I like Google, or I should say I "liked" Google until the brought the Usenet
from Deja.com http://www.pandia.com/searchworld/2001-10-deja.html and
recently prohibited anonymous reading of selected (sex related) groups.  I
realized that if they prevented a person from anonymous reading of one
catagory they were keeping track of people's browsing of ALL the usenet and
the Internet itself. So it is not the Federal government keeping tabs on us,
it is this private "do no evil" corporate group.

The recent federal law just signed by the creepy Bush effectively has
stopped ALL anonymous posting
[url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html[/
url]
of information on the Internet. So anyone who dares to criticize or expose
government or corporate criminality can now be easily identified and
retaliated against. That is the reason the Chinese and U.S. governments are
so interested in Google's information database. It is a battle between
governments and corporation for control over people.

Where are the so-called freedom watchdogs, the ACLU and the Electronic
Freedom Foundation, on this assault on freedom and privacy? Their web sites
seem to be ignoring what is going on. I'm beginning to think they are part
of the conspiracy to take freedom and anonynimity (they go hand and hand)
away from people.

Bill Mulcahy

Jan. 21, 2006, 12:17PM
Forgot what you searched for? Google didn't


By LESLIE WALKER
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department may have done us all a big favor by
issuing subpoenas to Internet search engines to find out what people are
researching online.

Not because that data could help shield children from online porn, which was
the government's stated goal in demanding data from Google and three other
search firms.
Rather, the request - and Google's refusal to fork over its search data - is
putting a helpful public spotlight on the vast amount of personal
information being stored, parsed and who knows what else by the Web services
we increasingly rely on to manage our lives.

Even though the government has demanded no personal information - only a
list of Web queries divorced from the names of those submitting them -
Google is resisting partly on grounds that turning over the data might
create a public perception that it would readily cough up personal factoids,
if asked.

So that raises the question: What, exactly, does Google know about us?

In my case, a lot.

I've done a great deal of beta testing of Google services, including Gmail,
Orkut social networking, Froogle shopping lists, personal search and a
custom home page. Most are linked by my Gmail address and account name.

Google has a wealth of data about me, especially through its personal search
service, a tool that only collects data on you if you elect to turn it on,
as I have.

That service gives me - along with Google, and maybe the government should
it ever suspect me of a crime - access to every query I've typed while
signed into Google, organized by a clickable calendar.

Clicking on "Nov. 3" produces a page listing all 27 queries I submitted
while signed into Google that day. I'm not sure I'd want the government to
see the ones on "panties" and "underpants." (Sorry, but I'm not going to
tell you why I entered those words, except to say it was unrelated to porn.)
And it's no one's business why I looked up "Herman Miller chair," "redhead"
or "Ocean City" either.

My stored history is so detailed it shows I clicked on none of the results
from those queries, but I did click on results from four searches that day.
The five sites I visited are even listed.

Google doesn't keep such detailed data on anonymous users who don't sign in.
Unless users tweak their Web browser settings, Google stores a "tracking
cookie" or small file on each user's computer to store items such as the
address of their computer, type of Web browser used, and date and time of
each query submitted.

A Google spokesman said that data are not currently correlated with each
user's search query, but Google's technology and privacy policies would
allow the company to do so if it chose.

Search histories already are creeping into criminal trials. A North Carolina
man, Robert Petrick, who was convicted in November of murdering his wife,
ran suspicious Internet searches immediately before and after she was dumped
in a lake. His queries? "Body decomposition," "rigor mortis," "neck," "snap"
and "break," along with topics relating to the depth of the lake where her
body turned up.

Those searches were stored on the hard drives of the computers Petrick used,
but they could just as easily have been stored by Google had Petrick turned
on the archiving feature that I use.

Our personal search histories are highly sensitive information - and
obviously open to misinterpretation - because they offer such a unique view
into what we are thinking. Most of us routinely ask Google questions about
religion, social behavior, sex, work - whatever pops into our heads.

And those queries are mere rocks in a growing mountain of profiling data
about us being compiled by many other Web services, not just Google. Over at
Amazon, hackers or government investigators might have a field day if they
gained access to the 171 items on my supposedly private "wish list." (I'm
too lazy to ever delete anything, and I use Amazon's wish list as a
bookmarking tool.)

It's one thing for our personal data to be stored on our own computers,
which theoretically we could erase (a harder task than it seems, actually)
whenever we choose. It's quite another to have so much personal activity
logged and analyzed by distant, impersonal Web sites. There is simply no
telling how much long-term control we are giving up over our digital
reputations in these still-early days of the Web.

So if the government scares people into thinking more about their own
Internet histories by slapping subpoenas on the search engines, maybe that's
not a bad thing.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <Hz2Df.9060$NS6.8923@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
"Bill Mulcahy" <rockaway@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> I like Google,

Yawn.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

-----BEGIN TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----
Message-type: plaintext

In <Hz2Df.9060$NS6.8923@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com> "Bill Mulcahy" <rockaway@prodigy.net> wr
ote:
>I like Google, or I should say I "liked" Google until the brought the Usene
t
>from Deja.com http://www.pandia.com/searchworld/2001-10-deja.html and
>recently prohibited anonymous reading of selected (sex related) groups.  I
>realized that if they prevented a person from anonymous reading of one
>catagory they were keeping track of people's browsing of ALL the usenet and
>the Internet itself. So it is not the Federal government keeping tabs on us
,
>it is this private "do no evil" corporate group.
>
>The recent federal law just signed by the creepy Bush effectively has
>stopped ALL anonymous posting
>[url]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html[
/url]
>of information on the Internet. So anyone who dares to criticize or expose
>government or corporate criminality can now be easily identified and
>retaliated against. That is the reason the Chinese and U.S. governments are
>so interested in Google's information database. It is a battle between
>governments and corporation for control over people.
>
>Where are the so-called freedom watchdogs, the ACLU and the Electronic
>Freedom Foundation, on this assault on freedom and privacy? Their web sites
>seem to be ignoring what is going on. I'm beginning to think they are part
>of the conspiracy to take freedom and anonynimity (they go hand and hand)
>away from people.
>
>Bill Mulcahy
>
>Jan. 21, 2006, 12:17PM
>Forgot what you searched for? Google didn't
>
>
>By LESLIE WALKER
>Washington Post
>
>WASHINGTON - The Justice Department may have done us all a big favor by
>issuing subpoenas to Internet search engines to find out what people are
>researching online.
>
>Not because that data could help shield children from online porn, which wa
s
>the government's stated goal in demanding data from Google and three other
>search firms.
>Rather, the request - and Google's refusal to fork over its search data - i
s
>putting a helpful public spotlight on the vast amount of personal
>information being stored, parsed and who knows what else by the Web service
s
>we increasingly rely on to manage our lives.
>
>Even though the government has demanded no personal information - only a
>list of Web queries divorced from the names of those submitting them -
>Google is resisting partly on grounds that turning over the data might
>create a public perception that it would readily cough up personal factoids
,
>if asked.
>
>So that raises the question: What, exactly, does Google know about us?
>
>In my case, a lot.
>
>I've done a great deal of beta testing of Google services, including Gmail,
>Orkut social networking, Froogle shopping lists, personal search and a
>custom home page. Most are linked by my Gmail address and account name.
>
>Google has a wealth of data about me, especially through its personal searc
h
>service, a tool that only collects data on you if you elect to turn it on,
>as I have.
>
>That service gives me - along with Google, and maybe the government should
>it ever suspect me of a crime - access to every query I've typed while
>signed into Google, organized by a clickable calendar.
>
>Clicking on "Nov. 3" produces a page listing all 27 queries I submitted
>while signed into Google that day. I'm not sure I'd want the government to
>see the ones on "panties" and "underpants." (Sorry, but I'm not going to
>tell you why I entered those words, except to say it was unrelated to porn.
)
>And it's no one's business why I looked up "Herman Miller chair," "redhead"
>or "Ocean City" either.
>
>My stored history is so detailed it shows I clicked on none of the results
>from those queries, but I did click on results from four searches that day.
>The five sites I visited are even listed.
>
>Google doesn't keep such detailed data on anonymous users who don't sign in
.
>Unless users tweak their Web browser settings, Google stores a "tracking
>cookie" or small file on each user's computer to store items such as the
>address of their computer, type of Web browser used, and date and time of
>each query submitted.
>
>A Google spokesman said that data are not currently correlated with each
>user's search query, but Google's technology and privacy policies would
>allow the company to do so if it chose.
>
>Search histories already are creeping into criminal trials. A North Carolin
a
>man, Robert Petrick, who was convicted in November of murdering his wife,
>ran suspicious Internet searches immediately before and after she was dumpe
d
>in a lake. His queries? "Body decomposition," "rigor mortis," "neck," "snap
"
>and "break," along with topics relating to the depth of the lake where her
>body turned up.
>
>Those searches were stored on the hard drives of the computers Petrick used
,
>but they could just as easily have been stored by Google had Petrick turned
>on the archiving feature that I use.
>
>Our personal search histories are highly sensitive information - and
>obviously open to misinterpretation - because they offer such a unique view
>into what we are thinking. Most of us routinely ask Google questions about
>religion, social behavior, sex, work - whatever pops into our heads.
>
>And those queries are mere rocks in a growing mountain of profiling data
>about us being compiled by many other Web services, not just Google. Over a
t
>Amazon, hackers or government investigators might have a field day if they
>gained access to the 171 items on my supposedly private "wish list." (I'm
>too lazy to ever delete anything, and I use Amazon's wish list as a
>bookmarking tool.)
>
>It's one thing for our personal data to be stored on our own computers,
>which theoretically we could erase (a harder task than it seems, actually)
>whenever we choose. It's quite another to have so much personal activity
>logged and analyzed by distant, impersonal Web sites. There is simply no
>telling how much long-term control we are giving up over our digital
>reputations in these still-early days of the Web.
>
>So if the government scares people into thinking more about their own
>Internet histories by slapping subpoenas on the search engines, maybe that'
s
>not a bad thing.
>
>
>
It will be interesting when news services begin to reveal the
internet searches for political candidates and their families.

Perhaps then there will be effective legislation regarding
the privacy concerns of internet users.

Anon User


-----END TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE-----

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]