Anyone else stop using Google?

[bluesea]

Imo they have become too intrusive for their size, with not enough responsibility for what they do.

[nighthawk]

Is there an alternative? Serious question. Mainly thinking in terms of an Internet search engine.

[GladiusXII]

Do you use a Mac? :)

[thegunner]

Imo they have become too intrusive for their size, with not enough responsibility for what they do.

serious questions, what responsibility do you want them to have (and with what scope?) how are they actually intrusive into things that you can't opt out of?

[bluesea]

Search engines? Initially I'm experimenting with Bing (hahaha). Not as effective as google, but we'll see.

I have Macs, but my perspective is if you like Apple, what its competitors are doing is irrelevant. I do prefer the google browser, by far.

thegunner, I'm not willing to enter that level of discussion.

[Peter B]

Firefox + Duck-Duck-Go.

[thegunner]

Search engines? Initially I'm experimenting with Bing (hahaha). Not as effective as google, but we'll see.

I have Macs, but my perspective is if you like Apple, what its competitors are doing is irrelevant. I do prefer the google browser, by far.

thegunner, I'm not willing to enter that level of discussion.

okay, fair - but i don't think google is doing anything that microsoft wouldn't also do fwiw.

[Rada]

FB worries me more than Google.

[daker13]

Safari and Start Page. F Google.

[Cicli]

I hear the number one bing search is Google. I am sticking to Google. I haven't found them intrusive or invasive or whatever.

[nighthawk]

You have to assume intrusiveness to a certain degree when it comes to companies like Google, Apple, FB, etc. your information/habits are their power and assuredly their profit. I'm actually more concerned myself about the quality of the search engine. The search results are starting to feel like a bad mixture of what they think I'm looking for and what their advertisers are paying them to show. If you want to do some deep Internet searching, it doesn't feel adequate.

[makoti]

okay, fair - but i don't think google is doing anything that microsoft wouldn't also do fwiw.

Or Apple....

[Steelman]

Imo they have become too intrusive for their size, with not enough responsibility for what they do.

Interested in why you believe they have become intrusive at all, and irresponsible.

Imo, they provide a valuable free tool for everyone, and a necessary service for their customers. Their "size" is a reflection of that.

[bjf]

Yes, I stopped using Google a while back because of their policies. I use Bing as a search engine. I'd have to say it's not as good as Google (too many irrelevant results), but most of the time it gets me what I'm looking for.

[R3awak3n]

No, I like google products.

But I recommend everyone use Yahoo.... Help the stock go up so I can make a few bucks :hello:

[Steelman]

No, I like google products.

But I recommend everyone use Yahoo.... Help the stock go up so I can make a few bucks :hello:

Google stock needs a catalyst. Maybe they will buy Twitter, knock on wood, or return cash to shareholders.

If you want to make a few bucks, sell Yahoo and buy FB or GOOGL. FB stock has finally woken up.

[bluesea]

Interested in why you believe they have become intrusive at all, and irresponsible.

Imo, they provide a valuable free tool for everyone, and a necessary service for their customers. Their "size" is a reflection of that.


Okay. Without going into detail, which I probably can't anyway, its not just the intrusiveness. My impressions are they skew the search too much. Not that any of the other major search engines aren't doing the same, but you have to strike out somewhere. Will probably alternate around periodically.

Apple has become too big as well, but they have their consumeristic hooks in me at the moment. I'm an unabashed picture quality addict. Plus the industrial art aspect, and their unapprachable trackpad quality, means I'll be staying a while but still hoping for an alternative to show up.

[jimoots]

Had this discussion with my mother when she said she felt the way google would retarget display ads based on her searches.

You can't complain about something being intrusive if it's giving you value and you're not paying anything for it.

People have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Google is not some abstract construct. Google is a business that provides a product at no cost. The product requires R&D, has fixed costs (think about how much power a data center uses, for starters) and of course has shareholders to answer to.

If you want to step away from using the product because you have your own privacy concerns that's fine, but to complain about Google doing what they do is naive. And to think any other business that provides the same service isn't doing the same thing, well yeah, you're wrong.

And just making life hard for yourself.

[Tony T]

FB worries me more than Google.

FB will join MySpace in a few years.

[eddief]

is working on the Trojan Horse. She is trying to get away from Msft and Bing and they just extended their negotiations 30 more days beyond the original deadline. Everyone says she should be cutting staff by thousands. Maybe she actually has them doing something important? and competitive.

[makoti]

Okay. Without going into detail, which I probably can't anyway, its not just the intrusiveness. My impressions are they skew the search too much.

You want https://duckduckgo.com/ to search with, if that's your concern.

[p nut]

Vowed to try Yahoo, Bing, etc. a few months ago and stuck to it for a while. Just not as good. Went back to Google a couple of months ago.

[Anarchist]

Quit using any Google products 2 years ago.

[Dead Man]

I have Adblock... so ads don't bug me.

How do you get away from Google? I don't really like what it's become... if it's not already a sentient being, I'll be shocked. I'm sure Google will be the Antichrist, or Skynet.. whatever human genocidal apocalyparian you prefer. But EVERYTHING is Google, and it's generally the best product. Best email, best mapper, best search engine, best browser (although my Chrome comes and goes in weird ways), best plugins for the best browser.... plus google owns stuff I use, like Youtube and... some other stuff? So being pre-logged into crap is kind of handy.

Conversely, all my business stuff is Yahoo... and it SUX. Crap is always going down, glitching, failing at critical moments... can't believe I pay hundreds of dollars for that crap. But I'm too lazy/ignorant to get out of it.

[bluesea]

You want https://duckduckgo.com/ to search with, if that's your concern.

Its in the Safari preferences drop-down menu bion (believe-it-or-not), but so is google and yahoo.

I'm not complaining actually. I see this basically as an arbitrary move. It could go in any direction, depending on where you were at, at the time.

[JeffS]

Had this discussion with my mother when she said she felt the way google would retarget display ads based on her searches.

You can't complain about something being intrusive if it's giving you value and you're not paying anything for it.

People have a hard time coming to grips with the fact that Google is not some abstract construct. Google is a business that provides a product at no cost. The product requires R&D, has fixed costs (think about how much power a data center uses, for starters) and of course has shareholders to answer to.

If you want to step away from using the product because you have your own privacy concerns that's fine, but to complain about Google doing what they do is naive. And to think any other business that provides the same service isn't doing the same thing, well yeah, you're wrong.

And just making life hard for yourself.


Really? I can complain about whatever the F I want.

Google tracking my every move online, my neighbor running their leafblower for 8 hours straight today, or maybe just the guy who thinks corporate profit is the end all and be all of capitalism.


Stop by sometime. I can poke you in the eye for free. We'll see if you're happy about it. Keep in mind that I will have considerable startup costs involving strengthening my poking finger in anticipation.

[Louis]

If this sort of thing bothers you wouldn't be a lot simpler to just use an anonymizer / anonymous proxy?

That was you're protecting yourself in a much more complete and relevant manner.

[JeffS]

If this sort of thing bothers you wouldn't be a lot simpler to just use an anonymizer / anonymous proxy?

That was you're protecting yourself in a much more complete and relevant manner.

Maybe they are?

And maybe the fact that they have to is annoying as well.
--------

My neighbors are all excited that AT&T is running fiber. I'd have to pay them $30 to not display ads based on my usage history. Others tend to say $30 to not track me. I know better. They'll track me anyway, I just won't have to see the ads - though I can't picture how they would actually push ads to me.

--

Now I get to sit back and wait for someone to smugly tell me that I wouldn't be concerned if I didn't have anything to hide.

[Louis]

And maybe the fact that they have to is annoying as well.

True, but that's similar to being unhappy about the fact that you have to use gloves in the winter or lock your car door when you park outside.

There are some bad/annoying things that happen, whether we like it or not. One can try to make those things go away, but IMO that's like tilting at windmills.

[bluesea]

I tried to keep it non-heavy--perhaps a poll would have been more helpful? Not that I'm complaining.:)

[kramnnim]

I stopped using Google as a search engine back when they started to autoload the search results as you type, and have been using Bing instead. Still use Gmail, though.

[daker13]

If you want to step away from using the product because you have your own privacy concerns that's fine, but to complain about Google doing what they do is naive. And to think any other business that provides the same service isn't doing the same thing, well yeah, you're wrong.

And just making life hard for yourself.

If you can't figure out why someone would complain about Google, you're the one who's naive.

There are anonymous search engines. Some just anonymize Google results. A couple have been mentioned here. Not every search engine is collecting trillions of bits of info for profit and storing it on their servers. Not every search engine happily passes data to the US Government, either. I was affiliated with a university at one time, around the time word got out that the NSA checked library records to see the books that patrons were checking out. A few months later, the library sent out notice saying that they had re-configured their system so that the library computers no longer saved a patron's borrowing history. That's pretty much how I feel about my browsing history. As I understand it, Google's algorithm ranks results by what previous searchers have clicked on, which is useful for some searches, not for others, and anyway, I like to take a few easy steps and keep my browsing relatively private.

[professerr]

I don't use Google mainly because their search results are so skewed toward results related to buying stuff that they simply arent as useful to me as duckduckgo. That, and the fact that frequently the search results actually occupy only a small fraction of the page which is filled with vaguely differentiated "promoted" links and flat out ads.

The creepy privacy stuff is a secondary concern, but would be enough to get me to switch on its own.

The only time I use google search now is when I'm looking for some hard to find consumer stuff.

Maps are harder to use than Apple, and littered with ads. Same for gmail.

Firefox with various ad blocker stuff is the only way I can tolerate browsing the web now.

[goonster]

Google is a business that provides a product at no cost.
I use Google, but I'm also under no illusion that there is no cost to me.

[Drmojo]

Firefox + Duck-Duck-Go.
Duck duck

[jimoots]

Really? I can complain about whatever the F I want.

You must be American.

Stop by sometime. I can poke you in the eye for free. We'll see if you're happy about it. Keep in mind that I will have considerable startup costs involving strengthening my poking finger in anticipation.

Convince me that I'm getting value from the transaction and then maybe we can talk.

[93legendti]

I've always preferred Yahoo's search engine. I turn off search engine and Spotlight suggestions and delete my history.
On my android devices I go into the Google settings and turn off the web history, location history, keep gps off unless I am using a map, don't save my places, personal results, and suggestions, etc. I don't like Google's GMail app either.

On a tablet or mobile device, you can use a secure browser like Ghost or CM. Dolphin has one as well, all free

[OtayBW]

You must be American.
Excuse me?

[Dead Man]

You must be American.

Lots of responses come to mind... but I'll just go with: Poor form, bro. Poor form.

[nicrump]

Okay. Without going into detail, which I probably can't anyway, its not just the intrusiveness. My impressions are they skew the search too much. Not that any of the other major search engines aren't doing the same, but you have to strike out somewhere. Will probably alternate around periodically.

Apple has become too big as well, but they have their consumeristic hooks in me at the moment. I'm an unabashed picture quality addict. Plus the industrial art aspect, and their unapprachable trackpad quality, means I'll be staying a while but still hoping for an alternative to show up.

tuen off location services, clean cache and temp files and as en extra measure use a proxy server when you want an un-tuned full query return.

[54ny77]

You can admit it, you've been secretly searching for Microshift components.



Now I get to sit back and wait for someone to smugly tell me that I wouldn't be concerned if I didn't have anything to hide.

[JeffS]

True, but that's similar to being unhappy about the fact that you have to use gloves in the winter or lock your car door when you park outside.

There are some bad/annoying things that happen, whether we like it or not. One can try to make those things go away, but IMO that's like tilting at windmills.


Is it? One's a decision made by men; the other a force of nature.

I suppose if you consider the loss of privacy to be inevitable and unchangeable, then maybe. It's probably true, but for people to have become resigned to the idea so quickly is somewhere between sad and heartbreaking.

Of course, I can always move to a warmer climate... and my car is always unlocked.

[JeffS]

You must be American.



Convince me that I'm getting value from the transaction and then maybe we can talk.

Rebuttals are easy when you completely ignore the point being made.

[CunegoFan]

Imo they have become too intrusive for their size, with not enough responsibility for what they do.

Even when you don't think you are using Google, you still are. A large percentage of websites use Google Analytics, so the Big G is "watching" what you do on many sites. Then there is Doubleclick, embedded Youtube videos, Adwords, email that you send to someone's gmail account...

The only issue I have with Google's search engine is they tweaked their search algorithm to place high value new content. Google a subject that has been in the news recently for one reason or another then all the results are news articles.

[biker72]

I use the incognito mode in Google Chrome. No record of where you've been.
There are a number of things that you can turn off in Chrome.

[slidey]

Imo they have become too intrusive for their size, with not enough responsibility for what they do.

I haven't been able to log out of the entire Google ecosystem, yet.

So far as I can gather, I depend only on their Gmail service.

Search -> DuckDuckGo default on Firefox
Browser -> Firefox
Google chat -> Whatsapp/Telegram
Google + -> never signed in
Google Hangouts -> Facetime/Skype
Google Maps -> Don't log in, or set your location and then turn Data OFF

Also, I spent close to an hour a while back going through all the Privacy settings and removing all of the wonderful auto opt-in's Google had so thoughtfully enrolled me into.

[happycampyer]

Not long ago, Tim Cook made a pithy observation: "A few years ago, users of Internet services began to realize that when an online service is free, you’re not the customer. You’re the product." George Orwell was mostly right, although he was off by a couple of decades. I wonder how a company like DuckDuckGo makes money?

[professerr]

tuen off location services, clean cache and temp files and as en extra measure use a proxy server when you want an un-tuned full query return.

Still might not work. Each person's browser settings and similar other variables are remarkably unique and can be easily used to track, and eventually, identify you. Here's a place you can check and see if you are unique: https://panopticlick.eff.org/

I believe this method is already used in mainstream sites.

[unterhausen]

I use duckduckgo sometimes. Google has a bad habit of guessing what you want based on things they know about you. Well, sometimes I just want what I searched for. It can be really frustrating when you do a search for something, and it isn't the right thing, and then you change the search term to get what you really want and they essentially go back to what they served up for the previous search term.

I had duckduckgo as my default for a long time. Unfortunately, when I'm hunting spammers google is a lot better at it so I switched back

[fuzzalow]

I am concerned about this topic while also being not concerned about it. And the reason for this ambivalence centers around my perception as to how the data that is acquired about my online activity is used: as merely one number component to derive an aggregate projected whole or,
as surveillance of individual activity to intrude on my privacy even if for "beneficial" commercial or consumer ends or service offerings

Web-based relevance, and hence financial value, is driven by the underlying numbers of what an be aggregated to drive advertising. I don't have much concern for my search or browser activity getting sloshed into a pool of this size because I see the goal and motivation in my web activity as less individual and more demographic. Of course, I also know that computing power makes it easy to parse and analyze aggregate pool data to the granularity of smaller groupings to reconstruct an identity representative of me if there was the need to target a "me-type" demographic profile. So basically for this kind or research, I have little to no privacy concerns.

To zero-in on me specifically, I'm not all that concerned either. Call me naive. There is not all that interesting to find out. I dunno who would want to spy on me in the paranoid, threatening way that is hinted about in conversations such as this. Unless the ominous "THEY" or Big Brother get at medical records or attorney/client transcripts, everything else is already out there or can be data-mined and composited back to replicate pretty much everything I do.

The credit card companies already know far more about you than the effort Google is willing to devote to find out about any one specific individual. The IRS already knows all they need to know about any US citizen. Privacy concerns for me center around intent and how intrusive the sampling. For example Web browsing I do not care about but I would never submit to a DNA swab unless lawfully enforced to do so. The SCOTUS decision last term granted equivalence of DNA to fingerprints.

I do not live in fear. Call me naive. If I have truly missed or misconceived the actual danger I'd be grateful if someone could explain to me otherwise.

[daker13]

I use the incognito mode in Google Chrome. No record of where you've been.
There are a number of things that you can turn off in Chrome.

I do think Google has made some improvements with respect to privacy... probably because their previous stance ('what have you got to hide?') was hurting their bottom line.

[thegunner]

I do think Google has made some improvements with respect to privacy... probably because their previous stance ('what have you got to hide?') was hurting their bottom line.

i don't think they really ever made that stance. are you sure you're not thinking of the government?

[daker13]

i don't think they really ever made that stance. are you sure you're not thinking of the government?

Here's the infamous quote:

'Google CEO Eric Schmidt is the latest Silicon Valley CEO to draw ire after suggesting that folks seeking privacy might not want to look to the Internet to find it. ... Schmidt said, appearing on CNBC ... "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."'

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2468308/internet/google-ceo--if-you-want-privacy--do-you-have-something-to-hide-.html

[fuzzalow]

Completely different set of rules for privacy concerns where it concerns private commercial enterprise like Google. Although I am not overly troubled by what Google may do with the information they glean from my internet activity, I am supportive of those that desire anonymity. I'm not sure how a customer that uses their services can find fault with the fact that Google will try to extract value from what their customers do - as the old saying goes "Nuthin' for nuthin'".

Much less of an issue in a free democracy than the inherent danger and risk regarding web privacy in a place like China where reading & saying the wrong things might make a person disappear.

i don't think they really ever made that stance. are you sure you're not thinking of the government?

4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights prohibits unreasonable search and seizure to the citizenry. Patriot Act erosion of privacy concerns aside, make and keep the bar extremely high for government to get any information on the goings on of its citizenry. I don't recall any democratic government going to Google demanding data be surrendered on their customer's web activity.

Here's the infamous quote:

'Google CEO Eric Schmidt is the latest Silicon Valley CEO to draw ire after suggesting that folks seeking privacy might not want to look to the Internet to find it. ... Schmidt said, appearing on CNBC ... "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."'

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2468308/internet/google-ceo--if-you-want-privacy--do-you-have-something-to-hide-.html

However indelicately phrased in how that was said, it was honest to a fault and awkwardly hinted poorly at moralizing. I doubt Google or Mr. Schmidt could care less about what their customer's shouldn't be doing.

For me, privacy is a difficult thing to maintain in a modern, information suffused world. Driver's license, credit card activity, mortgage and/or real estate held, investment or securities owned, automobile titled, etc, etc, etc. Your stuff is out there and there's nothing you can do about it. And short of going off the grid, the fact that maybe someone or something might be prying at my web activity is fairly small beans to me.

Whadda they gonna find out, that I didn't download pictures of Ana Kornikova but instead liked pictures of Steffi Graf? Don't gotta spy on me for that, heck I just told you!

[ergott]

If you want privacy you have to add a VPN to your list of things to do. You can change your IP address to your heart's desire.

If you look carefully, incognito mode will still send your data out. It just doesn't save your session. Not the same thing.

[texbike]

Here's the infamous quote:

'Google CEO Eric Schmidt is the latest Silicon Valley CEO to draw ire after suggesting that folks seeking privacy might not want to look to the Internet to find it. ... Schmidt said, appearing on CNBC ... "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."'



^This! If you're concerned about privacy, then the internet probably isn't for you. Neither are cell phones, credit cards, ATM cards, cable TV, health records, etc. Anything that can collect data and tie it to your identity is not going to help your privacy. As others have suggested, using an anonymizer or a secure browser like Ghostery can help, but really, how truly secure are those?

Use cash for purchases and carrier pigeons for communications and you should be fine. :)

Texbike

[thegunner]

Whadda they gonna find out, that I didn't download pictures of Ana Kornikova but instead liked pictures of Steffi Graf? Don't gotta spy on me for that, heck I just told you!

that doesn't make sense to begin with.

[redir]

I started using Google when it first came out and you needed a referral to use it, remember those days? I loved it! I still do but I do not like some of their polices and things they have done. I'm on Android so my phone is married to Google and it works great. I still mostly browse on a desktop and when I do I almost always use Tor browser.

[marsh]

There is good reason to be paranoid if you have a dissenting opinion these days,
just Google (ha!) Nato3, Chicago Police Department's use of Stingray towers,
urban black sites, etc. Tor browser + burner cell phones if you really want to opt out.

[slidey]

The cavalier nature of those who are all too willing to sell their data is the dominant nature of most people anywhere, and it is being exploited to its fullest in the US/UK only now. I agree that Credit Cards, Cell phones, Google products, Facebook, etc all lead you to an auto opt-in with a small percentage opting-out.

However, this smart-aleck attitude of "Hey, i've got nothing to hide so mine me all I can...what are you afraid of, eh?" doesn't quite cut it, for me. Just because you're doing nothing harmful at night, doesn't mean you'll let people videocam you while you're asleep would you? If you would, then you're much bolder than I - all the power to you.

What bothers me is the stupidity/intractability in the logical reasoning of the govt/industry, on this data mining issue. The claim that collecting more info will lead to better intelligence/insight is preposterous. You now have amassed a bloody huge haystack, and you're still searching for just that needle. We're now in the comfort zone of rich technical uncouths who throw hardware at the problem i.e. buy bigger/faster hardware to do the same thing they were doing on a smaller scale (with questionable results: industry-wide average Click Through Rate is 0.11%). Google's proposed solution to the above abysmal rate is trying to do some fancy accounting to bump it up by filtering/invalidating out all the impressions that are not viewable, very interesting/presumptuous a claim/attempt. Lets see how many corners are cut, or how many opt-ins are placed in various updates of their browser to reach that goal (anyone notice that Chrome update is now at Google's will, and not yours).

In effect, a whole host of half-assed methods are put in place, and will continue to be employed to make spurious connections, reproduce numbers based on manufactured constructs of viewability, and to cluster together various sorts of different users into one big pool.

It has also been reported that Google officials have been visiting the white house at least once every week during this presidency (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/25/switchboard-google-has-averaged-a-white-house-visit-per-week-during-obamas-presidency/). One can presume that if there isn't already a collaboration between advertisers/intelligence officials, there will be some sort of blind-faith adoption of some of the marketing sauce to identify 'pools' of bad elements, whose 'conversion rates' are higher than above, etc. See what I mean? Sheer manipulation of statistics to come up with the numbers to show one's bosses that 'hey look at us - we're working!'

What works for marketing, is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things and can't/shouldn't be adopted for anything serious without a careful study of the repercussions - we all know how that works out. Marketing is making stuff up out of thin air...everything flies.

So yeah, be slipshod about your data all you want - but pay some attention to think things through. Your data is not free, and shouldn't be. Have some sense of ownership as opposed to just throwing it away to the next fancy, connected toy/ad.

[DHallerman]

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/ci_24517386/google-facebook-and-other-tech-giants-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-us-government-for-permission-to-report-fisa-data-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/news/international/yahoo-ceo-fears-defying-nsa-on-data-could-mean-prison/article5119551.ece?ref=relatedNews#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 thatI 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]

@ 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]

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]

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]

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/verizon-gives-all-data-to-the-government-2013-6#ixzz3Vy9cJY00

[SlackMan]

... 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]

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.

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]

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...:p)