Planetarion Forums - If you were searching for something illegal, you may be screwed.

s|k · 19 Jan 2006, 22:29

http://news.zdnet.com/2300-9595_22-6...ml?tag=nl.e589

:0

(at least in the US).

Quote:

which would reveal the search terms of a broad swath of Google's visitors

****ing bastards. I use Yahoo Search! They're less likely to be a target.

Appocomaster · 19 Jan 2006, 22:31

MSN search is the worst, but Yahoo search isn't much better..

but really, surely it's private? fs
The bush administration can suck my cock

s|k · 19 Jan 2006, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Appocomaster

MSN search is the worst, but Yahoo search isn't much better..

but really, surely it's private? fs
The bush administration can suck my cock

Nah I get better results with Yahoo Search. Google is often the target of blackhat SEO's that use evil ways to get high rankings on Google that wont work on Yahoo Search. Try some searches out. I recommend searching for 'dog,' on Yahoo you get the highly informative non-profit American Kennel Club site, on Google you get a dog supply webstore result. I prefer the results I get for my own name on Yahoo as well. Yahoo search also is not susceptible to 302 hijacks.

Also, their search records aren't being subpoenaed.

Androme · 19 Jan 2006, 23:10

Well I use a Google anomynalyse cookie UID and don't send any data to google analytics via CustomiseGoogle Firefox plugin.

s|k · 19 Jan 2006, 23:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Androme2

Well I use a Google anomynalyse cookie UID and don't send any data to google analytics via CustomiseGoogle Firefox plugin.

I just don't use Google.

Proteus · 19 Jan 2006, 23:13

Results 1 - 10 of about 386 for evil ways to wage jihad against the United States by blowing up the White House and assassinating President Bush, the Great Satan. (0.36 seconds)

They're going to come and get me, aren't they?

s|k · 19 Jan 2006, 23:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Proteus

Results 1 - 10 of about 386 for evil ways to wage jihad against the United States by blowing up the White House and assassinating President Bush, the Great Satan. (0.36 seconds)

They're going to come and get me, aren't they?

I believe that at the very least this forum will be registered somewhere on the secret service's database for utilizing the word 'assassination' and 'President Bush.' Also, because my broken blog that I link to below also has a sentence with the same comination, both this site and my blog will be flagged for review.

Dante Hicks · 19 Jan 2006, 23:27

I'm going to deliberately search for illegal things every day now.

Phang · 20 Jan 2006, 01:48

Your search - "ENORMOUSLY VIOLENT CHILD PORNGRAPHY INVOLVING ANIMALS AND MEMBERS OF THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION" - did not match any documents.

****s sake

QazokRouge5 · 20 Jan 2006, 03:01

So If I typed in "kiddie pron" in google and pressed search I could get in trouble? Or did I miss it entirely?

JammyJim · 20 Jan 2006, 03:05

when Mushroom uploaded a comedy Bush administration version of the trainspotting poster, within a few hours he had hits from various US government IP addresses....

YOU ARE ALL GOING TO JAIL.

Phil^ · 20 Jan 2006, 06:36

by the way, msn, yahoo, etc all gave the logs over - google is the only one asked who has said no

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/20/018211

Still glad you use yahoo s|k ?

s|k · 20 Jan 2006, 06:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

by the way, msn, yahoo, etc all gave the logs over - google is the only one asked who has said no

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/20/018211

Still glad you use yahoo s|k ?

Yes, but I'm sad now.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 06:46

Why wouldn't they turn over the records. It sounds like a dumb idea until someone blows up your ****ing mothers house. Then its "what did the government do to stop it"
yeah

Phil^ · 20 Jan 2006, 06:48

from what ive read its covered under the 4th amendment. the Govt has no criminal case here so they have no right to supoena the records - or thats what ive been able to make out from the discussions on it.
plus, the sheer scale of the data requested is a little unwieldy

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 06:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil^

from what ive read its covered under the 4th amendment. the Govt has no criminal case here so they have no right to supoena the records - or thats what ive been able to make out from the discussions on it.
plus, the sheer scale of the data requested is a little unwieldy

The only people who cite the amendment are people who have never stepped foot in a court room. There are so many ways to go around any law. People like you are surprised when they get thrown in jail for taking the 5th amendment.
"Its my right ffs"

s|k · 20 Jan 2006, 07:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

Why wouldn't they turn over the records. It sounds like a dumb idea until someone blows up your ****ing mothers house. Then its "what did the government do to stop it"
yeah

I'm totally down with the Government protecting me from harm. I'm not down with them tapping my phones and recording my searches. Anytime the government intervenes in your or my life we are in legal jeapordy, Any time you spend with a police officer for good or bad reasons you are in legal jeapordy. They see something amiss (probable cause 51%) they wont hesitatitate to act. The government is a machine streamlined to take people's rights away. It's all many of them do all day long is take rights away. And they take rights away by the thousands every day. It's a machine you don't want to get stuck in the gears with. I just want them to stay the **** out of my life.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 07:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I'm totally down with the Government protecting me from harm. I'm not down with them tapping my phones and recording my searches. Anytime the government intervenes in your or my life we are in legal jeapordy, Any time you spend with a police officer for good or bad reasons you are in legal jeapordy. They see something amiss (probable cause 51%) they wont hesitatitate to act. The government is a machine streamlined to take people's rights away. It's all many of them do all day long is take rights away. And they take rights away by the thousands every day. It's a machine you don't want to get stuck in the gears with. I just want them to stay the **** out of my life.

The government is not against you. The government does not care about your life. You in your own entity are expendable. The government could care **** all what you are searching for. The government cannot check the entire United states, nor the World's for that matter, search history. Who will they check? Known terrorists. Known family of terrorists. Known hostiles. Surely they can't check everyone's records. And surely you are aware of this. Sooooooo whats the big deal? You aren't even important enough to be mad at the government. Nor is anyone you know. I don't care if they pull my search history, at worst I will be pissed of that they wasted proper man hours looking at my shit, rather than looking at the history of someone who has actually blown up some building, somewhere before. I can't say that I can't understand your point of veiw, but generally, if you recognize that you are a peon in this place called earth, things like this won't accept you so much. Is the government going to stop you from Having a family? No. Are they going to stop you from getting an education? No. Are they going to stop you from having a decent job? No. Are they going to stop you from having 1 night stands every other night for as long as want? No. Are they going to stop you from jacking off to kiddy porn? No. unless you ****ing download it off the internet and look at it at work and keep an entire basement full of it!

s|k · 20 Jan 2006, 07:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

etc...

I understand I'm a peon, but I'm still not okay with it. I have a right to privacy as implied by the 4th amendment, I'm not going to willingly give it up.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 07:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by s|k

I understand I'm a peon, but I'm still not okay with it. I have a right to privacy as implied by the 4th amendment, I'm not going to willingly give it up.

The history of your country could be faked all you know. Japan faked its history. People died believing it. What are you 26? 27? 24? If you are not 230, standing behind anything pre- 1990's is idiotic. Because you just don't know.

s|k · 20 Jan 2006, 08:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

The history of your country could be faked all you know. Japan faked its history. People died believing it. What are you 26? 27? 24? If you are not 230, standing behind anything pre- 1990's is idiotic. Because you just don't know.

I'm 29. And I can know history (and even do know a bit) because it's been written down. I have faith in the written word. Suggesting history is a forgery is an interesting idea though. I guess it could be fake, but then we also could be plugged into machines that feed off our energy, or maybe nobody but I exist and my name is Krishna and you're all a creation of my dream. In any case I believe in the written word, because for one I studied (and did field work) in archaeology and historical archaeology and know that much of what is written can be verified by the remains of what is left behind (small things forgotten) of those from the past.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 08:31

You should have taken the discussion in another direction besides history. My reference towards Japan's oblivious forgery of its own history, which was written down, sort of still makes this last post by you sill not hold any water.

s|k · 20 Jan 2006, 08:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

You should have taken the discussion in another direction besides history. My reference towards Japan's oblivious forgery of its own history, which was written down, sort of still makes this last post by you sill not hold any water.

Japan doesn't forge its history, it whitewashes it in the textbooks for young children. Any Japanese adult can find out what happened if they so chose, it's not censored. Also, I think empirical evidence that supports the veracity of documented accounts holds plenty of water.

Ste · 20 Jan 2006, 09:35

So Chika has just defended this by saying "OMG IT WILL STOP TERRORIZTS" or something along those lines?
Way to break out of the stereotype...

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 20 Jan 2006, 09:43

im just against the government thinking it has the right to know everything about anyone it chooses.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ste

So Chika has just defended this by saying "OMG IT WILL STOP TERRORIZTS" or something along those lines?
Way to break out of the stereotype...

Nah, you missed the point.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jan 2006, 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

Why wouldn't they turn over the records. It sounds like a dumb idea until someone blows up your ****ing mothers house. Then its "what did the government do to stop it"
yeah

The government are requesting the searches to support legislation regarding pornography. What the **** has that got to do with people blowing up your mothers house?

Or is there some sort of genre of porn I am unaware of?

Deepflow · 20 Jan 2006, 11:19

exploding parent porn is making a resurgence i hear, it was big in the 80s.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 11:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

The government are requesting the searches to support legislation regarding pornography. What the **** has that got to do with people blowing up your mothers house?

Or is there some sort of genre of porn I am unaware of?

"Noone is worried about it until someone blows up your mothers house"
Wrather it is for looking for who is browsing porn, looking for who is mass purchasing crayons, "Noone is worried about it until someone blows up your mothers house"
as a phrase, applies to every sentence. Seems you. Were just looking. For something to reply negative about.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jan 2006, 11:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

"Noone is worried about it until someone blows up your mothers house"
Wrather it is for looking for who is browsing porn, looking for who is mass purchasing crayons, "Noone is worried about it until someone blows up your mothers house"
as a phrase, applies to every sentence.

How does it apply?

The danger the government are allegedly protecting it's citizens from in this case is children seeing pornography, as I understand it. Therefore, they are collecting data regarding searches on porn. They are not claiming (again, afaik) that this legislation will protect you from terrorist attack, so how does it apply?

Or do you honestly think there are only two options here?" The government should have infinite power" (and therefore we should support them in every single action they undertake, for whatever reasons and in whatever context) versus "the government should have zero power" (and therefore we should oppose them in every single instance)? I doubt anyone else is wanting to simplify the debate down to this level.

If on the other hand you are saying no-one is worried about what the government does until it blows up your mothers house, well that's not true either.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 20 Jan 2006, 11:52

whats all the talk about my mother's house being blown up? do you know something i dont?

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 12:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I doubt anyone else is wanting to simplify the debate down to this level.

Thats an ace line. But the majority of the time, it is that simple. I find that people that make things more difficult, or broader, than what they are, are generally "over-doing-it". Making a fuss about talking about somethimng in a complicated form does not make anyone a genius. People simply oppose these kinds of things until it directly affects them. If you wouldn't have tried to sound like you knew what you were talking about*, you could have extracted this "simple" meaning from my post.
sigh

*refer to siggy

Dante Hicks · 20 Jan 2006, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

Making a fuss about talking about somethimng in a complicated form does not make anyone a genius.

I doubt anyone claimed it did.

Quote:

People simply oppose these kinds of things until it directly affects them.

I don't have children, but if I did I wouldn't want the government there to protect them from evil pornography on the internet. I'd want to be responsible for they could and couldn't see until they reached a mental state where I think they'd be best suited to carry out this judgement.

So even if it did affect me, I still wouldn't support this. That's where your analysis falls down. Some people like liberty, even if it means some "problems"* from time to time. To use your analogy : they had interviews with people whose family had been killed in the London bombing. And some of them were against strengthening counter-terrorism police powers, despite the tragedy they had faced.

* = In this instance, I don't find the availability of pornography to be problematic in any case. If your children are regularly seeing things which could scar them horribly then you aren't doing your job as a responsible parent or guardian as I have said.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 12:17

But the information on where one surfs would not be a big deal unless you were doing something llegal or perverted. DOn't break the law and don't be a ****ing pervert and you shouldn't mind anyone looking at your history. :|

Nodrog · 20 Jan 2006, 12:19

It appears that noone in this thread, including s|k, actually bothered reading the subpoena before replying (perhaps Dante did, I cant tell).

edit: the government has no right to demand this data, but nothing that they are asking for could identify any particular user. All they want is the search terms, not the IPs that searched for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

But the information on where one surfs would not be a big deal unless you were doing something llegal or perverted. DOn't break the law and don't be a ****ing pervert and you shouldn't mind anyone looking at your history. :|

If I made posts like you have in this thread, I'd be embarassed about people finding them

MrL_JaKiri · 20 Jan 2006, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

To use your analogy : they had interviews with people whose family had been killed in the London bombing. And some of them were against strengthening counter-terrorism police powers, despite the tragedy they had faced.

Don't forget the amazing example of the Sun's front cover.

Nodrog · 20 Jan 2006, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

To be fair Nod there is a summary and the text itself is presented in really tiny legal speak. Other people are responding to others posts as is traditional.

Well, directly underneath the graphic is large text asking "Did you even read it?", which links to a comment by someone making the same point I did. That was what made me actually read it in the first place.

Dante Hicks · 20 Jan 2006, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

It appears that noone in this thread, including s|k, actually bothered reading the subpoena before replying (perhaps Dante did, I cant tell).

This was covered on Slashdot previously, so I didn't bother reading it. It was clear from the discussion there that it wasn't personal data in the "identifying" sense of the word. I'm more interested in Chika's nonsense.

JammyJim · 20 Jan 2006, 12:45

ITT chika declares that if we have nothing to fear then why cant the government begin its invasion of our privacy

I'm sure Winston would have something to say about all this if he were still alive today

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 12:55

ITT having a different opinion is bad. Simple reading could have answered a lot of questions. Additionally, I can't stress this enough btw, but just because someone has a different opinion than you do about a subject, doesn't make you right or them wrong. I simply can't see the big deal with search history being public. If I am wrong I repent and pray that I can think like everyone else one day.

MrL_JaKiri · 20 Jan 2006, 12:59

If you're going to post something like

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chika

But the information on where one surfs would not be a big deal unless you were doing something llegal or perverted. DOn't break the law and don't be a ****ing pervert and you shouldn't mind anyone looking at your history. :|

then expect there to be consequences on a board where this is an extreme minority view.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If I made posts like you have in this thread, I'd be embarassed about people finding them

:S I don't feel that way. i don't rate my day by how many "good posts" I make. :S If I did, then I would feel this way.

Demon Dave · 20 Jan 2006, 13:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by JammyJim

I'm sure Winston would have something to say about all this if he were still alive today

This thread has enlightened me to go out a find a copy of 1984 and read it.

MrL_JaKiri · 20 Jan 2006, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demon Dave

This thread has enlightened me to go out a find a copy of 1984 and read it.

A copy like http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ you mean?

Nodrog · 20 Jan 2006, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

A copy like http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ you mean?

Noone is going to read that much text on a computer monitor, and the effort it would take printing it out far outweighs the £5 it would cost to just buy the book.

e-books are fairly silly for anything other than reference

JammyJim · 20 Jan 2006, 13:38

"The government is not against you. The government does not care about your life. You in your own entity are expendable. "

this dude agrees

JammyJim · 20 Jan 2006, 13:38

"The government is not against you. The government does not care about your life. You in your own entity are expendable. "

this dude agrees
so does this guy
and infact

this cool cat

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 13:43

and this guy

Dante Hicks · 20 Jan 2006, 13:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

e-books are fairly silly for anything other than reference

PDAs / ebook readers will improve.

Chika · 20 Jan 2006, 13:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

PDAs / ebook readers will improve.

I think audiobooks will do better than e-books. With the big mediaplayer fad going around, and people jogging with 60gb of space, they fit most lifestyles today.