1 posted on
02/28/2006 1:02:50 PM PST by
EvilHomer
To: EvilHomer
Yeah, the government won't see any names, only IP addresses!
2 posted on
02/28/2006 1:06:19 PM PST by
TommyDale
To: EvilHomer
Considering how much of the internet is now connected through Google's search engine, I'm not surprised they'd object. But using the excuse of privacy? Sorry, it doesn't wash when you cooperate with China's draconian system.
Google should publish a data search price list, open it to anyone who wants to pay the money, and if the US Government wants to be one of the consumers of that data, more power to them. Search data is one of google's biggest assets, and COPA or no COPA, granting access to that data should come at a huge price tag.
3 posted on
02/28/2006 1:06:24 PM PST by
kingu
(Liberalism: The art of sticking your fingers in your ears and going NANANANA..)
To: EvilHomer
4 posted on
02/28/2006 1:06:43 PM PST by
NJ_gent
(Modernman should not have been banned.)
To: EvilHomer
Well, it's a bit inconsistent for Google to be standing up to the Justice Department but cooperating with the ChiCom authorities, nonetheless I'm glad they're doing it. Sometimes hypocrisy is the just the least bad option.
5 posted on
02/28/2006 1:07:09 PM PST by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: EvilHomer
The information, if obtained by the federal government, would be used to bolster support for the Child Online Protection Act Trampling intellectual property rights in pursuit of nanny-statism. Swell.
12 posted on
02/28/2006 1:18:09 PM PST by
Know your rights
(The modern enlightened liberal doesn't care what you believe as long as you don't really believe it.)
To: EvilHomer
I'm against the goobernuts on this one.
13 posted on
02/28/2006 1:18:52 PM PST by
mtbopfuyn
(Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
To: EvilHomer
Perhaps we should just ask China to ask Google for us.
16 posted on
02/28/2006 1:24:51 PM PST by
avg_freeper
(Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
To: EvilHomer
This is not so much an issue of privacy (although it certainly involves that).
Rather it is an issue of setting precedent for 'fishing expedition' subpoenas served on someone not suspected of committing any crime in order to obtain information not associated with any specific criminal act. That is a totally indefensible move by the government, and even the non sequitur attacks on Google regarding their China dealings don't mitigate this.
24 posted on
02/28/2006 1:34:43 PM PST by
Antonello
(Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
To: EvilHomer
"For Google the matter may be principle. . ." Hardly, Google, you cave and bend over for China but refuse to follow other corporations in securing America. Give me a royal break!
25 posted on
02/28/2006 1:36:31 PM PST by
zerosix
(Native Sunflower and avid ironer)
To: EvilHomer
Cramer got served...I figured his ranting and WAG'ing would eventually take him into a court room.
28 posted on
02/28/2006 1:41:12 PM PST by
devane617
(The truth, not politics, is right for our beautiful America.)
To: EvilHomer
Google cynically plays the legal system for PR and the rubes applaud.
It should be the congress getting this info instead of the courts. It's their job to regulate- not the courts.
38 posted on
02/28/2006 2:13:06 PM PST by
mrsmith
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson