Feds Block EFF Look at Google/DoJ Contacts 79
netbuzz writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation wants to know all there is to know about contacts between Google and a Justice Department official involved in a highly charged 2006 government-snooping dispute that ensnared the search giant. That DoJ official, Jane Horvath, was subsequently hired by Google last year as senior privacy counsel. The DoJ has refused for six months to release public information about the matter being requested by EFF."
Simple way for the EFF to get the info ... (Score:1, Troll)
duh! [fuckinggoogleit.com]
5th Ammendment? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:5th Ammendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:5th Ammendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
While the parents words may not be the most eloquent, they are right on the money. Well said, plague3106! B..B...B..ut if you have nothing to "hide", well you should not worry? Right?
Hey, the government has every right to know all about us surfs. After all, it is no longer OUR tax dollars that the feds are spending. It is "their" money, and they can do what they want.
You smoked a little pot in high school/college? Damn you! We have the war on DRUGS you idiot! You should go to jail. You filth.
Oh, you KILLED someone? Well that is 25 years to life, with probation after only 10 months. Just don't let us catch you smoking teh pot. You will go down!
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on terrorism
War on...
Hmm.. I am 35. In my 35 years as a born-and-raised American, I have been kept in a constant state of war. I served in the U.S.M.C, during the Gulf War, when I was 18 because I thought I "owed" it to my country.
I am just really sad how I have lived under the "republicans" in a constant state of war, either at home or abroad. I am really looking forward to some Dems taking the wheel for a little while and see what we get. It may not be better, but I hope it is.
As a 35 year old, born and raised American, I have not had one single 5 year period in my life where I didn't hear from the Republicans how we are in some state of "war". I don't know about you, but I am DAMN tired of war. I want some DAMN peace.
Re:5th Ammendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Judging from history, it won't be. Even if the Democrats could/would bring peace, you can bet you'll get the shaft by having some rights taken away instead. You see, it kind of works like this:
Republicans: we shaft you and you *know* it.
Democrats: we shaft you, but we try to be discreet about it.
Like my right to get gay married? (Score:2)
I'm wondering what rights the Democrats would take away from me...
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I even disagree, but BTW marriage is a church sacrament that they have the say on. Like most everything else, the Gov. has co-opted it to get their cut of *license fees*... Technically marriage is none of the governments business (just like everything else shouldn't be)
Mod up. The gay marriage debate is about forced social acceptance of homosexuality. The law already provides civil unions - marriage is simply a contract. There are laws that need to be changed to have a "marriage equivalent" (tax consequences, immigration law, etc.), however the gay marriage debate is all about the use of a word. It's not about rights its about acceptance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering what rights the Democrats would take away from me...
Freedom of the press? If radio isn't Democrat it must carry an equal percentage of the Democrat viewpoint.
Your right to vote? You are too dumb to decide things - elite educated judges (philosopher kings) should do that.
Freedom of speech? You can't say anything bad about anyone (except Christians) even as a joke.
Your right to your paycheck? Your too dumb to decide what to spend your money on.
Freedom of religion - but no one cares about that on Slashdot (thats why its enshrined in the First Amendment - c
how are those rights? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, they aren't rights. They sound like mush-brained talking points.. I couldn't say anything bad about the lies used to invade Iraq without being called a traitor and worse. I couldn't question the use of the fighting in Iraq without being told I hate the troops. You know, shit like that. You seem to want all the benefits of a high-tech society without paying your fair share in taxes.
They are textually explicit, which is more than can be said about the rights the liberals hold sacred.
Under liberal activism the following constitutionally guaranteed freedoms have been reduced or eliminated altogether:
The Contract Clause [cornell.edu] - completely abrogated.
The Due Process Clause of the Foruteenth [cornell.edu]and the Fifth [cornell.edu] Amendments - altered as to life and property, in some instances personal liberty supersedes others rights to life and property. Socialist agendas have severely limited property rights. Pers
You are too cute! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're not a troll... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But your examples of 'Liberals resgtricting Rights' seem petty and disingenuous which are often the signs of a troll. To me, those are non-issues compared to being spied on with no warrant or having my habeus corpus rights taken from me. Being lied to in order to start a war...it was conservatives who did that. Adding 25% to the national debt...that was conservatives. I don't really care about gun ownership...the only reason I'd want guns would be to protect myself from government. A semi-auto rifle can't compare to the military and para-military police forces out there, even if the Iraqis seem to be pulling it off.
I never rendered an opinion on those issues. How have I been disingenuous. You asked "I'm wondering what rights the Democrats would take away from me...", and I answered.
To go point by point:
I have trouble with domestic spying. I can at least try to understand the motivations, rather than rabidly demonizing proponents, but I do think they are overstepping.
I have trouble with any denial of rights of US citizens, whether they were found on a battle field or not.
I have huge problems with the overspending
Re: (Score:2)
Re:5th Ammendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same evil coin, and the divisions are deliberately illogical (i.e. "pro life" people are generally pro death penalty and don't want to pay a dime for the well-being of kids unless it is to censor the media "for them", etc). Any sane, rational person will quickly become frustrated and resigned with our "democracy", seeing it for the fraud that it is. Everyone else will accuse that person of tin foil hattery, and voila! Our way of life is"still safe". Yesterday it was communists, today it's Al Qaida, tomorrow maybe it will be Jews or left-handed people or people with haxxor 5k1llz... The only constant is this New Feudal system masquerading as a "free country".
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans: We fuck up and we fuck up GLAMOROUSLY.
Democrats: We fuck up but at least you can go on food stamps.
Sure, it might have connotations of the 'lesser of two evils', but any political group will ultimately go to the dark side, so the argument against voting for the evil in the first place will become moot the second you vote for the 'non-evil' politicians.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ending wars with the budget isn't that simple. Bush could keep troops in the field without proper equipment like body armor or sufficient ammunition. It wouldnt really surprise me if he did just that.
The only way tightening the budget strings might be effective is if Congress cut off non-essential contracts to divert money to Iraq. Things like the FCS [wikipedia.org] or some jet fighter or tanker programs. The contractors would pressure him to get out to save their programs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You evidently weren't paying attention to both parties when DoD was trying to close non-essential bases in the BRAC [brac.gov] hearings. Both parties argued that to close any of the proposed bases would be detrimental to not only the area they were in but the
Re: (Score:2)
Re:5th Ammendment? (Score:5, Informative)
In cases of the 5th amendment, you can obviously call upon it when you have something to hide. You can also invoke it on principle to the fact that what I am NOT telling you has no relevance to the case at hand.
Imagine you are walking along the street and decide to rob a store. You bust into the store, start helping yourself to whatever, and you notice the store keeper being beat and raped. You call it in, it comes to trial, and all of a sudden the defendants lawyer asks you what were you doing in the store after it was closed. Obviously, you were robbing the store, but REGARDLESS, that has NOTHING to do with the beating and raping of the store keeper. This is a perfect example of why you would plead the 5th.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but the airplanes are not a public service in the sense a sidewalk is. It is a service that can be revoked if you don't follow the operating companies' procedures. Which is why you must present your baggage before boarding.
Re:5th Amendment? (Score:3, Informative)
It is a service that can be revoked if you don't follow the operating companies' procedures.
That aside, it's kind of hard to follow an airline's procedure when it isn't the airline's procedure. This would all be fine and dandy if it were a security service payed for by all of the airlines that service the terminal with agreed upon rules. Instead, we have a government agency paying for an outside security service proscribing, or at least pretending not to notice, arbitra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that just a fancy way of saying "I'm Guilty"?
If you create enough laws, everyone is guilty. If you search long enough, if you try hard enough, you will be able to find, craft, or create a plausible excuse for ruining just about anyone's life. The various constitutional protections are set in place, in part, to establish at least some barrier to this.
Also, given our propensity to use "enhanced" interrogation, and then rely on that information as if it were in any way valid, I'd say a constitutional protection against self-incrimination is pretty dam
Where's the Article? (Score:3, Informative)
Enquiring minds wanna know!
Re:Where's the Article? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/25435 [networkworld.com]
Re:Where's the Article? (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot has added a URL field in the story submission form. (My guess is that this URL is intended for automated dupe checking.) This link gets displayed in the Firehose entry after the article.
It would appear it doesn't get displayed should the story get accepted. I guess the theory was that the editors would edit the link in. Something that, in practice, it would appear they frequently forget.
So that's my guess as to why it's missing in the article. It's not that CmdrTaco removed it, just that he forgot to add it to the story text.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where's the Article? (Score:5, Insightful)
The 2006 case was an attempt by the DoJ to subpoena all search records from all major search engines in order to bolster support for government regulation of pornography. Everyone else but Google complied and turned over records. Google did not.
The quote in the article makes it sound like Google was caught abusing their users' privacy when quite the opposite was true. If I ever trusted Network World, I think that trust would have just ended.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but the fact that the person they were working with at the DOJ is now a Google employee seems to indicate that there might have been some hush-hush deal made "These aren't the search records you're looking for... oh, and by the way, Google is hiring (wink, wink
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that the person they were working with at the DOJ is now a Google employee seems to indicate that there might have been some hush-hush deal made "These aren't the search records you're looking for... oh, and by the way, Google is hiring (wink, wink) and we need someone like you; you should submit a resume."
So, what you're saying is that Google might have protected your privacy by bribing the government? I'm just trying to determine what it is that you are suggesting.... The bottom line for me is that the EFF seems to be going in an odd direction, here. Rather than finding a way to nail Yahoo and Microsoft for turning over private data at the drop of a hat, they're investigating how Google got out of doing so. This seems counter to their mission to me, but perhaps I just don't have all the details.... certain
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps I'm a little be out of the loop here, but why is it exactly, that you would forbid your governmen
Judicial power (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judges who disagree with the Right are "activist."
Judges who agree with the Right are "strict constructionist."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution explicitly, both in the body and in the Bill of Rights, states that rights not reserved to the Federal or State governments belong to the people. Articles about the framers and the writing of the Bill of R
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, a significant litmus test is "privacy" or other rights not explicitly specified in the Constitution or amendments. To be perfectly honest, I don't know how Scalia or Thomas weigh on such matters, but it has appeared to me that denial of such rights has tended to be a "Right" thing.
I was addressing activist v. original strict constructionist/intentionalist/textualist. I don't remember how those justices came down on privacy in the IV Amendment cases (I don't like crim law), I can tell you that they are definately against Roe's version of privacy rights. Scalia and Thomas don't do "penumbras" from text.
The Constitution explicitly, both in the body and in the Bill of Rights, states that rights not reserved to the Federal or State governments belong to the people. Articles about the framers and the writing of the Bill of Rights state that many were against them, because it was feared that they would be taken by future generations as a "complete enumeration" of peoples' rights.
The conservative wing forgets that the BOR is supposed to be countermajoritarian. You don't put it to a vote whenever a minority is being crushed, thats not protection. I'd like a cite
Re: (Score:2)
Why did Roe v Wade even have to use any sort of "penumbra" at all? IMHO, it's a balance of rights, the mother's against those of the fetus. Further, the Constitution and amendments talk about balancing rights of people, the states, and the federal government. There has only ever been one amendment that prohibited a specific act, and it's also the only amendment that has ever been repealed. An anti-abortion amendment has NO place whatsoever in the Constitution. If you want to accomplish t
Re: (Score:2)
Further, the Constitution and amendments talk about balancing rights of people, the states, and the federal government.
I'd also throw in balancing the rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minority. The Bill of Rights is a restraint on majoritarian power.
There has only ever been one amendment that prohibited a specific act
XIII [cornell.edu]
I'm sorry I can't give you a better reference for it. Google is your friend, I hope.
I'm guessing its in a Federalist, I'll go digging.
Re: (Score:2)
> of Rights is a restraint on majoritarian power.
Won't argue a bit about that, but we're still talking about balancing rights, not prohibiting a specific act.
> XIII
It's worded as prohibiting the act of owning slaves or indentured servants, but it could also be viewed as granting human rights to those people, which had been previously denied. Perhaps an anti-abortion amendment could be construed the sam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't me! (Score:2)
Re:It wasn't me! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
To the DoJ, that is. I doubt that it counts as a "release" of information if their new "privacy counsel" gets her hands on it.
Of course, and this is the tinfoil hat talking here, what if this new "senior privacy counsel" just so happens to moonlight at the DoJ (or is it the other way around? And just so happens to let slip some of that information as a bit of gossip at the DoJ water cooler?
Re: (Score:2)
what if this new "senior privacy counsel" just so happens to moonlight at the DoJ (or is it the other way around? And just so happens to let slip some of that information as a bit of gossip at the DoJ water
As my MPRE review video says "the lawyer is subject to discipline." MRPC 1.11(d)
Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee:
...
...
(2) shall not:
(ii) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer or arbitrator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule 1.12(b) and subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b).
But if the "matter" the lawyer was participating in personally and substantially is over, it looks like she can get involved against another party. Still its kind of a sticky situation, not something I'd risk disbarment over.
OT - Your sig (Score:1)
Why have 1 person driving a backhoe when you could employ 20 with shovels?
Because the 1 person driving a backhoe, even though he is a skilled worker (trained to run a backhoe), is much, much faster and cheaper than 20 unskilled people with shovels.
Let's say the backhoe worker makes $20/hr + benefits. You can figure his rate to be somewhere around $40 an hour (liberal estimate) when you figure in benefits. Lets say the time difference using a backhoe vs. 20 people with shovels is roughly 2:1 -- a very conservative estimate -- so if it takes 2 weeks with shovels, the backhoe ope
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate your impeccable analys
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
(In the long term, standards of living are improving in India and China as a direct result of outsourcing there, so the workers there are now demanding more money. Hence, there is no efficiency to really be gained, it's all an illusion.)
Its no illusion, the "illusiveness" is due to the unequal comparisons of long and short term. Short term - efficiency is gained, long - the market finds equilibrium. The equilibrium position is actually good for all because the market for goods in general has now grown because of new consumers. Short term - it sucks for domestic low skilled jobs. Long term - it will always suck for low skilled jobs. If the next third world country (or immigration) doesn't "steal" low skilled jobs, technology will. At what
Do no evil... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Our corporate system encourages normal/good people to do "evil" things, systematically, and Google is no exception. Check out this film:
http://www.thecorporation.com/ [thecorporation.com]
It's a liberal diatribe (there are Michael Moore's bits in it), but I found many of the points very persuasive.
How do we tweak the system to limit corporate abuse while maintaining her economic efficiency?
Privacy Goes Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Google, though, would do well from a PR standpoint to at least formulate a response explaining what seems like a very odd decision. I'd appreciate it at least, since this sort of thing makes me feel pretty nervous. I don't really search for anything more exotic than cake recipes, technical documentation, or going through Wiki adventures where you start with wondering what the actual difference between a vegetable and fruit is and end up reading about quantum physics for some reason, but government snooping through stuff without cause is a bad thing and quite against the constitution those cool guys 200 years ago wrote up. Google has a good track record for not doing evil things, but still...
Re:Privacy Goes Both Ways (Score:5, Insightful)
But what about your municipality's contracts? Don't you want to know if the council are all shareholders of the company that keeps winning all the bids on construction?
These are PUBLIC records. As far as I know no minors are involved, and nothing was ordered sealed by a judge. What happened to transparency in government, etc? The mere fact that someone doesn't want the public to know this means that laws were probably broken. You agree that the government should be allowed to KEEP breaking them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For example Darleen Druyun was sentenced to prison in September 2004 [worldpoliticsreview.com] for showing favoritism to Boeing while she was a top Pentagon acquisitions official.
There may be nothing at all to see, but the right
Can we maybe... (Score:2)
-- Terry