier reputation as bad drivers."

The person asked what I thought of the Vancouver police, my honest answer to him:
The police are people, most that I have dealt with do honestly care and try to help, but they are like any other group, there are going to be some that are rotten.

He chuckled, and then told me, He was an RCMP officer that was in town doing the shadowing, being sent back to his detachment the next day.

The alllegation against the VCPD, were found to have been true, and six officers were charged.
They were later found guilty of taking homeless people to remote areas and beating them with thier billy clubs.

by ali40961

Neil, I had to look up that very SAME info (capital of Paraguay) for my son's hw. Guess we'll both be on their radar........ And the powers that be can kiss my "codeword"

by abobble2

E Q is that not the law. Then Microsoft SHOULD make public all the searches done from the white house and the department of justice.

by richard

Benjamin Franklin:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

"It's to protect the children"
"The Communists are taking over"
"9-11, 9-11, 9-11"
"If you're not with us, you're against us"

by rixmail

The Ben Franklin quote is right on and we should all think about that. This isn't about political party its about democracy and the preservation of our constitutional rights.
Call or email your senators to support a filibuster on Alito. The Unitary Executive will be the end of liberty and democracy in America.

Richard is also dead on in using their 9-11 justification for everything.

give up your rights, 9-11
I am the king, 9-11
Torture is illegal for everyone but me, 9-11

They also hired some professors from Duke who theorize that the American people will buy into anything if your say the words FREEDOM, and VICTORY enough times.

I broke the law for "terrorist surveilance", 9-11
I can spy on anyone with no accountability or judicial oversight, 9-11 , so we can have Victory and preserve freedom.
9-11
Victory
victory
9-11
Terrah terrah
mushroom cloud
9-11

By the way, if you do a little research you will find that they started tapping our phones and reading email shortly after Bush took office. Long before 9-11. later a republican senator offered a bill to loosen the restrictions of the FISA court and the Administration refused saying it wasn't necessary and that it might violate the constitution.

Bill Clinton used surveilance. He added physical searches to FISA. This is not the same thing, because it was done LEGALLY. They changed the law and they obtained the proper FISA warrants using the due process of law guaranteed by the fourth amendment. Everyone on Fox news will tell you this is just as bad as what Bush did, but I think anyone can see the huge difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL.

by jaqui

my contention.
If those directly affected do not defend their rights, under the laws, then they will lose them.

There has been a severe incursion against the US people's rights, by the government that is supposed to be protecting those rights.

If Clinton used due process to obtain the required court orders for the surveilance then that is not an issue. If he expanded the governments ability to obtain evidence, with judicial oversight then that is not an issue.

demanding data from companies without even getting a court order first isn't an issue, it's the companies rolling over and handing that data over that is the issue.

by rkuhn040172

Do you look over your shoulder walking down the sidewalk? Do you close your curtains during the day? Do you randomize your routes to work, school, stores? Do you use a pay phone instead of a cell phone?

Dude, you are paranoid...they make pills for that. My rights as a citizen haven't changed at all since 911.

Give me one concrete example, and I mean concrete, how my rights have been violated in a way that I care.

I periodically talk to my sister in Vietnam...if my calls are being monitored, I could care less. I'll bore them to death.

If they are monitoring my web searches, I could care less...all they will see is me surfing porn...cough cough, I mean doing research into IT stuff.

by abobble2

where have u been?? The government has been evesdropping for years before 911 or other threats. Check out the equipment that is Fort Meade md. Then make your replies

by johnnysacks

Sorry, I had read that years ago and never verified it.

Wow, the link added even more relevancy to the 'history repeating itself' theme by relating an ascendance to power to back-room deals and anti-democratic opposition from "the Army, the industrialists, the Nationalists and several other conservative parties".

Even better was the statement about the failure of their constitution: "Unfortunately, the constitution also contained several fatal flaws. One of the worst was Article 48 of the constitution, which granted dictatorial powers to the president in times of national emergency. Unfortunately, the president would frequently evoke this clause, and it ultimately proved the downfall of the Republic."

Oh well, made my peace (hopefully), this is a tech, not a political forum.

by rixmail

Well, under the LAW and the constitution, you have the right to due process. Under the patriot act your phone call to your sister gives them the right to show up at your house and search through all of your property and personal belongings without a warrant and without notifying you. If GWB decides he doesn't like you, for what ever reason, you can be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantonemo. You lost your right to due process, miranda rights, trial by jury. THey don't even have to notify anyone that you were taken. You claim you are not an enemy combatant? Who cares, the decision can not legally be reviewed by any court. BTW, they just passed a law that lets them execute military prisoners on foreign soil so maybe you wouldn't have to eat too many of those delicious chicken dinners while you are there.

You are losing more liberties every day and you don't even know it.

by reconlabtech

So Echelon and Carnivore are legal because Bill Clinton was involved but surveilance of calls from known or suspected Al Qaeda operatives from outside the country calling into the country is illegal and outrageous because George W. Bush is involved. Yeah right. Did George Soros pay you to say that or do you even know who he is or anything else about what you are talking about beyond what MoveOn.org and the DNC send you in your email?

by rixmail

I guess you get all your news from Rupert Murdoch.

Legal and Illegal is pretty simple. Bush says "its an old law". Well it may be old, but its also the CURRENT law. If he can't operate within it then he should have it changed within the law, not BREAK the law. Go 98 mph in a 50 and tell the nice policeman that you don't have to obey the law because its an old law.

by rkuhn040172

And maybe if Clinton had done what Bush is doing now, Bid Laden would of been captured prior to 911.

by rkuhn040172

Great story line for a novel, but really, my past, my opinions, my communication would simply not interest anyone.

Show me proof that someone's rights were that blantantly violated and that's another story.

Have there been some mishaps, sure. Have there been some successes, sure. No system is perfect.

Like the saying goes, we have to get it right all the time, they (the terrorists) only have to get it right once...and too many innocents will die.

by noyoki

If anyone else knows of a link they can post... I had seen in my RSS reader a tale of 2 men (brothers) of "questionable" race. They were taken shortly after 9-11, sent to "prison" (read: concentration camp), beaten, raped, etc. Later, they were found to have no ties to anything relating to terrorism. They were held many months without due process. They were eventually deported. They came back to seek justice.

Another story of questioning real Al Quieda terrorists. They pointed fingers at people, and those people were taken. No questions asked. One, it was revealed, was fingered because he had given the terrorist a bad grade back in school.

Proof? Go looking for it. It will find you. I subscribe to WCBSTV.com and the Times. One day I'll find and save the link for whenever I have to post this again.

by noyoki

That you aren't allowed to talk about it if they DID take you away. Not a word about what happened, why, or that you were either right or wrong in being taken.

by stress junkie

Hitler was elected to the Reichstag along with a significant number of other Nazi politicians. The way that he gained power is the same way that any minority party gains power in a parliamentary government. The remaining 63 percent of the Reichstag politicians realized that the Nazi party would be able to control votes by forming coalitions. So the people in the more popular parties wanted to be the first to form a coalition with the Nazis. Hindenburg wanted to offer Hitler what he, Hindenburg, thought would be a do nothing position in government. Hindenburg and his supporters thought that they could give Hitler a title in government with no power to exercise. Unfortunately Hitler was able to parlay that position and his personal army (the SA, brown shirts), into a position of real power.

by rkuhn040172

Just because I have more trust in the powers to be doesn't mean I am making a mockery of those who fought and died for me.

Just like most topics about politics, there is left, right and a whole lot in the middle. No black, no white just a lot of gray.

I am just as patriotic, just as proud, and have probably done more to support my country, its troops and its freedoms than most.

I just don't walk around with a chip on my shoulder distrusting things.

I believe in all people, Democrats, Republicans, whites, blacks, we're all in it together and we're all Americans.

I trust someone until they give me reason to not. Others, distrust until given a reason to trust.

Do I agree with all things George Bush? No. But do I believe he is trying (and sometimes failing) to protect our country, its rights and freedoms, hell yes.

by rkuhn040172

Other presidents, including Carter and Clinton, selectively did what Bush is doing now.

The media is doing what the media does best...sensasualism (I can't spell).

Besides, Congress was informed of this 3 years ago and no one made a big deal of it until they figured out it had traction in the media and public opinion circles.

I didn't hear Kennedy, Clinton, and others speak up back then.

by rkuhn040172

Oh, but some people don't read that. They only read/hear what they want to read/hear.

I think I'll do some Googling tonight about the preconceived opinions people carry around with them.

I'd bet that most media stories don't swing one's opinion much either way. That the person's beliefs they bring with them are just too powerful for any one single event to change regardless of the facts.

I'd also bet that if Harvard (insert university here) asked for the data for some study, no one would of noticed.

by kaceyr

... it doesn't really surprise me that you completely ignored the fact that both AOL and Yahoo also complied with the U.S. Governments request.

No, I don't agree with what they did, but it would nice if, just for once, you could pull your head out of your anal orifice long enough to see that there's more going in the software industry than Microsoft trying to stick it to everyone in the hind quarters.

by jcritch

1) So what? Is this any different than what Google has done, all in the name of the almighty dollar, and conceded to the demands of China?
2) I am not a fool, who believes if I kill myself and 3000 other innocent people, I can expect virgins in heaven and sit at the right hand of a ?righteous? god.
3) Extraordinary times, and what do you care, you live in BC. As a US citizen, I can accept this, besides the history of wire taps in the name of state security has been occurring since before the Cuban missile crisis.
4) Most of all I have nothing to hide.

by esalkin

The article says: "...Search index and some aggregated query logs..." Indexes and aggregate logs contain only summary data. The article says that the data DOES NOT contain individual searches or IPs.

The U.S. Government had a case tossed a few years ago because it could not prove that there was a sufficient amount of illegal activities to justify their actions.. This is an attempt by them to gather the data to have the case retried. (I'm not a lawyer so don't ask me the details.)

I applaud Google for taking a stand and making sure that such requests are legal. I wish they would have taken such a stand in China.

B.T.W. News and mail providers are giving away data on individual posts and downloads on a daily basis and have been for years to any government it the world. Thousands of kiddie-porn distributors are nabbed each year this way. China; Cuba; Iran; and the like use the Internet as a tool to crack down on dissent. The internet is NOT an anonymous medium and was never intended to be so.

Want some measure of internet privacy? Start here:
http://www.privacyresources.org/why.htm

by rixmail

of course they have. The point is that there are legal and illegal ways of doing it. The FISA court is there to keep a check against the executive branch overstepping its boundaries and violating the constitution. To prevent another NIXON. This president broke that law. That is a fact. No one, not even the president, should be above the law.

by bob b.

Oh, Oh, here come the black helicoptors. everybody run to the bunkers! Big Brother is coming! What are you talking about? If you want to whine about invasion of privacy, that's one thing; you may have a valid point there, but to tie it in to the recent NSA wiretaps. Shame on you Chicken Little. Stop trying to scare the sheeple. And if you're using the Internet to contact Al Qaeda or you're searching for kiddie porn, you deserve to be investigated.

get a life!

by ds4211a

What federal agency might you work for in Washington DC? The current Administration is taking away peoples rights daily. So are you one of Bushie's minions or just an ass kisser?

by bob b.

I don't work for any federal agencies and I'm not one of those dopey Rush Limbaugh ditto heads who thinks Bush can do no wrong and definitely not an a$$ kisser. George W. Bush has made plenty of mistakes along the way, but in general I support most of his actions and policies. I'm just a little tired of liberals always attacking the guy. I'd be fine with that if maye just once they'd have a solution rather than just complaining like little 1st graders and spouting off rhetoric without ever researching to see if what they are saying is actually true. I love to debate politics and foreign policy with people who actually have an opinion based on facts. I lived in the Middle East for 9 years and consider myself to be pretty well informed on how the people of that region think and believe me, they don't think at all like Westerners. Unfortunately I've not found a liberal yet who can hold a decent intellligent conversation on these topics. They always fall back on, "Well so and so says this or that." When confronted with verifiable facts, they always wilt under the pressure. They like to think of themselves as the elite, educated class of people while portraying all conservatives as a buch of dim-witted, toothless hillbiliies but they quickly expose themselves as ignorant, no-class phonies after only a few minutes of rapport. Tune in to www.michaelsavage.com to get a clue. Have a nice day! =;<)

by esa_batm

...for links to this being on every main page. If not you, who is and why and how do we get them to stop throwing up blogs from all and sundry?

by tony hopkinson

always believing the worst of corporates and governments means sometimes I'm pleasantly supplied. So thanks for cheering me up.

There's a reason I always expect the worst though, well actually about a million of them. Still no one can get everything wrong it's statistically impossible.

by jd255

Okay you'all are being "misdirected" once again. Child Porn is just the "in" to allow the government access. Can we say "Patriot Act"?... Illegal wire taps, Illegal surveilance, etc.... c'mon now let's not fall fot that shyte again. Yes, child porn is terrible. But there are other ways to catch crimes/criminals on the INET opposed to giving up personal data. Personally I could care less being that I moved out of Amerikkka :) However, I do feel as though it's my duty to go to Google and Yahoo daily and do searches for things like "How to join Al-Qaida?"; "Where can I become a freedom fighter?" etc... For one simple fact. I'm Amerikkkan (& a Veteran to boot). I do what I like when I like as long as a) I don't tramble over someone else & b) it's not against the law. What's that the CIA is at the door?... so what, why? cause I googled Al-Qaida to many times?... Yeah, righ. Tell them to go funk/frack/sluck themselves. Period. And that's my .002 cents. Peace all...

by jd255

This post went from one subject and shot into a whole other arena. LOL... At any rate, I'm simple. If you want to snoop through my dirty laundry, email, wife's diary, etc. just come by and ask (no problemo). If you want to try to be slick and slip your hand into my pocket; be careful, you may loose your hand. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. As for govn's spying (any/all) I'm sure they all do it. The ways and means may be subject to change, but I'm sure all govn's due it to some degree or another. Jaqui, well done. Your post has kept me giggling all night... hehhehehe... if I were still in Seattle I might ask about some of that ole' BC brocolli I've heard so much about. Now let's get back to the "real" debate (I know this already has a thread. In other words, let's get back to tech talk/type). Linux or Vista? how about TRS-80? Peace all...

by rixmail

The truth is, if Clinton had done what Bush is doing now you guys would be in the streets DEMANDING impeachment. You'd be screaming like you did in Florida when you were terrified that someone might actually COUNT peoples VOTES. And if bush had focused on AFGANISTAN, Bin Laden would be DEAD.

Actually the clinton administration had a lot of information on Bin Laden that they presented to Bush and they disregarded it. Just like they disregarded the Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US". I know you guys would just love to blame anything you can on clinton, but that just doesn't hold water. I tell you what. How about we deal with the Criminal that is in the white house NOW. Lets deal with this war-mongering fascist and his crimes instead of trying to find ANYONE else to blame it on. Lets expect Bush and the republican controlled house and senate to accept some accountability for their actions. I'll say this again because it is a valid point: You impeached Clinton for a lie about his personal sex life, but you are OK with this president LYING about EVERYTHING, and breaking the law. How about you guys just suck it up and admit that this guy is wrong. He broke the law and he has to go, just like NIXON. You can't be FOR impeaching clinton and AGAINST impeaching bush. That is the cold hard fact. And I expect you guys will trash me for saying that. Just as you always do when you run into logic, you regress in to Ann Coulter mode and start calling me a "loonie lib", or a socialist or what ever.

He can't break the law. No one is above the law.
If he got drunk and drove his car through a school crossing and killed 20 kids. You guys would let him get away with " Since september 11th I have really been needing a drink. Its a different world where sometimes the president needs to go on a bender, the old laws were too restrictive so I decided to go around the law and over a few school kids. They sacrificed for Freedom and of course Victory.." OK Fearless Leader, what ever you say! If we think for our selves and question you we might comfort the enemy.

by rkuhn040172

First of all, if (and not if, he did) Clinton did what Bush is doing now, no I wouldn't demand impeachment. I'd congratulate him for doing something to protect our country.

Second, FL wasn't about counting people's votes. Everytime they recounted, they came up with a different number because the rules kept changing. It isn't about counting people's votes, it was about counting chads, dead people, etc. I agree with you that FL was a joke but only because the system is broken. There are virtually no controls to verify, authenicate, etc. Voting centers have no standard as far as location, hours, accessibility and the registration process is a joke. That was the issue.

Both sides just wanted to count or recount until the numbers supported them.

And quite frankly, I don't care who is president. Sure, I'd prefer a Republican as I have conservative leanings, however, for quite some time now our government has been split 50/50.

There are 3 branches of government and so many involved that the president in and of himself plays a rather small role in what gets done day to day.

There are plenty of checks and balances. The president only seems more powerful than he is because a) the media b) power over the military and we're at war and c) Americans as a whole don't understand our very own form of government.

Impeaching Clinton was done after numerous and lengthy investigations. He was impeached but not found guilty so to speak..."It depends what IS IS".

Bush is or will be investigated too. What happened to innocent before found guilty? Your opinions are anarchy.

You are right, no one is above the law. If he broke it, they will punish him and I will support that.

Until that is proven, I and I hope everyone, should believe in the principle that has governed our country since its inception...innocent until proven guilty.

Whatever the outcome, just because an investigation or judge or jury rules for or against your opinion, that is the American way of life and you need to accept it (barring appeals and whatever).

I accept that Clinton was impeached but not thrown out of office. I think personally and morally what he did was wrong. But the proceedings went otherwise and I accept that.

If Bush is ultimately found guilty, I will accept that. But if he is ultimately found innocent, you need to accept that as well.

by jaqui

Microsoft handing it over for it to become newsworthy.

aol and yahoo were expected to hand it over, after all they have done exactly that in the past.
[ yahoo put someone into a Chinese prison by doing so ]

by noyoki

> 'They always fall back on, "Well so and so says this or that."'

> 'Tune in to www.michaelsavage.com to get a clue. Have a nice day! =;<'

And the latter is not an example of the former? Or does the former just not apply to you?

by noyoki

> "For every bad nut in the world, there are 100 that won't let them get away with anything."

The thing is... They already have...

by rkuhn040172

No one is proposing or implying any of your half baked ideas.

Some people are just too paranoid. Never in the 200+ years of this great nation have we ever gone down the road you are talking about.

Oh, ok, just do it. You're going to bring up slavery, women's rights, Asians out west during WWII, etc.

Think about it. Times are different and there are a whole set of procedures and processes now in place to prevent things of that nature today. We have evolved as a society.

I'm not making excuses. Our country has a black eye in its past in regards to certain issues.

But cmon, not again. Times have changed.

Besides, where are you? Instead of defending the rights of those not yet violated, aren't there plenty of places where you could stand up and defend those whose rights are currently being violated?

What about women's rights in the Middle East? What about the caste system in the Far East? How about racism in South Africa? How about human rights in Cuba, Afghanistan, North Korea?

Don't you think your concerns could be better spent in the here and now instead of the what could be but isn't?

by noyoki

Elsewhere has their own problems. Was Rome right when they stepped in and conquored lands?

> "Besides, where are you?"
I'm in NY, read my profile. It's right below my name.

> "aren't there plenty of places where you could stand up and defend those whose rights are currently being violated?"
That is their society. I sypathize with them, but I also believe in the Prime Directive. Did we have a right to fund Al Qaeda? (Regardless of the fact that it also backfired.) Do we have a right to wipe out any society, simply because it isn't up to OUR moral standards?

> "Times are different and there are a whole set of procedures and processes now in place to prevent things of that nature today."
And they are slowly going away, right before your eyes. When the president can just bypass those "procedures and processes", how are they protecting anyone?

They may not be as "half-baked" as you think in a few years. I honestly hope no kid has to do a report on the Middle East. They'll be searching for all kinds of terrorist things. And who knows, one kid may find, through that search, how they made bombs out of pens and use that in his/her report. Enter Big Brother to arrest the whole family (parents for allowing their child access).

Are you saying here, that we were right to pickup the persons of "questionable" decent? Read the news. I've seen things come up on my RSS, IE, 2 brothers (I believe from NY), hauled off without those "processes and procedures". Because one person in the house had an expired visa (not them), they took the whole house. Placed in a jail where they were beaten, raped, and told they would never get out.

Oh, by the way, they were completely innocent of any wrong-doing and came back to tell their story.

Too bad the stories fall on deaf ears.

If you call that "civilized", you have issues.

by noyoki

> "The only thing you were right about is that it took 100 yrs for women to get the right to vote. Whether that was a good idea is another discussion."

Explain please, how it is a bad idea, and how equal rights is wrong.

by reiki33

Vancouver, BC. Hmmm. I guess that qualifies you for one of those unauthorized international wiretaps? LOL.

by jaqui

I only ever discuss building weapons of mass destruction in person. ]:)

even discussing building delivery systems is only ever done face to face.

and we meet in a "white" room, where they can't use surveillance tech to eavesdrop.

you do know that everything required to build a "cruise" missle is available retail?

you can even buy the materials needed to make a fusion warhead. [ yes, fusion, not fission ]

by johndoe2

i second and third that. how nice of microsoft to decided to bend at big brothers demands. and this is the ppl we expect to give us a better browser and a better os? and better search and email??? is it any wonder IE is loosing ground to Firefox, and msn search is lagging behind both google and yahoo, so-on and so forth...

by bob g beechey

acqui, please apologise to your fan club (of which I am one - and no, I don't think you are a woman or that you look loke your icon). The article to which you prvided the link has a Microsoftian stating "that no personal data was included and that while the DoJ can find out how often a term was searched for, it cannot look up IP addresses of users or look for users who used multiple search queries." Gregl in his post noted this.
How does this gel with your assertion that MS compliance to government request will "allow the us government to illegally tap your phones and monitor your internet activities".
This has meant that most of the discussion has been based on misleading information.
To discuss whether MS or Google are right in their attitude to requests from such summary material is a different and very interesting question.

This discussion is closed to new replies.