Google says “there isn’t any privacy, get over it.”

The National Legal and Policy Center ^ | July 31, 2008 | Ken Boehm

[Politics4Fun]

Washington, DC – Today, Google is under fire for issuing contradictory statements on privacy.

In California, Google responded to California State Assemblyman Joel Anderson’s (R-San Diego) concerns about Google’s privacy policies yesterday by stating that “Google takes privacy very seriously.”

However, in Pennsylvania court documents released the same day, Google stated, “privacy does not exist.” Google’s privacy statements yesterday came on the heels of comments by Google “Evangelist” Vint Cerf to the Washington Technology Alliance’s annual luncheon in May where he explained that “nothing you do ever goes away, and nothing you do ever escapes notice… There isn’t any privacy, get over it.”

In response to an invasion of privacy lawsuit from Aaron and Christine Boring in Pennsylvania, Google stated yesterday, “Today's satellite-image technology means that even in today's desert, complete privacy does not exist.” Google’s court filing noted that “every step upon private property is not deemed by law to be an actionable trespass.” The Boring’s lawsuit was prompted by a “Google vehicle—outfitted with a 360 degree panoramic camera on its roof—dr[iving] down a private road to take images of their Oakridge Lane home.” Google conceded that the photos were taken during a "brief entry upon their driveway."

Ken Boehm, Chariman of National Legal and Policy Center, responded, “Perhaps in Google’s world privacy does not exist, but in the real world individual privacy is fundamentally important and is being chipped away bit by bit every day by companies like Google. Google’s hypocrisy is breathtaking.”

[Cont...]

[Politics4Fun]

And most Americans seem more than happy to simply watch our privacy slip away...

[RightWhale]

‘The Naked Society’ Vance Packard, 1965

Good section on 4th and 5th Amends to the Fed Constitution.

[JRandomFreeper]

Ceiling cat sees everything anyway....

/johnny

[BunnySlippers]

As sad as it is, they are right.

[boogerbear]

He’s right. And there’s not much you can do about it.

[SkyDancer]

Good, lets all of us go and Google “Google” - find out who does what there and then post it all over ... really dig into their private lives ....

[SumProVita]

Not necessarily....which is why I use SCROOGLE SCRAPER. ;-)

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

[SumProVita]

AND...with time, THIS site may improve tremendously:

http://www.cuil.com/

[bvw]

That's not true. I can understand why you would say it though! We have given up just about every privacy expectation in regards commercial transactions in the credit card electronic transaction era. The reason?

Convenience. The same thing with geographic position and speed monitoring like OnStar and now in cell phones -- safety and convenience in the event of unexpected events, accidents, danger, getting lost. Some call it out "data cloud" or "data shadow" or "data footprint" -- it has become huge!

That hugeness of the data is to some extent a mesh curtain -- it provides some privacy. But I agree -- we have given up on closed box privacy.

But what Americans still expect is a form of privacy based on politeness and modesty among those hold and filter that data. We are very upset when our personal data is made public.

THAT is what we MUST hold Google to account on. And hooray for the Pittsburgh family who are fighting this fight!

[mojito]

Google insists there is no privacy from Google. But Google is one of the most secretive corporations in America. For instance, it operates a huge “black box” complex along the Columbia River in Oregon that it refuses to publicly acknowledge.

[ari-freedom]

Scott McNealy (Chairman of Sun Microsystems) interview
Q: A couple of years ago you made some comments about privacy — and the lack thereof — that were widely printed. That was amazingly pre-Patriot Act and pre-9/11. Do you stick by that notion? Should we not be worried about having lost all our privacy?

A: I never said that, did I?

Q: You said, “You already have no privacy.”

A: I said, “You have no privacy. Get over it.”

Q: What did you mean by that?

A: The point I was making was someone already has your medical records. Someone has my dental records. Someone has my financial records. Someone knows just about everything about me.

Gang, do you want to refute my statement? Visa knows what you bought. You have no privacy. Get over it. That’s what I said.

[sergeantdave]

“really dig into their private lives ....”

You’re on the right track. Until the many fascists and Marxists infesting America suffer noticeable and serious consequences that make them suffer, they will continue to chip away at every freedom we enjoy.

We have righteous precedence in our history. The Founders listed their grievances in the Declaration of Independence and made the Tories pay such a heavy price that they left.

[SkyDancer]

Same went for the MSM - one reporter yelled out how dare someone look into their private lives .... they just don’t get it ... who made them the “investigative arm” of the people?

I say investigate the investigators .....

[Politics4Fun]

Investigating the investigators is exactly what the NLPC did here: http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.nlpc.org/pdfs/googleexecutive.pdf

[cva66snipe]

1776 The United States Of America a nation fouunded upon the Declaration of Independence and certain rights later specified in the Constitution

2008 The United States of America owned and operated by corporate board members and CEO's who tell our elected leaders and judges what laws, rights, and freedoms we do or do not have.

[SkyDancer]

Which I think is cool ...

[Drumbo]

I've always argued that there is no "right to privacy" in the US Constitution. But, Roe v. Wade, (410 U.S. 113) in 1973, before the United States Supreme Court resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion finding that laws against abortion in the United States violated "a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment".

The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

The Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause and the "right of privacy".

Its either the law, or it ain't FRiends. Therefore, Google’s cameras gotta go or Roe must be overturned, wouldn't ya think? The "hypocrisy is breathtaking".

[ptsal]

how about names and home addresses...anyone have names?

[StoneWall Brigade]

Well said cav66snipe.

[Steve Van Doorn]

interesting thinks