Slashdot Mirror
Google Gives the US Government Access To Gmail
schliz writes "Google condemns the Chinese Government for censoring its results, and Australia for planning to do the same. Meanwhile, its lawyers and security experts have told employees to 'be intentionally vague about whether or not we've given access to end-user accounts,' according to engineer James Tarquin, hinting that Google may be sharing its data with the US government. Perhaps Australia's most hated communications minister, Steven Conroy, could be right in his criticism of Google's privacy record after all."
Or even better, use www.scroogle.org
Look, it doesn't matter who or where you are. The government has bigger guns than you.
Fixed.
Living With a Nerd
Do you live in the USA? You do realize that all data handling companies are subject to the same US laws, so move your email anywhere you want, the government can still get it at will.
Take mail hosting from prq.se (the company hosting WikiLeaks and earlier The Pirate Bay) and use SSL IMAP/POP3 to access it. Looks like a quite good package too.
IMHO "the Supreme Court has made stupid decisions in the past, like making Segregation legal," is the biggest argument against why the Court should not be the final arbiter over what the U.S. Constitution says.
- "Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches." --Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815.
- "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so..... their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.
- "The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
I go even further than this Founding Father:
I think the State Legislatures, acting on behalf of the people, should be given the power to nullify acts of congress. i.e. If 25 States declare a U.S. Law unconstitutional, it has the same effect as if the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. It's nullified. State Legislatures tend to more democratic than the national legislature (which ignored the ~80% of Americans who did NOT want Pelosicare or TARP/bailout bills to pass). The State governments are the proper organ for nullification, not 9 old people who are unelected oligarchs.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
The government can probably regulate how corporations may arm their employees and deploy those armed employees, but it's not clear what the limits on that power are.
Actually most corporations would be well within their rights to arm employees on their property. Very few states regulate the possession of weapons on private property. Those that do generally only regulate a small subset of weapons, typically handguns and so-called "assault rifles". Certain subsets of private property may be regulated by law (you can't legally possess a firearm at a mental health institution in most states) but for the most part it's up to the property owner to determine who can carry weapons.
You'll note that many small retail businesses in the United States opt to keep a firearm on the premises as a deterrent against robbery. With few exceptions (New York City) the state doesn't generally attempt to regulate this behavior.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.