Slashdot Mirror
Feds Block EFF Look at Google/DoJ Contacts
netbuzz writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation wants to know all there is to know about contacts between Google and a Justice Department official involved in a highly charged 2006 government-snooping dispute that ensnared the search giant. That DoJ official, Jane Horvath, was subsequently hired by Google last year as senior privacy counsel. The DoJ has refused for six months to release public information about the matter being requested by EFF."
All I see is a link to some news article about Google hiring this DoJ person. Nothing at all to an article suggesting that the USDoJ is stonewalling EFF as suggested by the summary.
Enquiring minds wanna know!
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
No, its a fancy way of keeping the government from holding a gun to your head while you're saying "I'm guilty."
Unless it meas profit!
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
My blog
I'm all for privacy. Which is why I think the guy is totally justified. If someone asked about MY contracts at work, I wouldn't feel that compelled to tell them, either. And I'd have no obligation to. It'd be different if he was actually working in the governmental capacity, because then the people are indirectly sorta the guy's boss. But when it's just him privately being hired, it's none of our business from any moral or legal obligation sort of standpoint.
Google, though, would do well from a PR standpoint to at least formulate a response explaining what seems like a very odd decision. I'd appreciate it at least, since this sort of thing makes me feel pretty nervous. I don't really search for anything more exotic than cake recipes, technical documentation, or going through Wiki adventures where you start with wondering what the actual difference between a vegetable and fruit is and end up reading about quantum physics for some reason, but government snooping through stuff without cause is a bad thing and quite against the constitution those cool guys 200 years ago wrote up. Google has a good track record for not doing evil things, but still...
I honestly don't know about the case at hand, but invoking the 5th amendment is not saying you are guilty or not... similar to refusing to give a police officer your drivers license when you are walking to the store at 1AM, or not letting airport security boot up your laptop and look through it. They would like you to think that refusal is implication of some guilt, but when it comes down to it, what they are asking has nothing to do with the problem at hand. If I am walking down the street, there is NO reason to expect that I would even have a drivers license, let alone give it up when I AM NOT DRIVING. Same with airport security snooping in my laptop... I am not plugging my laptop into your plane, your servers, or anything that should concern you. It has nothing to do with people who have a bomb in their luggage.
In cases of the 5th amendment, you can obviously call upon it when you have something to hide. You can also invoke it on principle to the fact that what I am NOT telling you has no relevance to the case at hand.
Imagine you are walking along the street and decide to rob a store. You bust into the store, start helping yourself to whatever, and you notice the store keeper being beat and raped. You call it in, it comes to trial, and all of a sudden the defendants lawyer asks you what were you doing in the store after it was closed. Obviously, you were robbing the store, but REGARDLESS, that has NOTHING to do with the beating and raping of the store keeper. This is a perfect example of why you would plead the 5th.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Mod up parent. I commented in this article, so I cannot spend any mod points.
While the parents words may not be the most eloquent, they are right on the money. Well said, plague3106! B..B...B..ut if you have nothing to "hide", well you should not worry? Right?
Hey, the government has every right to know all about us surfs. After all, it is no longer OUR tax dollars that the feds are spending. It is "their" money, and they can do what they want.
You smoked a little pot in high school/college? Damn you! We have the war on DRUGS you idiot! You should go to jail. You filth.
Oh, you KILLED someone? Well that is 25 years to life, with probation after only 10 months. Just don't let us catch you smoking teh pot. You will go down!
War on Drugs
War on Poverty
War on terrorism
War on...
Hmm.. I am 35. In my 35 years as a born-and-raised American, I have been kept in a constant state of war. I served in the U.S.M.C, during the Gulf War, when I was 18 because I thought I "owed" it to my country.
I am just really sad how I have lived under the "republicans" in a constant state of war, either at home or abroad. I am really looking forward to some Dems taking the wheel for a little while and see what we get. It may not be better, but I hope it is.
As a 35 year old, born and raised American, I have not had one single 5 year period in my life where I didn't hear from the Republicans how we are in some state of "war". I don't know about you, but I am DAMN tired of war. I want some DAMN peace.
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
Judging from history, it won't be. Even if the Democrats could/would bring peace, you can bet you'll get the shaft by having some rights taken away instead. You see, it kind of works like this:
Republicans: we shaft you and you *know* it.
Democrats: we shaft you, but we try to be discreet about it.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Same with airport security snooping in my laptop... I am not plugging my laptop into your plane, your servers, or anything that should concern you. It has nothing to do with people who have a bomb in their luggage.
Ah, but the airplanes are not a public service in the sense a sidewalk is. It is a service that can be revoked if you don't follow the operating companies' procedures. Which is why you must present your baggage before boarding.
It is a service that can be revoked if you don't follow the operating companies' procedures.
That aside, it's kind of hard to follow an airline's procedure when it isn't the airline's procedure. This would all be fine and dandy if it were a security service payed for by all of the airlines that service the terminal with agreed upon rules. Instead, we have a government agency paying for an outside security service proscribing, or at least pretending not to notice, arbitrary rules and procedures. The problem occurs before you even have a chance to interact with the company in question, so you never even have an opportunity to be contrary to their policies.
Anyway, I don't see how we arrived at thinking this is a 5th Amendment issue. The EFF has requested to see e-mail correspondence between Google and DoJ officials via the FOIA. This isn't a 5th Amendment issue because the EFF is seeking information pertinent to public officials carrying out the duties of their publicly accountable position. They have been met with silence for the past 6 months so now the EFF is suing so they can see what actually occurred during the period when the DoJ was seeking to subpoena Google for every single query entered into the search engine over a one-week period and the subsequent scale back to asking for only 5,000 random entries. The EFF wants to make sure that information from Google was not handed over to the DoJ illegitimately due to privacy concerns. They also want to make sure that Jane C. Horvath, the DoJ's Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer at the time, is not giving information to the DoJ while now working as Google's Senior Privacy Counsel.
The Democrats got the majority in both houses. They can end the wars. But they don't. It won't be better for us, it will be more of the same.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
Ending wars with the budget isn't that simple. Bush could keep troops in the field without proper equipment like body armor or sufficient ammunition. It wouldnt really surprise me if he did just that.
The only way tightening the budget strings might be effective is if Congress cut off non-essential contracts to divert money to Iraq. Things like the FCS or some jet fighter or tanker programs. The contractors would pressure him to get out to save their programs.
Have gnu, will travel.
Actually the classic pattern is this: First we get the Republicans, who spread paranoia and make war with everyone they can while using the resulting "security threats" as an excuse to fleece us all of rights and assets at every turn. Then, just when the populace is nearly ready to actually protest something we get the Democrats, who try to convince us we will rebuild now, while talking a lot about things that really matter (universal health care, ending poverty). The economy heals a bit, people have a bit more cash, some optimism returns and now the stage is set for the Republicans to come back and reap the riches from the people again. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum. That's the way it's worked all my life...
Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same evil coin, and the divisions are deliberately illogical (i.e. "pro life" people are generally pro death penalty and don't want to pay a dime for the well-being of kids unless it is to censor the media "for them", etc). Any sane, rational person will quickly become frustrated and resigned with our "democracy", seeing it for the fraud that it is. Everyone else will accuse that person of tin foil hattery, and voila! Our way of life is"still safe". Yesterday it was communists, today it's Al Qaida, tomorrow maybe it will be Jews or left-handed people or people with haxxor 5k1llz... The only constant is this New Feudal system masquerading as a "free country".
Caveat Utilitor
You evidently weren't paying attention to both parties when DoD was trying to close non-essential bases in the BRAC hearings. Both parties argued that to close any of the proposed bases would be detrimental to not only the area they were in but the country as a whole.
The first politician that tries to cut funding for ANY military program will be castrated in the press as being an unpatriotic, job destroying, soldier bashing communist. I predict that no matter who wins Iraq will continue and all the waste, fraud and abuse that is Homeland Security will be right there with it. If you think corporate power corrupts Congress now, just try to cut back on the military industrial complex and increasingly the Homeland Security industrial complex and watch the bribes (oops..."Campaign Contributions") fly.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.