Comments on: “For the Children” — US Gov’t subpoenas Google server logs http://practicalmysticproductions.com/blog/2006/01/19/for-the-children-us-govt-subpoenas-google-server-logs/ ...& some Digital Filmmaking & Post-Production, too! Mon, 19 Sep 2011 07:37:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: n* http://practicalmysticproductions.com/blog/2006/01/19/for-the-children-us-govt-subpoenas-google-server-logs/comment-page-1/#comment-12 n* Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:31:24 +0000 http://practicalmysticproductions.com/blog/?p=43#comment-12 poor slob who's got to wiretap me is having a much better time since i'm having a long distance relationship, i know this much:). lez just hope he's 21. poor slob who’s got to wiretap me is having a much better time since i’m having a long distance relationship, i know this much:). lez just hope he’s 21.

]]> By: taijidave http://practicalmysticproductions.com/blog/2006/01/19/for-the-children-us-govt-subpoenas-google-server-logs/comment-page-1/#comment-10 taijidave Fri, 20 Jan 2006 01:50:52 +0000 http://practicalmysticproductions.com/blog/?p=43#comment-10 A few notes from the above: Geneva Convention -- http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm "(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;" Here's a point-by-point analysis, which was linked from Washington Post: http://www.unknownnews.net/040521a-ss.html To expand on the previous, it is ILLEGAL under USA laws to: 1) wiretap without judge's approval 2. retrieve library records without judge's approval ...& when the GWBush does the former, or the FBI does the latter, they are liable (& are correspondingly *successfully* sued by the ACLU). Since the NSA specializes in keyword searches across huge data-sets, allowing the US Gov't generic access to Google's server-logs is technically equivalent to the 2 cases above. Please note: identifying so-called 'anonymous' users can be non-trivial, but is very much not impossible... if you use a computer, your network card/modem is a unique identifier, which is used in Microsoft's GUID (embedded in every Word/Excel/.ppt you create), etc. This is how even anonymous dial-up users were nailed by the RIAA in the Napster case. And since the current US Gov't has a proven history recently of ignoring LEGALLY STATED RIGHTS of US Citizens, I'm arguing this 'precept' is highly probable to be applied to Google's logs. I appreciate those wanting to eliminate US online purveyors of child pornography. I'm just asking how many Legal Civil Liberties they are willing to jeopardize, if not curtail, in order to achieve that goal... ...esp. since that goal will have no affect whatsoever on offshore child pornography sites, which are currently the majority anyway. A few notes from the above:
Geneva Convention —
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
“(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;”
Here’s a point-by-point analysis, which was linked from Washington Post:
http://www.unknownnews.net/040521a-ss.html

To expand on the previous, it is ILLEGAL under USA laws to:
1) wiretap without judge’s approval
2. retrieve library records without judge’s approval
…& when the GWBush does the former, or the FBI does the latter, they are liable (& are correspondingly *successfully* sued by the ACLU).

Since the NSA specializes in keyword searches across huge data-sets, allowing the US Gov’t generic access to Google’s server-logs is technically equivalent to the 2 cases above. Please note: identifying so-called ‘anonymous’ users can be non-trivial, but is very much not impossible… if you use a computer, your network card/modem is a unique identifier, which is used in Microsoft’s GUID (embedded in every Word/Excel/.ppt you create), etc. This is how even anonymous dial-up users were nailed by the RIAA in the Napster case.

And since the current US Gov’t has a proven history recently of ignoring LEGALLY STATED RIGHTS of US Citizens, I’m arguing this ‘precept’ is highly probable to be applied to Google’s logs.

I appreciate those wanting to eliminate US online purveyors of child pornography. I’m just asking how many Legal Civil Liberties they are willing to jeopardize, if not curtail, in order to achieve that goal…

…esp. since that goal will have no affect whatsoever on offshore child pornography sites, which are currently the majority anyway.

]]>