Better have no secrets.

[fett]

Google knows everthing about you. They have the ability to zero in to your computer. These search engines know you better than you know yourself. Scary. Huh. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[thurston]

Re: Better have no secrets.

At least Google is trying to fight giving any information to the feds, unlike AoHell, Yahoo, and MSN.

[Freyr]

Re: Better have no secrets.

I had a very unique online alias about three years ago, and to this day I can still find ANYTHING I'd ever posted. Even stuff from Sharing the Groove, when it was still going.

Very Freaky...

[fett]

Re: Better have no secrets.

Everything we have searched is in permament storage. I love the net. But when it comes down to it, I will be very careful. As for you Freyr, you may not be able to find it but they have it and they can go back to where you started it. 1984. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[FusionFarmer]

Re: Better have no secrets.

big brother is watching you...

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Better have no secrets.

Google only objected because of the breadth of the request. I.e., because it's going to cost Google a lot of money to comply this time and they'd like to avoid setting a precedent that will later be difficult to overcome should the feds continue to make such cumbersome requests. Google did not object in an attempt to protect the privacy of their users.

[fett]

Re: Better have no secrets.

The point is all the others gave it up. Google is taking the high ground. So what!!!! If the Feds want the info, they will get it. This is going to the Supreme Court. The case will be just because we have the info, do we have to give it up?

[Freyr]

Re: Better have no secrets.

De-am... 1984 is right. (good book).

I think the United States government just needs to be taught a lession... (I'm getting in shit for this one, go google!), as because they won World War Two, and to an extent the Capitalism vs Communism Cold War, they have no feeling of loss, and think they controll the world. So, why not make a database of every person ever to live and what kinds of things they search? It's not invasion of privacy, because they can't be wrong? They're the government.

[fett]

Re: Better have no secrets.

Bye the way, Google also objected because they might have to give up their "secrets". Those "Pups" at Goog have way too much info. [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[fett]

Re: Better have no secrets.

[ QUOTE ]
De-am... 1984 is right. (good book).

I think the United States government just needs to be taught a lession... (I'm getting in shit for this one, go google!), as because they won World War Two, and to an extent the Capitalism vs Communism Cold War, they have no feeling of loss, and think they controll the world. So, why not make a database of every person ever to live and what kinds of things they search? It's not invasion of privacy, because they can't be wrong? They're the government.

[/ QUOTE ] Better Red than dead. Son. Watch how political you get. This is a guitar forum. [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/headbang.gif[/img]

[Freyr]

Re: Better have no secrets.

Truth to that, but I have an outspoken voice inside me somewhere [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

That is just all opinion by the way, I hope no-one takes offence to it.

[thurston]

Re: Better have no secrets.

Here's a pretty good article on limiting some of the data you provide search engines.
Wired Article on foiling search engine snoops.

This is just a start, there are other more involved ways to alleviate some of the concern, but I wouldn;t trust any of them 100%.

I'd also recommend using Firefox, installing the AdBlock extension, and actually configuring it to block ads, and block cookies from any host(s) you don't implicitly trust.

[toejam]

Re: Better have no secrets.

Kill Whitey!

[Bert]

Re: Better have no secrets.

[ QUOTE ]
Google only objected because of the breadth of the request. I.e., because it's going to cost Google a lot of money to comply this time and they'd like to avoid setting a precedent that will later be difficult to overcome should [the feds continue to make such cumbersome requests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, something like this would be trivial for Google to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Google did not object in an attempt to protect the privacy of their users.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. check out the statement from the Google founders on today's abc newscast (You can find it on abcnews.go.com, at least whenever their suck-ass site starts responding again.) There were several reasons for not complying, with user privacy definitely being among them.

Google would rather not set a precedent of being a company that bends over to the feds (or anyone else) at the drop of a hat. Maintaining user trust is just good business sense.

[YetAnotherOne]

Re: Better have no secrets.

Initial reports indicated that the Google folks didn't object on the basis of protecting their user's privacy. If they've since added such objections they are, IMHO, red herrings at best. Call it "public relations" if you prefer.