Slashdot Mirror
Google Avoids Surrendering Search Info
Mercury News has details of a San Francisco judge's decision that Google should give the DoJ some details on its search engine, but is not required to turn over records to the government. From the article: "McElvain emphasized the study would be more meaningful if it included search requests processed by Google, which by some estimates fields nearly half of all online queries in the United States. Ware concurred with the Justice Department on that point, writing in his order that 'the government's study may be significantly hampered if it did not have access to some information from the most often used search engine.' But Ware said the government didn't clearly explain why it needed a list of search requests to conduct its study, prompting him to conclude the Web site addresses would be adequate." Reaction to the news is available on the Google Blog.
That was not, you know, fighting for the Taliban? I'm all in favor of civil rights, but, if you take a gun and go on the side of the enemy in the middle of a war, you deserve to get shot. The act of siding with the enemy is a voluntary surrender of citizenship and the accompanying civil rights.
This is my sig.
The US Government: Doing less evil than Microsoft but more evil than Google since 1776. I'm definately no fan of tax hikes, but if 500 was an alternative to 1000, I'd take it. It wouldn't be any less wrong, but if that's what our Democranism calls for, I'd take the lesser of two evils any day. Likewise, I'd rather have Google forced to give out some information than all of it, even if neither is right. And for some reason, I don't picture a whole lot of judges calling others n00bs.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
You probably are not aware how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have discredited the U.S. in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. You are no longer seen as The Good Guys (TM). For many Muslims you are now the bad guys
I don't mean to be a dick, but, when were Muslims ever the "The Good Guys (TM)". After 1500 years of constant Islamic invasions, bullying, and threats, since that excuse for a religion was even founded, one has to ask, when has ANY Islamic country ever been, "The Good Guys (TM)". Even the Crusades, such a horrific affront to the Islamic world, were initially just a military response to an invasion by Islamic countries.
More recently, for the last 30 years, at least, American Foreign Policy in the middle east has been one to avoid enraging the Muslims. Indeed, Bill Clinton bent over backwards, arguably even siding with the wrong side in the Balkans in order to make Muslims happy. But what did any of it get the United States? I will tell you: The World Trade Centers were destroyed, 3000 people were killed, and Muslims around the world danced in the streets and burned American flags in celebration.
Europeans fall over by themselves in appeasement to Islamic fury. Spain bails on Iraq, the France caves on Islamic issues left and right, all in an effort to try and court Islamic people, and what do they get? A Dutch writer stabbed to death, death threats against cartoonists, and riots and France.
At some point, one has to ask, will there ever be anything that will make any Islamic country see any non-islamic country as anything less than a target? Judging by what the Koran says, I think the answer is no.
Despite all of this obvious facts, Bush at least kept to a rhetoric of trying to bring democracy to the middle east. And, in the USA, the Democrats of all people are basically calling Bush onto the carpet by arguing that it is impossible to teach an Islamic person Democracy, it is impossible for them to learn freedom and respect, and, we sure as hell don't want them watching over our ports.
Why aren't they right? You tell me.
This is my sig.