Slashdot Mirror
Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger
An anonymous reader alerts us to a story out of Israel in which Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court. A preliminary ruling was issued in which a court indicated that the slander the blogger was accused of probably rose to the level of a criminal violation. Google Israel then made a deal with the plaintiffs, local city councilmen whom the blogger had been attacking for a year. Google disclosed the IP address only to the court, which posted a message (Google says the anonymous blogger got it) inviting him/her to contest the ruling anonymously. When no response was received within 3 days, Google turned over the IP address to the plaintiffs' lawyers.
Directional Antenna and a 500mw bi-directional amplifier.
Google Gives Up IP of Anonymous Blogger
Sounds like that guy could use a good IP attorney.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
"Do no evil"? Good thing I was using a anon proxy server...
The court order should have come first, but Google ultimately did the right thing. Questions of alleged criminal activity were in play. I'd certainly want the chance to dispute such allegations were they made against me.
...in contrast to Google's vow to protect its users' privacy early last year. Although this is a very different situation...criminal libel instead of general aggregate use data. Perhaps Google cares about its users as a whole but not as individuals.
The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
reading the comments mindlessly defending how this is not "evil". Google is now beholden only to investors and the all-mighty dollar. Everything is fair game.
You need to stand up for your views..
Upon reading this article, two thoughts are conflicting in my head.. "Damn, turns out Google is evil..", "but wait! Google can't be evil, I mean, look at their motto!".
Truly, I'm confused, please oh wise Slashdotters, enlighten me, is Google evil or not, and why?
You just got troll'd!
"Do no evil"?
Do no evil + IPO = Public company
IPO = Public company
Google is just as good, bad, or ugly as the next public company. They're trying to balance the interests of their shareholders and their belief in doing no evil. In the end, the interests of shareholders will win every time. If they can keep clear of any illegal insider trading, mistreatment of employees, or other b.s. that affects so many public companies, that'll be a "good" outcome. Believing that somehow Google is different because it thinks it is different is pure fantasy.
It's 2007, folks. The Cult of the Shareholder rules.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Now Google starts to slide into the abyss with Microsoft/Sony/SCO and all the other evil companies.
I guess that doesn't mean much to Google anymore.
FTA:
..." In a free democracy, he should have know better than to slander someone in Israel, guess he should have used the Arab Media.
Quote: "The notice would invite the blogger to disclose his identity, participate in the hearing, or oppose the disclosure of his identity by filing a motion as "anonymous"."
End Quote
Hey after all he was warned. "...the Israeli blogger who used "Google Blogger" for a blog in which he slandered Shaarei Tikva council members running for reelection.
I'm not sure that I fully understand the situation, but if Google had waited until the final ruling to release the IP would that have actually prevented the blogger in question from fighting the ruling? If that is the case then short of simply defying a court order (which is something that should be considered on a case by case basis) this would seem to have been the best thing Google could have done. Had they waited they would have been allowing the plaintiff to "pull an RIAA" on the guy (or girl). If, on the other hand, that is not the case then shame on Google (a bit anyway - I still think Yahoo's games with the guy in China were much worse, but that doesn't excuse this).
They had several servers at gun point when they asked for the IP address.
Slander a politician? Did he accuse them of honesty?
Have any of you considered that the Mossad has plants working AT Google, and that (like other countries with plants working in key or security-critical employers-- civil or private) that plant's duty was to monitor, collect, report on, sanitize, and enable the use of it for government purposes, whether to bring charges against someone or to slander someone?
Most of the comments so far (among the 1st 15) make it seem like Google is slipping into the hells. It very well could be that MOD/Israel contacted Google USA out of cursory moves, but already planned to use the IP collected whether or NOT GUSA assented, and probably had plans to SAY GUSA cooperated.
Of course, the US State Department and other agencies might WELCOME this, as another ruse/means of getting 'merkuns to RELAX their expectations of privacy over security.
Any more informed or better opinions to follow those prior to my own (slanted) assumptions here?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
For anything you do not want to be easily traced back to you, use Tor. Much better than relying on any intermediate parties to withhold your identity -- even if they mean the best.
This is Isreal, not America. Its laws and enviroment is Different. This also was not a google CEO choice, it was probably some middle manager in Isreal.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Evil.
Do not get me wrong - I do not believe that Google is evil because they started out that way. Additionally, I do not believe that Google is evil because they are an evil corporation(TM). Rather, I believe that Google is evil because they are a publicly held/traded corporation. At this point, all of the Good(TM) mottos in the world will be unable to save them because their primary goal, second to "Don't be evil", is to serve the shareholders. It amazes me that ANY individuals are so willing to give their private data up to any public company.
The moral of the story - its a lot easier for a company to have "morals" if it is privately held.
On a brighter note, maybe we can coin a new term: Googged
Definition: To have been fucked by Google.
Usage (verb) (as a victim who has had their imagined private data used in an undesirable way against them) - Dude, I've been Googged!
Such a mighty legal term.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I was just about to post something similar about the flood of comments that claim respecting court orders is somehow evil. I have a feeling this'll be a mighty flame war. Speaking of which, where are the flamebait mods when you need them?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's pretty obvious that a court order was forthcoming. Google just smoothed things out and caused a little less paperwork. A dangerous path to go down, but I think in this instance there was no harm done. As a side note, I find it interesting who the plaintiffs were. Last time I checked, in the US public officials are unlikely to sue for libel, since they have to prove malice (either the defendant knew the statements were false, or published them with reckless disregard for the truth). That's a pretty hard barrier to overcome, since you have to prove something about what the defendant knew and thought.
Otherwise it's just sensationalist nonsense. Google is a company with an aim to generate income. However much of it's business deals are driven by the knowledge that google works in "good faith" with it's partners. (Many companies won't partner with Microsoft on new technologies because they don't want to be the next SGI/Fahrenheit sucker.)
Companies, universities and investors would not embrace google if it's practices were unfair on it's users. From reading the article we can see that Google actually made a decent decision and gave the anonymous user options before eventually releasing the details.
Google needs to appear as a reasonable entity to the courts. If google fights the courts to the last frontier in every case it is presented, it would not only be costly to the company, but give google a damaging litigious image. Instead google chooses it's battles wisely for the betterment of it's users allowing it to defend more important legal issues with success..
According to the article, Google released the blogger's identity when he failed to respond within 72 hours. That is MUCH too fast. Even if he dropped what he was doing and acted immediately, it would still take longer than that to figure out what's going on, get a lawyer, and draft a response. That's ignoring the fact that he probably didn't receive the message immediately (subtract 24 hours), probably had other things on his plate (subtract another 24 hours) and may not have even realized that the notice was legit. (An e-mail is not a legitimate court summon. If you receive one which claims to be, it is probably a scam.)
Maybe the blogger will be "in the army and off to the front", and therefore, unable to comment!
Comcast: Would give the IP without a court order, offer to enable electronic wiretaps, and give full logs of everything that IP did.
Apple: Would require a court order to give IP. Negotiate a weak compromise. Hand over the IP on a sleek and stylish apple brand flash drive.
Microsoft:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
That would be a good thing to do. You would have to stop using not just Google but computers in general though. And many, many, many other things too. Do your own research.
Would you also review your patronage of companies that do business with Saudi Arabia, which forbids any exercise of non-Muslim religion? Israel isn't perfect, but it does have non-Jewish citizens, and allows the exercise of other religions. It does discriminate, but it goes both ways. Non Jewish citizens aren't usually forced to serve in the military, although they can volunteer.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Does google have to log the IPs? IIRC some libraries are not keeping the logs/keeping a limited log of who borrowed which book.
Following due process is important and Google should have done so. Releasing info without court demand is as bad as searching without a warrant.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I love how all the slashbots defend anybody, in any court case, as long as they aren't a business, big or small, and do something online. Slander DOES exist, and it does happen, and while there is a chance the case is BS, it might very well be legitimate. Just because somebody's a blogger dosen't mean that they're innocent, and the court could have gotten the guy's IP if they really wanted to anyway. Besides, it's not like they're going to behead the guy if he's found guilty, and Israel's court system doesn't seem too dysfunctional. On a side note, however, it is a bit disconcerting that Google will give it away that easily. I can understand if they were asked by the court, but Google seems to be headed downhill.
Google wouldn't be able to do such evil if it only stored the IP addresses of its users for immediate necessary use, and discarded them. Keeping data indefinitely, such that they can be reinterpreted and abused in ways unimaginable at the time , makes such problems as these likely.
However, those practices stop when you object to them in any meaningful way (illegally built settlements, stirring the hornets nests around them) or encounter someone with a bad case of Checkpoint Syndrome. Yes, this means citizens as well.
I wonder what would happen if there was a Pollard affair at Google, would it be prosecuted?
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
I doubt it...likely a local decision made at the local office in Israel. No doubt this Google manager is in for a shitstorm from the Mother Ship.
would that pronounced Goigle then?
You're kinda missing the point. You're saying Google should break Israel law to defend a criminal therefore becoming a criminal themselves.
The first amendment only applys to the US and you have to understand that what is evil to you is different from what is evil to everyone else.
Google refusing to co-orperate with a government that could throw all its employees in Jail because an idiot forgot to use Tor while breaking the laws of his country sounds quite evil to me.
In this circumstance, the anonymous blogger has nothing to complain about. Despite the litany of "Do not evil, yeah right!" posts that are already becoming evident in this discussion, I think google did the least evil thing possible. An anonymous blogger was committing slander, which is a civil tort. Under the rules of any civilized legal system, the plaintiff has the right to go after someone who has unjustly slandered their name - this is especially true for politicians, whose very livelihood relies on their reputation. If this person lied to defame someone, they should certainly have the weight of the law come down upon them. Furthermore, all google did was give out the information on how to contact the blogger. This blogger will not be served with the lawsuit, and will have the opportunity to defend themselves. And all this after giving to blogger a, I would think, unnecessarily generous offer to contest the ruling anonymously. In short, I think that everything Google did throughout this process has been quite in keeping with their motto, and see this as a perfectly reasonable series of steps to take in accordance with their ethics and the law.
This isn't like George Bush and the NSA doing an end-run around the Constitution, or Communist China. This was a legitimate judicial proceeding in a multi-party country that observes due process of law. The anonymity of the Internet is not a free pass to commit slander. Either defend your words or shut up.
I piss off bigots.
I wonder how much stock Israel has in Google(all divisions), and how much their US based interests(AIPAC, ADL, parts of New York) hold as well.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
Fact: someone who's been wronged has a right to pursue the person responsible. No argument there. The fact that the person responsible is attempting to hide his identity doesn't change that. The problem with the RIAA's tactics is that they want the identity before proving they've been wronged. In this case the councilmen did the right thing: went into court, convinced a judge that the words as written did in fact qualify as something legally actionable, then asked for the identity of the responsible party. It might be technically more correct to wait until a final ruling, but I doubt the final ruling would be significantly different from the preliminary one. Judges don't just fire from the hip when making a preliminary ruling, it's more like "This will be how I rule, unless someone fairly quickly comes up with something that hasn't been even hinted at yet that's major enough to counter everything I've seen so far.".
Sorry, guys, but contrary to popular belief the right to remain anonymous is not a shield against being held responsible for your statements and actions. It just means that the other party should have to prove that your statements or actions were in fact legally actionable before stripping you of your anonymity.
privacy isn't a platform you can use to attack other people.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
it has NO credibility? Why would this guy care if some anonymous jerk said that "he rapes any 5 year old he comes in contact with and kills kittens because he thinks it's cute?"
Unless more than a few minor anonymous sources indicate the same exact thing, it falls under the sticks and stones rule.
Words by people whom you don't know are worthless.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
There's an inverse relationship between how honest a company claims it is, and how honest it actually is.
This is most evident in the worst offenders and propagandizers in the media world: Fox News' "Fair and Balanced," and CNN's "The most trusted name in news."
With this in mind, Google's "Don't be evil" should set off alarm bells for anybody concerned with their privacy.
Is this a news report or a trailer for a motion picture?
Except that Larry Page and Sergey Brin together hold the majority of voting shares. So while Larry and Sergey get credit for all the good, don't forget to give them the sole blame for the company's missteps.
Most interesting and factual post I've ever seen on /.
That would paint Google with the same brush. Excessively secretive, beholden to nondemocratic countries, and structured to withstand hostile takeover. It'd be nice to see what happens when their stock is flattened (no multiclass shares - 1 share, 1 vote) thanks to some help from DC.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
I can't believe this. Let's all switch to uh... uh... uh...
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
- While freedom of non-coercive religion is a necessary part of freedom, it is not morally equivalent to absence of racist law: religion is always a choice, race is never a choice, so its justification requires a different philosophical argument. Consider the period of time for which the US codified one but not the other.
- It's Google that got big on "no evil", just as Israel has got big on being "the Western style democracy of the Middle East". I have yet to hear respective declarations from the Microsofts and Saudi Arabias of this world. The difference between a hypocrite and a man who is honest but evil is the scope of harm he can cause. The result of any ethical review I undertake before making trading decisions would thus take hypocrisy into account.
It does discriminate OK, so it discriminates in law on the basis of race. It is racist. The fact that second-class citizens aren't forced into the military does not excuse this - Roman slaves were not forced by the state to go to war either. The fact that it's not Saudi Arabia does not excuse this - Israel is also not North Korea, it is not Cambodia under Pol Pot. But you do bring up another important example of Israel's anti-freedom: conscription. (Score: 4, Insightful) I hope that this was moderated for the way it honestly admitted that Israel is racist in law, and for the way it illustrates how people fallaciously mitigate the offence - not because it was seen to contain valid justification. "Look, look over there, something else bad is going on! No, stop looking at us, no-one's perfect! We do good stuff do!" are never justifications for anything.Remember the olden days when Microsoft was upstart and everyone fawned over it. IBM was the evil empire. Well, the tide is officially turning. Who can we cheer for now?
And Google Mars is really secret Rothschild initiative to wrest the planet from the control of the Stonemasons!
It all makes sense now!
May the Maths Be with you!
The old "sticks and stones" rhyme is crap and always was, sorry to inform you. Words are much more damaging to most people in the long term than sticks or stones. Most people would rather get a punch in the arm than be called fat, or ugly, or be accused of being a rapist of small children in your example.
/with government/, you'll have a hard time finding that right in law with respect to your dealings with fellow citizens. Also note, slander is slander and libel is libel, 'sticks and stones' is not a valid legal defense, anonymous or not.
I don't know where some people get off believing their right to anonymous speech exists at all, especially in other countries as I'm betting most complainants here are western european or american.
Even though you may have a right to anonymous voting or other anonymous dealings
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Here in the U.S. (well hopefully) we are entitled due process of law.
I didn't see the bloggers quote about the public official or any other evidence supporting "Slander" other than "The System/Public Figure's Accusations". (For all I know he said the guys beard was to short.) So still I am waiting for evidence and even then I need context. I don't really give any government prosecutor the benefit of the doubt since I have been exposed to reality.
Sorry, Still Waiting and I RTA...
IP
UP
We all P
on IP
Eh? Does cluster bombing, bulldozing houses, and shooting children appear on that list? (All strictly condemned by the Geneva Convention). --Not to mention staged 'terrorist' attacks which seem to happen with predictable regularity right when peace talks are about to commence. Who do such actions help? Starving Palestinians or genocidal Zionists who describe Palestinians as dogs. . ? I can't seem to find it anymore online, (surprise, surprise), but I recall an incident from a couple of years back where a Palestinian child was drugged and rigged with bombs and then sent off toward a checkpoint. And the media had been alerted beforehand so that they could have their cameras running when the boy arrived. That's a curious way to conduct a terrorist war against your oppressors. --It would prove that the Palestinians were animals who deserved punishment. Are freedom fighters that consistently stupid? Apparently so, if you believe the propaganda. Unfortunately, the stunt went badly, and the boy was whisked away before he could tell anybody who had drugged him. The Mossad fumbles like this from time to time. --Another favorite was when a number of 'home-made' rockets being fired from 'Palestine' into urban Jewish neighborhoods turned out to have been launched from within an Israeli military base and used parts which had been procured from within the military. Oops! But the world has been so frightened of being labeled 'anti-semitic' that they turn a blind eye.
I have no problem with Jews in the same way I have no problem with Americans. But their psychopathic governments are another story. Genocide is underway right now now with many dozens of Palestinian deaths every week, with over a million jammed into a 25 mile by 5 mile wide concentration camp. And let's not forget. . . This was land stolen from an indigenous population based on thin arguments using biblical texts of all things as their rational foundation! Only religious nuts believe in that nonsense, unless of course, it serves their political ends.
-FL
Your subject line must be right if we've sunk to the level of copy-paste goatse. Depressing.
Just like Yahoo they bent over for the local government. I used to work for a large international corporation and to do business in some countries you need to agree to some rules they have and it is for the international lawyers to hash out the details since some major ideas like womens rights, child labor, etc can be written agreement for that country but it is the details that are hard to get at like who is a child (ie. under 16 years old or 18 years old?). We cannot go to another country to "mock" their laws also like the of that kid call Michael Fay who 1994 "tagged" cars in Singapore which is a punishable crime.... boy I wish we had a law like that here to rid of all that spray paint junk on the walls here. http://www.gadling.com/2007/11/13/remember-michael-fey-does-caning-sound-familiar/. Nevertheless human rights are universal so we should respect human rights first and foremost and then take each countries laws into account next.
And remember, they are not "random anonymous bloggers", they are "journalists".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
tell me why Google should ignore criminal abuse of its networks and services.
Because if it were truly criminal, a judge could say so and issue a subpoena.
tell me why someone shouldn't have the right to ask Google for help in the prosecution of a crime.
They do. It's called a subpoena. If Google Israel truly respected their customer's rights, they would simply wait for a subpoena. Also, slander/libel isn't typically considered a crime--though the summary says it "probably" was in this case, I can't see how this would ever be a good idea. Malicious/harmful lies are torts and are punishable by civil law--not by people with guns knocking you to the ground, tasering you, dragging you off and locking up up with violent criminals.
tell me when "the right to privacy" became a right to injure others anonymously - safe from any consequences.
As someone else has already said, any reasonable person should judge that no harm was done. Anonymous slander/libel by definition is completely frivolous and unbelievable. Look, watch:
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, RAPES BABIES! HE RAPES THEM UNTIL THEY BLEED TO DEATH AND THEN EATS THEIR CORPSES WITH A SIDE ORDER OF FAVA BEANS!
Now, you see, who here believes me? No one, obviously, because I'm just another vulgar, anonymous, raving lunatic on the internet. With very few exceptions, anonymous slander doesn't cause significant damage in today's rumor-jaded world. The Israeli politician in this case should have to prove that someone actually took the anonymous blogger seriously, and that person somehow took harmful action against himself. Even if he could, I still don't think this should possibly be considered a crime.
...don't be evil MOST of the time.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
I tend to see it the way you do. But we have to keep in mind, that the premise is that people do take steps to verify the sources etc. - Unfortunately, the way things are now, only a small percentage has this sort of mindset. Many people have no problem trusting a source with perceived or established authority (although not necessarily informed or truthful) even up to the point of believing a lie. We have seen this so often in history (quite recently, too). I believe dishonesty needs to be prosecuted - in meatspace, that is. Dishonesty leads to corruption which is never good for society.
Only considering cyberspace though, rules are quite different. People can be anonymous (to the average user) - this has to be taken into account when reading things on a medium where truthiness is naturally harder to evaluate. This is great, because it creates potential for many people to bind together and communicate unrestricted to pursue a common goal, thereby giving them a much needed tool to fight authoritarianism. The fact that this 'common goal' might not correspond with the plans the governments have gives them the hibby jibbies and thusly they will restrict media access and crack down on free flow of information like this.
And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
You are still not thinking. Yes, LP + SB control the majority of the voting shares. This, in effect, makes an ostensibly public company completely privately managed. There will be no shareholder referendums, no one to rock the boat. This closely held control is by design. No other public company in recent history has been able to get such a closely held secretive set of corporate bylaws approved. But Google did.
The stock wealth of LP + SB and others is controlled by the parties that run the stock market. A few strongly negative reports and Google's stock price would tumble. A few large sell-offs coincident with the negative reports would erase much of Larry's and Sergey's wealth overnight. And this is the "nice" stuff when it comes to control. The same family that had the entire Romanov family murdered in cold blood (and stole billions of their gold) is not going to have any issue with a couple geeks. One "accident" on the Google plane and there is a place for more obedient executives.
This is why Google does as Google is told. It is owned without too much of an appearance of being owned. It is how the real system works.
The time limit is too short but it sounds like in principle he had a better chance than anyone who's IP is given up to the RIAA. Of course that could just be your basic "yea you can object but we'll ignore your objection".
I'm a little alarmed at how much of this stuff seems to revolve around IP's lately though personally. I wonder how many innocent people are going to have to get burned before these legal types learn what a trojan is. I hope in cases of more serious criminal activity that a little more care is taken in regards to cyber forensics. Somehow I fear I wouldn't be happy with the answer though.
Has anyone considered the fact that this person may have been using a public terminal rather than using a home computer? That how I leave all my slanderous comments about people. =] -Chaney
Even more proof that Google is evil!!
Senator:You maybe the Preisdent of a 200 Billion Dollar Company, but have no sense of ......
Sergey:Hangs his head in shame and appologizes.
Modified weight, maybe.
But an entire class of people who fall prey to groupthink don't care that a gossip seed was originally "anonymous". It's tantalizing, and once they tell the story enough time themselves, they decide it's true by default.
When anonymous is combined with permitted lies, social structure breaks down because it opens the way for people to accuse each other of saying it. Trolling indeed.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Yes, a good question. I want to know if those critical of Israel will do business with a country that ordered 6 month jail and 90 lashes to a rape victim for being in a car with non male relative, then upon appeal upped the lashes to 200 for talking to the media. A country that routinely seizes the Bibles at airports and shreds them. And so on. The truth is Israel gets a lot of flack while countries like Sudan which doesn't lift a finger to stop a genocide get a pass.
Well, I did a couple of hours of searching around, and I was only able to pin down the following. . .
Two capital investment firms did most of the early funding for Google. Sequoia Capital Investments pitched in 12.5 million for a 10% share in Google's pre-IPO development, and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers bought another 10% at the same price at the same time. They each made about 4.5 billion when Google went public.
It is interesting to note that Eugene Kleiner himself was one of the founders of Fairchild Semiconducter, which was originally funded by the Sherman Fairchild, one of those ominously, creepily way-too-wealthy guys whose endless portfolio of companies has heavy ties to the Military Industrial Complex as well as banking. It is also noteworthy that Kleiner's board members include both Colin Powell and Al Gore. (Weird mix there.) --But for all of that, they only had a 10% share of Google, much of which was later divested for tidy profits. So that doesn't seem like much of a means to control Google's board unless there were some private agreements made in the beginning, but that's neither here nor there.
Sequoia, by contrast, as of 2005 had retained all 10% of their investment. They also hold about 30% of YouTube, so Google's purchase of that kept the money in-house, so to speak and benefited them. But even still, they have nowhere near any controlling interest in Google.
The other big investor in Google in the beginning was Andy Bechtolsheim, co-founder of Sun Microsystems. He put $100,000 into the startup, but I haven't been able to find out how much of Google he owns as a result of that, if any. Wikipedia called the cash a 'donation', but I wasn't able to confirm that. Also, I don't know if this is relevant, but Bill Joy, another of Sun's founders became a Kleiner partner in 2005, for whatever that's worth.
The rest of the controlling ownership appears to sit heavily with Google's original founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin.
I wasn't able to find the Rothschild connection you describe. Is there some part of this story that I'm missing?
-FL
The enemies of the Sudanese don't have deep pockets filled from selling Oil to the West.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
There is a little mistake. Google did sent the blogger request to "show himself" and when he did not answer they had a court order on their hands. So, Google is not as evil as described here.
Apparently:
journalists,
lawyers and
the courts -
are so dumbed down now
no one knows what means what.
RE: i believe that slander, libel, defamation, etc are... perhaps outdated concepts.
I would expect no less from a fascist wife beater like yourself.
Would a fascist dare beat his wife liberally?
RR
I don't care how you (treat, beat or) mod me, just as long as you do.
evil fucking corporations.....
do we at least get lube this time around?
"It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
You write such well-drafted shit. Rothschilds as controllers of all the world's wealth and string-pulling bankers is very old anti-semitic material. Yes, like all bankers, the Rothschilds funded Rulers whims, which during the 1800's frequently meant wars (yes, wars were primarily economic in basis).
To say they "own" Israel is rubbish, there were numerous (mainly agricultural) investments by the Rothschilds in pre-state Palestine, many of which went bankrupt and were in frequent conflict with the socialist workers who worked there. The family foundations are still involved in nefarious activities such as upkeep of a large park outside of Zichron Yaakov, a donation for the Knesset building and more. Wow, creepy shit.
To say that this largely broken up and now largely not-technically-Jewish family is the global puppeteer makes great theatre, but says more about you than anything else. Touching how you managed to self-censor words like Illuminati, Freemasons and Lizards to keep your karma up.
29 mpg. YMMV.
It's good that you managed to write so much without using phrases like "Zionist occupational government", "Jews" or "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that might tip people off that you're a complete nutter.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Here's the article in an Israeli newspaper in English.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3476401,00.html
I'm not a lawyer, but is seems they could take this to a higher court.
Lately I've been reading about a new law proposition to make the newspaper liable to any offending talkback , so the way the things are going is not to allow people to hide behind their words.
Never put in an e-mail something that you would not want overheard in a pub.
Sending a summons by e-mail is stupid.
It says here that Google was forced to hand over the IP... "Following the 72 hour period, Google was ordered to hand over the IP address to the court. Google was represented by Adv. Keren Beer and Adv. Hagit Blaiberg of Goldfarb, Levy, Eran, Meiri & Co. and the councilmen were represented by Adv. Ben Zion Adoram and Tomer Altus of Adoram & Co."
I'm glad again that Riverbend is out of Iraq now after anonymously using Blogger for four years. Considering the danger that revealing her IP would have entailed is pretty frightening.
This also means that, evil or not, we should rely on Google at most for easy access to information, not for our privacy. Bloggers in countries with dangerous censorship laws rather need to be informed about and able to access anonymizing services like Tor.
There were two articles on this subject. http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1196195189.htm http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1196252781.html The people with the inside knowledge of the Israeli judicial system tell us that this low level judge was picked not for his legal abilities, but for the connections with the plaintiffs.
Figured out where you hit a problem. Its a common misconception.
Israel isn't trying to be "the Western style Democracy of the Middle East". That's just how the West likes to view it, since anything else (including most of the Dictatorships in the region) are too foreign a form of government for most of the Western people in the world.
Its a Theocracy with a Parliamentary Based Legislature.
Consider the repeated "Iran stones women"-style complaint in this thread. This is a symptom of the problem, and telling Iran that it should stop stoning women will not solve the underlying disease that creates similar laws and denies freedom - which, as you hint, is Theocracy. Theocracy is the rule of men - i.e. rule by men - using the justification of "God". Israel clings to precisely the same irrational anti-Western justifications.
N.B. I avoid blaming "religion" in the same way I avoid blaming guns - only sentient beings can be blamed for any decision-making process. The fault lies in the men who have chosen to use the gun as they do.
Prima: Joe brutally raped my mother. He should be held in prison for life!
Secunda: Yes, Joe did an awful thing. Society should be protected from him, at least until one can be certain that he is rehabilitated.
Tercera: I want to know if those critical of Joe will visit Cuba, a country that denies its citizens access to the same glorious resorts and healthcare that it puts on show for tourists, not even paying them in convertible currency. A country that routinely imprisons journalists as anti-revolutionaries. And so on. The truth is that Joe gets a lot of flack while oppressive tyrants like Fidel Castro get a pass.
Can't you see the insanity in your argument?
Does anyone see a connection between this story and the previous post about outsourcing college e-mail? If Google can give up an IP address, then what else can it give up?
I guess my point was more to the effect of why throw so much energy to an "anonymous" source?
I agree that the sticks and stones rule is junk, but if someone I don't know, who obviously doesn't know me, or just drew my name out of a hat full of politicians and started spouting off crap, I would assume it is a plant from an opposing party.
Slander happens all the time, and while wrong (I DO think it's wrong) If you put credit into all anonymous slander it's similar to fearing a terrorist attack, it just fuels the fire, then the slanderer wins.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
because, fuck freedom of speech!
Given the speed and ease by which google seems to turn over IP info (not even a court order). I have to ask what individual or company is daft enough to trust their files, videos etc to gDrive (or whatever it gets called).
After all once all your files are in one place its just a "One stop shop" for every RIAA MPAA etc that has a good lawyer.
If you read the actual details, they *were* ordered to by a court when the blogger failed to contest the ruling.
See, e.g., google's response at http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/27/google-voluntarily-provides-details-of-anonymous-blogger-in-israel/
This looks like just a bad translation of israeli news sources, which make it clear this is the first time google has been *ordered* to turn over an ip address of a blogger in israel.
Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing. This is Google http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhu9ORveuo4&feature=related and shit I'm not going to Candy Mountain.
That's just my POV... no more, no less.
"...that Kleiner's board members include both Colin Powell and Al Gore. (Weird mix there.)"
Weird Al, Yankovic....
Knighthood... They way the company runs all over smaller ones, how could anyone NOT be forgiven thinking of the "knight" as a "hood"(lum), ehhehehehe
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
"Fact: someone who's been wronged has a right to pursue the person responsible."
/|\ ----- Mohamed
define 'wronged'? If I draw a picture of mohamed, then many people will feel I 'wronged' them and set out to kill me.
Q
_|_
So now they have a right to kill me?
"Judges don't just fire from the hip when making a preliminary ruling,"
Perhap you should ahve more experience with judges from that part of the world, eh?
I have to wonder about Israeli law. See, everyone is looking at this stating "there was no court order." Well, does Israeli law stipulate you need a court order? Given that the Israelis are prone to forcefully remove people from their homes at gunpoint for the sake of zionist colonization, and are also known to organize their citizens in what could be considered a caste system (Israeli colonists at the top, Palastinian Israelis at the middle, Palastinians at the very bottom), I don't think they'd care too much about court orders.
The moderation system does not exist so that you can squelch opinions that you disagree with. The parent article is clearly not a troll or flaimbait, so anonymous moderator cowards who disagree with it have modded it "overrated" so that no one will read it. It should be modded up so that both sides of the discussion are visible. CmdrTaco says that we should notify him when such abuses take place so he can revoke the moderation privileges of people who abuse the power in that way. I suggest we take him up on it.
Flyer:
Man a Rapist, in my opinion
This man, pictured below, is a rapist (in my opinion).
[picture]
He broke into my house, in my opinion, with what I sincerely believe was a machete, and it is my opinion that he then he raped my wife and daughter.
It is also my opinion that he lives at 5212 Willow Aslantabrook Rd.
keep an eye out.
Oblig:
Jesus Quintana: You ready to be fucked, man? I see you rolled your way into the semis. Dios mio, man. Liam and me, we're gonna fuck you up.
The Dude: Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
and teach them the word "alleged"
Any intelligent person knows that very little anymore is done anonymously or privately, especially if advanced technology is used. Almost all of a person's browser history, emails, phone calls, postings, text messages and instant messages are preserved somewhere on a hard drive. If another individual has the will and resources, this information is easily traced to the person or persons involved (or at least to the machines and accounts involved). Even an individual's routine movements just driving around in a car can be monitored by cell phone towers, EZ-Pass, and On-Star. Some new makes of cars automatically include (unbeknown to the owners) "black boxes," which monitor speed and direction of a vehicle then save the information. In addition, just driving or walking a mile down a road in any developed area, an individual can easily be photographed by multiple security cameras from various establishments along that road. Think about financial transactions. Every check one ever writes and every credit card purchase one ever makes is a matter of permanent record. I could go on and on. Much of this information is sold on the open market. (Do you read to fine print in all those "agreements" for which you sign or click "agree?") The rest of the information is circulated through other channels. For instance, the big mobile phone companies have admitted giving their call records to the government as a personal favor from their CEO's to their friends in the government. In matters of consequence, privacy and anonymity no longer exist.
The Internetâ(TM)s #1 Wholesale Janitorial Supply Company. Everyone is Our Customer! See our online janitorial supp
Judaism isn't a race, because you can't join a race and you can convert to Judaism - even if it's harder than converting to Islam.
I didn't bring Saudi Arabia as an example because it excuses Israel, but because it doesn't make sense to boycott Israel and not boycott Saudi. And if you drive a car, you probably can't boycott Saudi.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
.....Great post, beyondkaoru. I think what is needed is for the public education system to educate us all to be skeptical of advertisers, snake oil salesmen, and anonymous claims to knowledge...
.....As a species, we humans tend to grow and develop always thinking that someone else is better than us ... knows more than us ... or has the right or might to tell us what to do. We are never taught, at least in American public schools, to investigate and question assertions of authority. Creating such a consensus alone would works wonders.
.....It is a fundamental oversight in culture design, it seems to me. Yet how to carry it out the change is the problem. I cannot clearly characterize what exactly needs to be taught, and I think it must be clearly characterized before it be considered worth serious inquiry. I strongly sense it *is* definable. But if it were to be named and taught effectively to the masses of humanity, then generic drugs would be more popular, Gucci would make a lot less money, scores of snake-oil salesmen would never get past their first two sentences, and the Church would . . . wow. I see a pattern here . . .
.....Maybe someone here can help in the attempt at defining this, if you please. I can give an analogy with my view of the missing component:
.....Assertiveness is to aggression as skepticism is to ?????
.....I almost want to say we should teach "skepticism", but like the example analogy shows, "skepticism" is not the correct concept. Skepticism is more of a challenge, a reaction, than it is a healthy, maintainable outlook on life.
Greg Conquest
The part where he uses the term, 'defensive war'.
You see, back before there was an Israel, there was a country called Palestine. Then Palestine was taken away from the native population and given to the Zionist movement to create a new country. Some of the original population went along with this somewhat willingly. Others not. I say the land was stolen, but that's just my response to the historical accounts available (the ones which don't come written on bible paper).
But the problem is that the angry fellow who posted called this occupation of Palestine a, 'defensive war'. --And I don't see how that term could be applied to the above scenario. Now if the native population of Palestine were fighting to stop invaders who were intent on taking away their land and putting them all behind a huge wall, then you could say that the natives were fighting a, 'Defensive War'. Because, you see, they were the ones who were minding their own lives when the Zionist movement descended upon them with the intention of land appropriation. But as it happens, the poster told me that the reverse was true; that the occupying forces were the ones I was supposed to feel sympathy for, that they were the ones fighting a so-called 'defensive war', even though the land was not their's to start with. So I assumed that the poster was either, A) writing about something entirely different and that it was all a big misunderstanding, or that he was B) Insane.
Seriously. I wasn't sure, because the claim was so incredibly at odds with the reality of the situation that I thought nobody could be that mistaken. --So I liberally applied my response to him with qualifiers. However, those qualifiers were obviously not clearly put, because you seem to have responded with the same bizarre interpretation. So tell me. Have I made a huge mistake about the subject we are supposedly writing about, or are you also nuts?
-FL
"Here's a bit more background on this situation. Members of the Israeli Shaarei Tikva Council accused an anonymous blogger of defamation and asked for an injunction against Google requiring us to provide the IP address of the blogger. We opposed the injunction, in part because we wanted to give the blogger a chance to explain in court why his or her IP address shouldn't be disclosed. The court agreed that the blogger should be given notice. The court also directed Google to give the court the IP address and when the blogger did not reply to the notice the court provided the members of the council with the IP address. What we did in this instance was standard. We objected to the injunction, but were ultimately directed by the court to provide it with the IP address."
-Chris
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
"In line with Judge Schwartz's ruling, Google and the councilmen reached a settlement in their dispute. Following the 72 hour period, Google was ordered to hand over the IP address to the court."
^^^
At least read the article you're linking so that you don't post erroneous statements such as...
Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court