Google Report Shows Governments Want More Private Data

better at saying no? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

More like governments are overreaching asking for data they have no legal right to than ever before.

Re:better at saying no? by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-23 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Patriot Act, dude. Gubbermint wrote themselves a blank check with that one. And, they've written more blank checks since then. Everything the Buggermint - I mean GUBBERMINT! wants is "legal". Don't confuse "legal" with "moral", or "ethical", or "right". If the buggerers in gubbermint ever figures out that something they want is illegal, they'll just write some new laws!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:better at saying no? by SirGarlon · 2013-01-23 07:09 · Score: 1

And wasting Google shareholders' money asking them to answer requests that they are presumably not paying for.

--
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Re:better at saying no? by fredprado · 2013-01-23 07:39 · Score: 1

The interesting thing regarding government's wishes is that whatever is illegal today tends to be legal tomorrow.
Re:better at saying no? by s.petry · 2013-01-23 11:16 · Score: 1

Wait, what? Who do you vote for, Puppet 1 or Puppet 2? It was so obvious in the last election it was creepy, and very few people said a damn thing. My 12 year old Nephew noticed how only certain people ever made media time. How Ron Paul was called "crazy" by media and never shown to say anything from his speeches or the debates. During live debates, the audience would applaud him madly yet the media only replayed the idiocy they wanted people to see. If Ron Paul was interviewed, it was with a question like "What do you think of being Herman Cane's running mate?" or some other bullshit.
The tell all was when the Iowa Republican Caucus stated on NPR "We don't care what the public thinks, Ron Paul will not be on the ticket in Iowa.". Think critically! Take out Ron Paul's name and insert any name you want on the ticket, and the statement will stand. "We don't care what the public thinks, will not be on the ticket.". People plain old ignored that statement, and of course it was never repeated on the controlled media or made issue of in media.
If you don't get that the Republic is already fucked, you really have not been paying any attention to what is going on around you.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:better at saying no? by SnowZero · 2013-01-23 22:48 · Score: 1

If the government started raiding your bank account, the correct reaction would not be to store your money in your mattress, nor to ask that banks hold less money.
The government can't search the inside of my locked car just because it is parked on the street, but when effectively the same thing happens electronically it's open season.
Property laws need to be updated to reflect the reality that many people want to store their email, photos, and other account data on a server somewhere.
The lawmakers have quite purposely dragged their feet on updating the relevant laws, while law enforcement uses outdated legal analogies to exploit loopholes in laws that didn't foresee the present reality.

Getting better at saying no. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:38 · Score: 3, Informative

I feel more allegiance to Google than the US government tbqh.

Little math here by DJ+Jones · 2013-01-23 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

If the requests went up by 70% and the the amount of "no"s dropped by 20%. They are not "getting better at saying no" on a raw numerical basis.

Think about it.

Re:Little math here by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Came here for this.
Old scheme, 100 requests filed, 76 requests filled.
New scheme, 170 requests filed, 112 requests filled.
Providing more information isn't the same as providing less.
Re:Little math here by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:52 · Score: 2, Informative

i think the amount of "yes"s dropped by 10% (66% complied with vs 76%)
your point is still valid tho ...
Re:Little math here by Firethorn · 2013-01-23 05:56 · Score: 1

Proportions still matter. Google is still expanding, people's use of google is still expanding, and government awareness of google is still expanding. I'd expect more responses. Whether or not 70% is in line with the above growth, I don't know. The drop in granted was only 10%, not 20%.
Still, I can't help but think that as much as we might detest it, sometimes these requests for data is to prosecute valid, serious crime. Various forms of fraud and theft, for example. Cracking, perhaps.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Little math here by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-23 06:45 · Score: 2

Yeah, what AC said.
I have zero problem with a police department doing actual police work, building a case strong enough to warrant reasonable cause, then actually getting a warrant. This is cool - it's what we have police for. Joe Schmuck is suspected of whatever, they find a couple of things on Facebook that indicates he might really be guilty, he's overheard making a couple comments in a bar, and those few things add up to, "Your honor, we believe that Mr. Schmuck is guilty of at least three counts of preying on the elderly (or whatever) but we need access to his email and stuff - will you sign this warrant?" The judge accepts these bits and pieces as probable cause, or he tells the cops to get their asses to work, and do a better job of convincing him that Joe is a crook.
Warrant in hand, they can browse anything and everything available on the guy.
Fishing expeditions should cost cops their careers.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Little math here by plover · 2013-01-23 07:05 · Score: 1

RTFS, FFS. What part of "requests broken down by the legal process used " did you fail to understand? The link shows only 10% were "other", the rest were subpoenas and warrants.

--
John
Re: Little math here by Namarrgon · 2013-01-23 09:49 · Score: 1

So they're getting better at saying "yes", too.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:Little math here by Changa_MC · 2013-01-24 12:05 · Score: 1

HOPE you didn't vote for the guy who pretty much guaranteed he'd take more of your money in taxes. Taxes that only help PAY for this kind of crap.
I'm with you on this, man.
Bush's warrantless wiretapping combined with running up a huge deficit, thereby increasing taxes long term pissed me off as well.

--
Changa hates change.

Pity by captbob2002 · 2013-01-23 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Pity that Google even has user's private data to give to governments

Re:Pity by ClioCJS · 2013-01-23 05:48 · Score: 1

how dare they!

--
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Re:Pity by DerekLyons · 2013-01-23 06:00 · Score: 2

Why is it a pity that Google is held to same legal standard as every other company or individual in the US?
Re:Pity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you didn't give them private data. They don't have it.
Nobody to blame but yourself.
(captcha:blamable That is so weird.)
Re:Pity by sl4shd0rk · 2013-01-23 06:33 · Score: 1

You're probably giving Google permission (more likely, pleading) to use it somewhere in their EULA jibber-jabber you accept when hitting the OK button.

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Re:Pity by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 07:30 · Score: 1

Wait a minute, consider what constitutes "giving" Google data. There's the obvious like using GMail or using their search engine, but they also have trackers all across the web. Unless you explicitly block Google's domains, they know a fair amount about what websites you visit (much less if you block their cookies, but Panopticlick showed that blocking cookies doesn't actually protect you from tracking very well). This, of course, doesn't only apply to Google, but Google's analytics is a lot more common than Facebook's share links or other trackers.
Off-topic, I have a personal (mostly joke) theory that the captcha words are chosen by a machine learning algorithm that gets positive weight from the word appearing in the final post.
Re:Pity by maxwell+demon · 2013-01-23 07:56 · Score: 2

The most problematic is googleapis, because many web sites simply won't work without those.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Pity by wvmarle · 2013-01-23 17:15 · Score: 1

You misread the comment you replied to.

Pity that Google even has user's private data [...]
That's the key of that comment. Google has heaps of private data of heaps of users. And that's not just the e-mail you ask them to store on your behalf in a gmail account.

Privacy not a concern for citizens by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-01-23 05:51 · Score: 2

I'm not talking about the lip service. I'm talking about what people actually do. I have a placeholder facebook page (not an active user) and I regularly get spammed with activity updates from "friends." People seem to have no hesitation about what they post. And, I don't just mean kids. Until people show they care, it'll just get worse.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens by Reverand+Dave · 2013-01-23 05:58 · Score: 1

The younger generations do not view privacy in the same light as previous ones. It's just not something that is important to them anymore, mainly because they never had it to begin with I suppose.

--
I got here through a series of tubes
Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens by Qzukk · 2013-01-23 06:27 · Score: 1

I'm not talking about the lip service. I'm talking about what people actually do.
What the fuck does "what people actually do" have to do with anything? It's already been shown that "reasonable expectation of privacy" has absolutely nothing to do with what human beings actually expect in any given situation, so why does it matter what we do when the government will decide that privacy means whatever is convenient for them.

--
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens by Runaway1956 · 2013-01-23 06:53 · Score: 2

People look at me weird when I make any attempt to explain what Facebook does with their data. People over the age of fifteen seem to forget that very recently they did stuff for which they would be embarrassed today. Prepubescent children do a lot of weird, disgusting things. People over the age of 20 forget that they were freaky-ass zit-faced punks very recently, and that the conduct that seemed so amusing a couple years ago would be very embarrassing today.
But - they continue to post all manner of stupid shit, never thinking for a moment that some of it might be embarrassing someday, in a divorce court, or a slander case, or at an employment interview.
Dumb. Just plain dumb. Post all your stupidest shit online, so that your worst enemies will always have it to use against you. And, who knows - maybe today's best friend will be your worst enemy next year!

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens by wvmarle · 2013-01-23 17:17 · Score: 1

Ah yes, the right to be forgotten. It's impossible to have stuff forgotten these days.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... by game+kid · 2013-01-23 05:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Don't wait on it. They're still too busy harassing YouTube users to show their Real Name, and tweaking the same to look more like Facebook (noticed those pics next to the comments? --oh who am I kidding, I'm trying to get people to read YouTube comments to make a point...silly me).

Tough to stop employees from doing something when it's the company goal.

--
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.

Supplying more private data that it appears by Unknown1337 · 2013-01-23 05:55 · Score: 1

Despite the appearance of the fulfilment rate going down, if you do the math, since requests are up 70%, Google is still supplying a little over 20% more private data than they were in 2009. It would be nice to have the exact numbers or percentages of partial vs. full requests AND how much information is requested on average. These statistics really do not shed much light on anything. For example: A full request compliance could be as innocent as your GMail account name. A partial request compliance could be as much as everything they've excluding your credit card numbers. (which still wouldn't leave you feeling very safe, despite being a 'partial compliance')

Re:Supplying more private data that it appears by plover · 2013-01-23 07:39 · Score: 1
While the statistics are indeed vague, we are meant to understand that Google is scrutinizing each request harder. But let's look at the potential causes for them to say "no":
- Improper request using an official process - invalid warrant, unclear requests, etc.
- Overbroad legitimate request: "We need a list of everyone on Google+ who has the state of TX in their address line."
- Technically unable to comply: the data could have been purged before the request was made
- Illegally unwilling to comply: they wanted tax data on Sergei, and the Google person decided to "lose" the request in the paperwork shuffle
- Legitimate request using an unofficial process - "we have a lit-fuse bomber, you gotta break the rules and help us without a warrant!" "No."
- Improper request using an unofficial process - "Hey, Sally, I'll take you to dinner if you get me this data."
- Legitimate request from an illegitimate organization: "This is Turkish Secret Police, give us this data so we can break some skulls."
Of those, only a few are the moral high road, yet they're all lumped into that "reduction in granting requests." We have no way of knowing what percentages are attributable to which reason.
Also, take a look at the bottom link. While the overall compliance is 75%, the rate of compliance in the U.S. is about 90%, regardless of the legal process used to request it. They're not complying at all with requests from Turkey or Russia, and they don't even accept requests from China.
--
John
Re:Supplying more private data that it appears by TapeCutter · 2013-01-23 08:16 · Score: 1

and they don't even accept requests from China
You missed the whole "Google pulls out of China" thing?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... by Synerg1y · 2013-01-23 05:55 · Score: 1

Wait, what? Gmail has a setting to make it run over https: http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=74765

Move along nothing to see here by DerekLyons · 2013-01-23 05:58 · Score: 2

Move along - nothing to see here. It should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks, for even a brief moment, that as more people move more and more of their life online that there will be more requests to access that information.

And when you break down the numbers it works out to about a hundred a day, and since Google doesn't specify that this is limited to Feds, one is forced to assume it includes all governmental bodies at all levels. As a result, I'm not horrified that the number is so high but rather I find it interesting that the number is so low.

Re:Move along nothing to see here by wvmarle · 2013-01-23 17:19 · Score: 1

It probably does not include requests that Google is not allowed to talk about. Like stuff under things like that patriot act, and probably some more scary and secret(ive) laws you guys have.
Re:Move along nothing to see here by DerekLyons · 2013-01-23 23:21 · Score: 1

Even so, the number is *still* pretty low considered on a per capita or per annum basis, even if it seems pretty big and scary spun as a $BIGNUM.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... by geminidomino · 2013-01-23 05:59 · Score: 2

Which has exactly nothing to do with encrypting the messages themselves. SSL just encrypts the transport, they're still stored in nice, invasion-friendly cleartext.

so google is giving out more info... by night_flyer · 2013-01-23 06:11 · Score: 1

Requests for user data have gone up by 70 percent since Google started these reports in 2009 â" but the report shows Google is getting better at saying no: in 2009 it complied â" fully or partially â" with 76 percent of requests, and that figure is now down to 66 percent."

unless this is worded poorly, Google is giving out even more info...
if in 09 they had 100 requests and they complied with 76% that would be 76 records... but if requests have gone up 70% (170 requests) and its "down" to 66% compliance, that's still 92 records!

--

Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...

Re:so google is giving out more info... by TapeCutter · 2013-01-23 08:45 · Score: 1

It's not "worded poorly", I think you and others posting similar drivel are being deliberately obtuse. It's quite clear they meant they now service a smaller percentage of the requests, any card carrying geek should know that comparing percentages is a very common method of analyzing growth. In fact I'm pretty sure that knowledge is not unique to geeks, I believe the average Joe reading TFS would also be fully aware that 90% of $1 is a lot less in absolute terms than 50% of $1M.

In other words your posting "dumb kids math" on a geek site?

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

The obvious concern: by s.petry · 2013-01-23 06:14 · Score: 2

At least for US citizens should be the fact that the US government has increased their requests by astronomical amounts, and is the majority of the requests. 21,389 requests for private data of 33,634 This makes it obvious that these requests are not all "give me info on John Doe", but rather "Give me info on Jane and John. Now to the point I start with: According to this, the US owns at least a third of all of the requests. You _should_ be asking why and not just shrugging off this information.

No, we are not suffering from a rash of terrorism in the US (unless we go and rightfully call what the self proclaimed elites are doing terrorism). The Government is systematically shutting up anyone that observes their first amendment rights, especially those that begin to make headway with the sheople. OWS and the admitted collusion between DHS, FBI, TSA, Local Police departments, and Banks should be more than an obvious glimpse at how big the problem is. Better get to waking up the neighbors, this won't get better on it's own.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Re:The obvious concern: by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:31 · Score: 1

sheople
This word has only ever been used by those it describes. There has never been an exception.
Re:The obvious concern: by plover · 2013-01-23 07:54 · Score: 1

the US government has increased their requests by astronomical amounts
A 33% rise over one year is high, but certainly not astronomical (at least not by any measure we used in astronomy class.) The question is who and why. Is it more requests from local governments, or more from the FBI? Are they asking about local drug dealers, violent felons, drunken frat party pictures, or is it "did Abdul al Tikrit search for a copy of PowerPlantBlueprints.pdf?" Have they moved on to asking "what church does he belong to?" or "what political party does he donate to?"
I'd certainly like to know more before waking the neighbors.

--
John
Re:The obvious concern: by s.petry · 2013-01-23 10:43 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure that this one has an obvious answer. "what political party does he donate to?" It has become public information that Ron Paul supporters were put on DEA and DHS watch lists labelled as potential terrorists. I won't even get in to how the media treated anyone not in the "program", which by the way even my 12 year old nephew could notice.
I agree that we don't know what they are asking for, if that was your point. My point still stands, that we should be concerned and demanding clarity on who and why things are being asked for. As a bit of sarcasm, I don't believe that the open and honest government the establishment claimed to believe in would deny us.. Of course looking further, their actions don't match their rhetoric so we are fucked.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:The obvious concern: by plover · 2013-01-24 11:10 · Score: 1

"what political party does he donate to?" It has become public information that Ron Paul supporters were put on DEA and DHS watch lists labelled as potential terrorists.
That's an almost unbelievable accusation to simply take your word on. As it's public information, could you please post a citation for the Ron Paul donors ending up on a DHS watchlist? By citation, I don't mean an episode number of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or another Rupert Murdoch source, or an interview with a tea party fancier like Michelle Bachmann. I would need to see actual proof before I would believe such a claim. That proof would include the watch list in question, authenticated by the DHS, as well as a list of Ron Paul supporters.
Let's just say that outrageous claims like these need to meet an extremely high level of proof. Lacking such evidence, they sound very much like paranoid conspiracy theorist ravings, little more than echoes of Fox News beating the Scare Drum; and are completely devoid of merit.

--
John
Re:The obvious concern: by s.petry · 2013-01-28 06:03 · Score: 1

Those accusations are all searchable. In fact /. had a hefty discussion due to the article which revealed the collusion between DHS, FBI, Police and Banks within the last few weeks. The slander and libel in media was apparent to anyone that watched any of the numerous specials on the government controlled media depicting OWS as a bunch of potheads that only wanted handouts and never wanted to work. Every major network had at least one "special report". Nothing is hidden if you actively search.
For the Ron Paul watch list, search for Jesse Ventura and the same key words. You don't have to trust Ventura, but the stories will lead you to released reports and documents.
The New York Post a few months back had several reports indicating that it received approval from the Government for "any" article relating to Politics. I.E. Wars in foreign lands, taxes, election coverage, etc... When you see it in one, the bias in the others should be enough logical proof that the collusion is and has been occurring. I have yet to see any media outlet act in a way, or attempt to disprove their collusion.
Google still works last I checked, and you are asking way to much information to cite in a post.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... by Synerg1y · 2013-01-23 06:22 · Score: 1

If Google voluntarily encrypted messages between Google users (Gmail, GApps), and any message stored on their servers

He's talking about user to gmail server, https covers that. What you're talking about is something like pgp: http://www.instructables.com/id/Encrypt-your-Gmail-Email/ . Both users need it set up for it to work, but that's how encryption typically works, and it's there if you need it.

Re:Am I reading that correctly? by exploder · 2013-01-23 06:23 · Score: 1

So? Summary says they're "getting better at saying 'no'". Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit to make the point clearer: If 10 people ask me today and I say "no" to 5 of them, and then tomorrow 1000 people ask me, and I say "no" to 990 of them, then okay, I've said "yes" twice as many times today as I did yesterday. But I've most definitely gotten better at saying "no".

--
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD

Not all that useful by Lawrence_Bird · 2013-01-23 06:47 · Score: 1

Interesting on the face of it but without data by requesting agency it really doesn't tell us too much. Are most of the requests coming from municipal or state authorities? Federal? If the latter, which agencies? Short of a NSL they should have no legal problem providing that kind of summary info.

Re:Am I reading that correctly? by bluefoxlucid · 2013-01-23 06:47 · Score: 1

I knew a girl like that, she got better at saying no after college. So now only a small circle of her friends gets head constantly.

--
Support my political activism on Patreon.

Other? by ink · 2013-01-23 06:50 · Score: 1

What is the "other" category that the US government is using outside of search warrants or subpoenas?

--
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.

Define better. by Alsn · 2013-01-23 07:10 · Score: 1

While their compliance rate has indeed gone down, a 70% increase coupled with only 10 pp decrease mean that they actually comply with more requests. In fact, it works out to be a 15% increase in the total amount of requests that were complied with.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... by geminidomino · 2013-01-23 07:13 · Score: 1

No he's not. He said messages between "Google Users" and "Messages stored on their servers," which seems to pretty clearly put the context on message storage, not transport, which, again, is what SSL does.

And since we're talking about google-to-google communication, there are lots of ways that said encryption could be handled, with various levels of effectiveness against google/government intrusion (none of which really approach "good") with little user hassle.

1% for Russia by temcat · 2013-01-23 07:13 · Score: 1

As a Russian, I like it.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... by blueg3 · 2013-01-23 07:20 · Score: 1

No, it would just give you a false sense of security.

If Google does the encryption, then Google has the encryption keys. If an employee can access a user's e-mails, why wouldn't they be able to access the encryption key? (Or, to put it the other way: If you plan on protecting the user's privacy by not letting employees access the encryption keys, why not just use the same mechanism to not let the employees access the user's data, now? It's the same level of protection.)

Encryption isn't magic pixie dust that solves security and privacy problems.

According to the Weekly Standard by night_flyer · 2013-01-23 07:38 · Score: 1

Google Complies With Government Requests for User Data 88% of the Time

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/google-complies-government-requests-user-data-88-time_697551.html

--

Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...

Google is complying *more* now by Laxori666 · 2013-01-23 07:46 · Score: 1

Uhm, if the number of requests went up by 70%, and Google now complies with 66% of requests instead of 76%, that means they are now giving away 47.63% more data than in 2009.

What about the data google has by thetoadwarrior · 2013-01-23 07:56 · Score: 1

Google only wants to advertise the data the governments want to take people's eyes off how much data Google is collecting on people. At least governments are some what accountable to us.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... by Synerg1y · 2013-01-23 08:09 · Score: 1

Typically those that use pgp /any email encryption in their email communications have good reason to do so, typically related to security and sensitive data. If both google users set up pgp, they could do it, google setting up pgp by default has financial consequences & greatly affects the level of support required. Google even supporting pgp is a testament to this approach, and the correct implementation of pgp: by choice.

Re:Am I reading that correctly? by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-01-23 08:29 · Score: 1

This is more like the same girl going on almost 2X as many dates and only giving head to 50% as opposed to 75% of them, then saying she's become a more discriminating lover.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Check out Canada's request and compliance rate... by CCarrot · 2013-01-23 08:55 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that the request for Canadian data is so low (38 requests, vs. the US at 8,438 requests), and that even with this low request rate, the rate of compliance by Google for Canadian data requests is less than 25%...interesting indeed.

Maybe our government just hasn't heard of teh google yet? :)

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant

Re:Smokescreen to fool you by s.petry · 2013-01-23 11:04 · Score: 1

You do realize that your rhetoric is the easiest to spot, even by the mobs that can't critically think for themselves. You at least have to toss a strawman out there to make the ad hominem less obvious. Thanks for trolling though, good to see the noobs are out there trying.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Re:Check out Canada's request and compliance rate. by s.petry · 2013-01-23 11:08 · Score: 1

Partially due to population, that should be obvious. Also, Canada is already a socialist nation where the people have a laughable amount of control. I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a small strike in Canada. OWS and Teaparty type movements simply don't exist. What on earth does the Canadian Government have to worry about with Canadian citizens, compared to the US especially. The NWO took over Canada fully about 40 years ago. Long live the Queen eh?

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Not just warrants by Firethorn · 2013-01-23 11:25 · Score: 1

Warrants aren't the be all and end all of information requests. For example, in a civil suit you can't get a warrant for information, you file subpoenas for it. Some of the 'others' might just be for research purposes. Or the CIA asking for information.

That Google rejects nearly half of the requests, at least initially, I like because it indicates that Google isn't 'rolling over'. Police officers and other agencies don't actually need a warrant to simply ask - they need one to force.

For example, I could run a store and allow anybody with a badge to view my security camera footage without a warrant if I wanted. But I wouldn't be protecting my customer's privacy very well if I allowed that. I'd be being an obstructionist to the police though if I required a warrant for everything. Personally, if the police can provide sufficient justification to me, a private citizen, then I might let them see the footage even without a warrant - provided that their request is sufficiently narrow(We need to see Tuesday's footage between 1600 and 1615 of your outside lot - we think XYZ may have tried to escape through there during that time).

--
I don't read AC A human right

Re:Check out Canada's request and compliance rate. by CCarrot · 2013-01-24 03:07 · Score: 1

Partially due to population, that should be obvious. Also, Canada is already a socialist nation where the people have a laughable amount of control. I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a small strike in Canada. OWS and Teaparty type movements simply don't exist. What on earth does the Canadian Government have to worry about with Canadian citizens, compared to the US especially. The NWO took over Canada fully about 40 years ago. Long live the Queen eh?

Hmmm, you do seem to have some funny and completely inaccurate ideas about Canada.

A socialist nation? Because we have publicly funded healthcare, and don't let people just die in the street no doubt. Oh, and a stable banking system, let's not forget that. Although we did have those pesky OWS demonstrations too, as I recall. In fact, it was Canadians that started them (sad to say). And yes, our Unions are quite active, if maybe not quite as militant, as their counterparts are south of the border. You not hearing about strikes and labour actions speaks more to your listening skills outside your precious borders...

The population difference is only a multiplier of 10: i.e., the US has 10 times the population of Canada. Harder then to explain why there's over 200 times more requests logged from the American government, eh? Seriously, it's time you guys brought your government back in line down there :)

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant

Re:Check out Canada's request and compliance rate. by s.petry · 2013-01-28 06:16 · Score: 1

I don't disagree with your statement "Seriously, it's time you guys brought your government back in line down there :)", in fact I quite agree. I was just pointing out some of the obvious reasons for the discrepancies. Canada AFAIK is a Socialist nation, just like the UK is a Socialist nation. It's not just "national health care", there are numerous factors involved. Canada (and the UK), at least to the US has been Socialist since the Monarchies dissolved.

Media coverage for OWS in the US was abysmal for OWS in the US. Could be that same bias that prevents US Citizens from seeing more active social uprisings in Canada. At least, as I mentioned, anything beyond the Unions striking.

--

-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

Slashdot Mirror

Google Report Shows Governments Want More Private Data

65 of 89 comments (clear)