Anyone else stop using Google?

[DHallerman]

Originally Posted by Rada

FB worries me more than Google.

YES!

Up until the end of last year, I worked for 13 years as an analyst of digital advertising and marketing for a research company (not an iBank).

I note that to emphasize my perspective, based on years of study -- and I much agree with Rada. Don't trust FB at all, since I know too much about what they do.

Google uses your data, too -- as does virtually every digital company -- but if you want, the ability to limit that usage is much clearer with Google than FB.

[93legendti]

"In a potentially landmark dispute, Google (GOOG), Facebook and other tech giants are crying foul over the Justice Department's response to a lawsuit in which the companies seek to reveal more details about official requests for Internet users' data. After submitting its written arguments directly to a judge, the companies say the government has given them a censored version, while refusing to let even company lawyers who have security clearances review the full brief."

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/...-object-secret

"Google, Facebook and Microsoft have all asked the US government for permission to include data requests made under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), requests that are currently so secret that they’re not even allowed to acknowledge if they’ve received any.

During the whirlwind news about the PRISM/NSA scandal, news has circulated that all three companies are providing large amounts of data to the US National Security Agency (NSA) because of FISA.

Google Asks To Talk About FISA
In today’s letter to the US Attorney General’s office and FBI, Google’s top legal officer, David Drummond, fights back by pointing out that the government doesn’t allow Google to include them — and that if it could as part of its Google Transparency Report, it would show there is no widespread sharing"

http://marketingland.com/google-asks...requests-48025

"Yahoo chief Marissa Mayer has said she feared winding up in prison for treason if she refused to comply with US spy demands for data.

Her comments came yesterday after being asked what she is doing to protect Yahoo users from “tyrannical government” during an on-stage interview at a TechCrunch Disrupt conference in San Francisco.

Mayer said Yahoo scrutinises and fights US government data requests stamped with the authority of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but when the company losses battles it must do as directed or risk being branded a traitor."
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/...dNews#comments

[mg2ride]

Google has changed the world for the better and I fall into the camp of if you want privacy stay off the internet.

I also think have them in bed with our government provides me more benefit than risk.

If I have anymore kids I'm naming them Google! Maybe just as a middle name but it will be there.

[fuzzalow]

@ 93legendti: I'm responding to you because I presume your post is about my remark that

I don't recall any democratic government going to Google demanding data be surrendered on their customer's web activity.

Dunno if you're still mad and (a) playing "gotcha" in catching me in error or if (b) you are actually making a point 'cos you've got something to say. I'm gonna be civil, no grudges. Whaddaya say? OK, so I'll reply in for whichever case you meant it:

If (a): The entire paragraph you responded to is speaking in the context of US citizens who are protected by the 4th Amendment, just as stated in the opening line of the paragraph. Citizens are protected from warrantless search and are entitled to due process, as spelled out by the 4th and 5th Amendments, respectively. FISA does not apply here.

If (b): If you are hinting that FISA can play fast 'n' loose with the law in going after anybody then I don't disagree with that. FISA could and can be used to surveil a US citizen under some grey areas of getting snared in a broader data gathering & foreign intelligence effort. With home grown terrorism & US citizens radicalizing themselves looking domestically inwards is a reasonable protection on the part of the NSA & FBI. But those pesky Bill of Rights clauses will make it harder to charge & convict a US citizen versus a foreign national unless it was done by the book.

Hey, nice talkin' to ya!

[CNY rider]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

@ 93legendti: I'm responding to you because I presume your post is about my remark thatDunno if you're still mad and (a) playing "gotcha" in catching me in error or if (b) you are actually making a point 'cos you've got something to say. I'm gonna be civil, no grudges. Whaddaya say? OK, so I'll reply in for whichever case you meant it:

If (a): The entire paragraph you responded to is speaking in the context of US citizens who are protected by the 4th Amendment, just as stated in the opening line of the paragraph. Citizens are protected from warrantless search and are entitled to due process, as spelled out by the 4th and 5th Amendments, respectively. FISA does not apply here.

If (b): If you are hinting that FISA can play fast 'n' loose with the law in going after anybody then I don't disagree with that. FISA could and can be used to surveil a US citizen under some grey areas of getting snared in a broader data gathering & foreign intelligence effort. With home grown terrorism & US citizens radicalizing themselves looking domestically inwards is a reasonable protection on the part of the NSA & FBI. But those pesky Bill of Rights clauses will make it harder to charge & convict a US citizen versus a foreign national unless it was done by the book.

Hey, nice talkin' to ya!

The 4th Amendment is wonderful on paper. But does it offer protection?
In the country we live in now, the Executive has ordered the execution of American citizens without a trial.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by CNY rider

The 4th Amendment is wonderful on paper. But does it offer protection?

Legally it does. But it also gets to the issue that legal protections are not equally applied across all economic, social and ethnic divisions in our society. So when you say "does it offer protection" I take the remark as more skepticism voiced as to adjudication of the law rather than taken as a fundamental critique that the actual legal writ, the language and intent of the Amendment, is fraudulent.

In the country we live in now, the Executive has ordered the execution of American citizens without a trial.

You mean al-Alwaki? Yeah, there are arguments to be made on either side. I'd only say that war is a very messy business and sometimes when a person chooses to get involved as a combatant they might get caught up in a blast radius. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

[professerr]

One great service to humanity Google provides is the ability to keep current on internet memes like "sealioning."

[CNY rider]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

Legally it does. But it also gets to the issue that legal protections are not equally applied across all economic, social and ethnic divisions in our society. So when you say "does it offer protection" I take the remark as more skepticism voiced as to adjudication of the law rather than taken as a fundamental critique that the actual legal writ, the language and intent of the Amendment, is fraudulent.



You mean al-Alwaki? Yeah, there are arguments to be made on either side. I'd only say that war is a very messy business and sometimes when a person chooses to get involved as a combatant they might get caught up in a blast radius. Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

We no longer have a government that plays by the rules of the 4th Amendment.
The current President and his predecessor have shown little regard for the Constitution and Congress has shown no inclination to interfere.
And what arguments are there on either side for taking an innocent man and sending him to a foreign country to be tortured?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-maher-arar

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was travelling home to Canada from visiting relatives in Tunisia in 2002. While changing planes at New York City's JFK airport, he was detained by U.S. authorities and then transferred secretly to Syria, where he was held for a year and tortured.

[Tony T]

It should be mentioned that Canada contacted the INS.
(but IMO, INS should have sent him on to Canada)

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by CNY rider

We no longer have a government that plays by the rules of the 4th Amendment.
The current President and his predecessor have shown little regard for the Constitution and Congress has shown no inclination to interfere.

I respect your opinion and you are completely within your rights to have that opinion. I am likewise entitled to mine. I am in no way an apologist for actions undertaken by the U.S. government.

Even as a collegial discussion to this forum, I have no way to respond to a blanket statement as stated above.

And what arguments are there on either side for taking an innocent man and sending him to a foreign country to be tortured?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-maher-arar

Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was travelling home to Canada from visiting relatives in Tunisia in 2002. While changing planes at New York City's JFK airport, he was detained by U.S. authorities and then transferred secretly to Syria, where he was held for a year and tortured.

Same generic response as above. No doubt many mistakes made in the chaotic aftermath of 9/11. The U.S. at that time had not even yet progressed to use of torture as found in later rendition policies of terror suspects to Egypt. The Canadian was deported to Syria which institutionalizes torture as integral to its political processes. Ther was no agreement between the U.S. and Syria to conduct torture to Mr. Arar.

I agree with you. There is no justifiable cause to deport a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent back into the Syrian political system where he would inevitably be mistreated.

[93legendti]

If you have "nothing to hide", Verizon is the mobile provider for you:

"In Virginia, a telecommunications consultant reported, Verizon had set up a dedicated fiber-optic line running from New Jersey to Quantico, Va., home to a large military base, allowing government officials to gain access to all communications flowing through the carrier’s operations center."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/veriz...#ixzz3Vy9cJY00

[SlackMan]

Originally Posted by happycampyer

... I wonder how a company like DuckDuckGo makes money?

If I were the government and wanted to know what the smart 'suspects' were doing, I would create a search engine and/or browser that would disproportionately attract those users. That way, I would have much less data to sort through. Working with volume of data Google generates would be pretty hard. If I coud get the smart 'suspects' to self select into a group of people wh don't want anyone knowing what they're doing, that would dramatically reduce my data analysis problem.

Really, I'm not paranoid...just saying.

[goonster]

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

US citizens who are protected by the 4th Amendment, just as stated in the opening line of the paragraph. Citizens are protected from warrantless search and are entitled to due process, as spelled out by the 4th and 5th Amendments, respectively. FISA does not apply here.

FISC has ruled (in secret, natch) that 4A protection does not apply to blanket collection of U.S. citizens' phone call metadata. Without Snowden, we wouldn't even know about that.

Originally Posted by fuzzalow

But those pesky Bill of Rights clauses will make it harder to charge & convict a US citizen versus a foreign national unless it was done by the book.

In theory, yes. In practice, you use the data you can't use in court to find and collect evidence that you can.

[fuzzalow]

Originally Posted by goonster

FISC has ruled (in secret, natch) that 4A protection does not apply to blanket collection of U.S. citizens' phone call metadata. Without Snowden, we wouldn't even know about that.

It is only reasonable that the FISC would rule in giving greater latitude towards matters pertaining to FISA. I do not know if there has been yet a court case involving arrest & conviction of a US citizen that stems from warrantless capture of metadata as contributory in conducting the arrest & conviction. Because that is the true test - not that a decision passes muster with the FISC but that a case gets elevated to pass muster with SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has already ruled that applying GPS surveillance cannot be done without a warrant. I don't think SCOTUS has been put to the test yet as far as deciding if there might be a nexus in the use of metadata as far as the GPS component of the metadata that contradicts and runs afoul of their earlier ruling prohibiting determining a citizen's location & whereabouts under warrantless GPS surveillance.

It is in these grey areas that make for the greatest interest and outwardly effect the lives of every US citizen. In this example the prior view that metadata can be gathered without warrant as it is "data about data" and does not violate privacy protections because it does not violate privacy intrusions regarding content. However the metatdata that contains a GPS component does contain data that can violate privacy protections. So what happens next when these two elements in apparent contradiction to each other collide? At some point it might happen and it will run through the circuit courts and perhaps get elevated to SCOTUS.

If a case makes it to be heard by SCOTUS, that's what we tune into to find out. That's what makes every season of SCOTUS watching and the end-of-term rulings such great interest and fascination.

[Mr_Gimby]

Not having read all 6+ pages of this thread, I am all for Google. I love their products and the high level of convenience I enjoy from their nearly seamless integration. If Google wants to watch me like a bug under a glass, so be it. I'm sure they find me wholly uninteresting, and if that is the price I pay for the immensely helpful products they offer at zero monetary cost, I find that a bargain. In short, I am embracing Skynet.


(P.S. shhh, they're listening...)