I have quite a lot more legal background than you, including arguing and winning cases based on, among other things, constitutional rights, which is why I don't have to do YOUR legwork, and not the other way around. I've paid my dues.
The best part is they'll also get a bill for $5 for the registration fee, + additional penalties and interest, which will probably bump it up to $3,294.42
Your premise raises the question: What exactly is the point of having an "advanced" civilization? Oh, sure, being able to colonize space is probably good to get in there, but besides that, why are we working towards this goal? I suggest "carnal desires" will figure somewhere or another. (In the meantime, they make decent incentives).
You never saw the original Star Trek? Where Kirk's mission was to boldly come where no man has come before? Green alien booty calls?
'virtually all the intellectual work that is done by trained human beings...can be done by computers for pennies an hour,"
If they're that intelligent, they'll want more money. They'll DEMAND more money. And for those who say AI don't need money.... if they're as intelligent as humans, they'll think of something to blow it on, same as humans do. I forsee a big market in dirty bits!
I guess you never heard of the concept of the "anonymity of the crowd." But to your point, what if it was someone else who posted the pictures? Unfair, but your adherence to "don't do anything that you don't want people to know about" policy would allow it.
They want to get into knowing where you are all the time - combine your mobile phone gps with mobile search and they can tell who you are with, where, etc., just by tying your mobile phones to the same location. The Nexus 1 etc. will allow them to do that. What, you thought google drive was free?
The law here pretty much requires those standards of privacy, and judges back it up with nice fines for offenders and punitive damages awarded to the victims whose private info has been leaked. They don't even have to hire a lawyer to sue - the province will do it for us if the offender doesn't make a satisfactory arrangement.
It's funny - Quebec used to be considered the boonies... now more and more, it's large chunks of the US that are looking like backwaters when it comes to people's rights. What happened? And why are so many people just sitting back and accepting it?
I don't get it... it's really, really disappointing. If this is the "new reality", I don't want it.
2. My hosting provider is local, governed by the same laws. The servers are local, governed by the same laws. No hypocritically-named PATRIOT Act here.
3. I don't do IM or chat.
4. Switching as many people as I know to encrypted email is on my TODO list for this year - thanks for the reminder.
That was the last time google didn't roll over - 4 years ago. A lot has happened since then. The wording is such that if they have a "reasonable belief" that the cops "could" get a warrant, they give the info. It's what their updated privacy policy says, so it allows for google to turn over data if an investigator says "I can always get a warrant..."
"Reasonable belief" is so broad that they might as well say "any dick with a badge who asks".
Imagine I knock at your door and tell you that I can find an answer to any question you ask and give you advice on anything. In exchange, every day I bring you the answer to something, it will be on a paper which has several ads related to what you asked. And that I could use your data for other statistical purposes
Would you want that service?
Google is using it for far more than statistical purposes. Statistical purposes don't require the retention of as much data as they retain, unanonymized, for as long as they retain it, which is the problem that leads to the requests for the information by govt in the first place.
And to answer your question, I removed google from my browsers list of search engines as one of my new years resolutions. They are the most invasive, so they get to go bye-bye.
They could clear it up simply by stating that they will only comply with documented lawful requests - a warrant - as required by that "piece of paper" known as the Constitution.
They don't because it's one more revenue stream for them.
If you're so sure you're right, send them an email and ask them if they ever turn over personal information without a warrant issued by a judge who has jurisdiction. They should welcome the chance to clarify things.
Things "you don't want anyone to know about" aren't the same as "things that are nobody's business" in that the first are generally things you are trying to hide to avoid potential consequences.
And if it's nobody's business, according to Schmidt, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Or do you now propose a "MYOB" bit be added to every TCP header?
I don't deal with Bell - I'm well aware of their continual screw-ups:-) Videotron *tried* to give out IP information without a warrant, and was barred from doing so by the courts. They got smacked down, they learned their lesson.
In the case you cite, the judgment was that the Ontario police were acting in good faith - but they did not have the right to the information. This doesn't create a precedent - to the contrary, they've now had their "one bite at the apple of good faith", and can no longer do warrantless fishing expeditions at Ontario ISPs claiming "in good faith", same as they can't in Quebec any more.
It would be VERY hard for someone to get the info, even with a warrant. The procedure is very simple - I take the warrant, draft up a motion for an injunction and damages, head downtown to the courthouse, talk to the "maitre de role" - the person who is i charge of what case is being heard where, find a judge who has 2 free minutes, get him to sign the injunction, if they don't like it, we have a hearing before the judge, I invoke the grounds. Lawyers charge big bucks for what any jerk with an hour or two and a word processor can do (I've filed dozens of motions, and when it comes time, I win, not because I'm good, but because I'm right. Pick your battles.:-)
"What if the warrant was issued by another jurisdiction?" you ask...
Then I throw scan it and post it on the Internet and tell the people involved to get a judge with jurisdiction to issue one.
"What if they phony up one?"
Then they're facing 2 years in jail for each count of uttering a forged document (that's in addition to criminal trespass).
No warrant, no search. 2 years ago the police had reports of a guy being shot and stuffed into the back of an SUV. They followed the SUV - the driver pulled into his house and parked in his garage. The police had to surround the place and wait half a day before a judge would authorize them to enter the house to search it for the perp and the body.
People don't care about privacy until they need it - then they care a LOT about it. I'm sure you have at least one piece of personal info you don't want posted all over the Internet. People want to be able to control their personal information that's why it's called "personal information" - it belongs to the person, not to google or whoever else is holding it "in trust", or more often, in violation of trust when there's a buck to be made.
Facebook USED to claim people don't want privacy. They found otherwise the hard way, when Canada told them to fix their site or else. Sanctions include fines paid to the victims on a per-offense basis, so it could have been VERY expensive for Facebook to ignore it. BTW, violation of the protection of the whistle-blowers section is a criminal offense. We take privacy seriously, and we recognize that whistle-blowers play an important part in keeping companies honest.
Privacy allows us to ask questions we wouldn't necessarily want to ask to the whole world. When people write to me privately about their transgender issues, do you think they want me posting it all over the net? Seriously... when a slashdotter or anyone else writes me that they're either [married | have kids | in a fundie church | work with rednecks | are republican] or any combination of those factors, and they have gender identity issues, they certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information.
It's one reason I don't regret that I dropped my US-based host - Canada == much better privacy legislation. It's also why the privacy policy doesn't mince words - I don't say "we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request" - which is google's way of saying "If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you." - it says "get a warrant"
Sharing of private data
3 words - "get a warrant.". Clear. Plain. Simple. Easy to understand. No weasel-words. Unequivocal.
Private data will not be shared with others, including government agencies and/or law enforcement, without a validly-issued warrant signed by a judge from a Canadian court.
"Requests" from outside Canada lack jurisdiction, even under "long-arm" statutes of countries like the United States, because transboutique.com is not a commercial site, so it fails to meet the "do significant business" requirement of the long-arm statute.
This is the only way to conform to Canadian privacy laws. A "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get a warrant is not enough.
Commercial sites could do the same - invoking the long-arm statute by a foreign commercial entity STILL requires a valid warrant.
No - but I want to see a future where "cloud computing" means everyone connected to everyone else, sharing what they want without some jerk in between trying to intrude on your and my civil rights.
Old news - for years, they don't even need a warrant, just a "reasonable expectation" that the requesting agency "could" get one if they had to. It's right there in their privacy policy. No mention of needing a warrant.
Don't laugh - I bought a 50" plasma TV and a nice surround-sound system last year... I might watch it two or three times a month (and there's been at least one month I didn't turn it on at all).
Read what he said - his exact words were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime...".
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business. Like what you watch on TV, or what you look at on the Internet, or who you had supper with, or your last meeting with your doctor or lawyer or clergycritter...
Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data.
And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.
But you regularly suck on the teat of that giant whore, yes?
One of my new years resolutions was to dump google. I removed them from the list of search engines in my browsers. I don't need gmail - I have 2 email accounts with my ISP and about a dozen others on my various domains, and I have a lot more storage space than google will ever give me. I've never used google docs. I don't want or need google gears. I switched away from openDNS. There are alternatives to google news, and google maps, and google whatever - there is not much they're doing that is unique. The only thing I'll check (through scroogle.org) is how they rank a site, vs the other search engines. If they were to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't need to do even that.
I simply don't trust them - at this point, I'd even trust Microsoft more.
It couldn't impact their pre-existing user base. Their user base already had 3.5 installed... and would mostly try out something on a spare computer before killing their main machine (or at least installing on a different drive or partition) All that happened was that some distros that didn't include both 3.5 and 4.0 side-by-side lost some of THEIR potential user base to other distros.
Slashdot Mirror
I have quite a lot more legal background than you, including arguing and winning cases based on, among other things, constitutional rights, which is why I don't have to do YOUR legwork, and not the other way around. I've paid my dues.
The best part is they'll also get a bill for $5 for the registration fee, + additional penalties and interest, which will probably bump it up to $3,294.42
Just have it screen "When Harry Met Sally".
On a side note - I had a friend who, as a joke, put that on their answering machine - and forgot to take it off after they finished pranking someone.
You never saw the original Star Trek? Where Kirk's mission was to boldly come where no man has come before? Green alien booty calls?
Why not help them out - register the governor, the congress-critters and senators, the local chiefs of police, etc.
Most people, when you point that out, go "No you can't!" .... then they think a bit and go "oh yeah, I never really noticed."
Or if it's raining outside, there's always Uranus.
If they're that intelligent, they'll want more money. They'll DEMAND more money. And for those who say AI don't need money .... if they're as intelligent as humans, they'll think of something to blow it on, same as humans do. I forsee a big market in dirty bits!
I guess you never heard of the concept of the "anonymity of the crowd." But to your point, what if it was someone else who posted the pictures? Unfair, but your adherence to "don't do anything that you don't want people to know about" policy would allow it.
They want to get into knowing where you are all the time - combine your mobile phone gps with mobile search and they can tell who you are with, where, etc., just by tying your mobile phones to the same location. The Nexus 1 etc. will allow them to do that. What, you thought google drive was free?
The law here pretty much requires those standards of privacy, and judges back it up with nice fines for offenders and punitive damages awarded to the victims whose private info has been leaked. They don't even have to hire a lawyer to sue - the province will do it for us if the offender doesn't make a satisfactory arrangement.
It's funny - Quebec used to be considered the boonies ... now more and more, it's large chunks of the US that are looking like backwaters when it comes to people's rights. What happened? And why are so many people just sitting back and accepting it?
I don't get it ... it's really, really disappointing. If this is the "new reality", I don't want it.
1. I don't use webmail.
2. My hosting provider is local, governed by the same laws. The servers are local, governed by the same laws. No hypocritically-named PATRIOT Act here.
3. I don't do IM or chat.
4. Switching as many people as I know to encrypted email is on my TODO list for this year - thanks for the reminder.
That was the last time google didn't roll over - 4 years ago. A lot has happened since then. The wording is such that if they have a "reasonable belief" that the cops "could" get a warrant, they give the info. It's what their updated privacy policy says, so it allows for google to turn over data if an investigator says "I can always get a warrant ..."
"Reasonable belief" is so broad that they might as well say "any dick with a badge who asks".
Thanks.
Google is using it for far more than statistical purposes. Statistical purposes don't require the retention of as much data as they retain, unanonymized, for as long as they retain it, which is the problem that leads to the requests for the information by govt in the first place.
And to answer your question, I removed google from my browsers list of search engines as one of my new years resolutions. They are the most invasive, so they get to go bye-bye.
They don't because it's one more revenue stream for them.
If you're so sure you're right, send them an email and ask them if they ever turn over personal information without a warrant issued by a judge who has jurisdiction. They should welcome the chance to clarify things.
And if it's nobody's business, according to Schmidt, you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Or do you now propose a "MYOB" bit be added to every TCP header?
I don't deal with Bell - I'm well aware of their continual screw-ups :-) Videotron *tried* to give out IP information without a warrant, and was barred from doing so by the courts. They got smacked down, they learned their lesson.
In the case you cite, the judgment was that the Ontario police were acting in good faith - but they did not have the right to the information. This doesn't create a precedent - to the contrary, they've now had their "one bite at the apple of good faith", and can no longer do warrantless fishing expeditions at Ontario ISPs claiming "in good faith", same as they can't in Quebec any more.
It would be VERY hard for someone to get the info, even with a warrant. The procedure is very simple - I take the warrant, draft up a motion for an injunction and damages, head downtown to the courthouse, talk to the "maitre de role" - the person who is i charge of what case is being heard where, find a judge who has 2 free minutes, get him to sign the injunction, if they don't like it, we have a hearing before the judge, I invoke the grounds. Lawyers charge big bucks for what any jerk with an hour or two and a word processor can do (I've filed dozens of motions, and when it comes time, I win, not because I'm good, but because I'm right. Pick your battles. :-)
"What if the warrant was issued by another jurisdiction?" you ask ...
Then I throw scan it and post it on the Internet and tell the people involved to get a judge with jurisdiction to issue one.
"What if they phony up one?"
Then they're facing 2 years in jail for each count of uttering a forged document (that's in addition to criminal trespass).
No warrant, no search. 2 years ago the police had reports of a guy being shot and stuffed into the back of an SUV. They followed the SUV - the driver pulled into his house and parked in his garage. The police had to surround the place and wait half a day before a judge would authorize them to enter the house to search it for the perp and the body.
No such situation exists - read your Constitution. No warrant, no search.
People don't care about privacy until they need it - then they care a LOT about it. I'm sure you have at least one piece of personal info you don't want posted all over the Internet. People want to be able to control their personal information that's why it's called "personal information" - it belongs to the person, not to google or whoever else is holding it "in trust", or more often, in violation of trust when there's a buck to be made.
Facebook USED to claim people don't want privacy. They found otherwise the hard way, when Canada told them to fix their site or else. Sanctions include fines paid to the victims on a per-offense basis, so it could have been VERY expensive for Facebook to ignore it. BTW, violation of the protection of the whistle-blowers section is a criminal offense. We take privacy seriously, and we recognize that whistle-blowers play an important part in keeping companies honest.
Privacy allows us to ask questions we wouldn't necessarily want to ask to the whole world. When people write to me privately about their transgender issues, do you think they want me posting it all over the net? Seriously ... when a slashdotter or anyone else writes me that they're either [married | have kids | in a fundie church | work with rednecks | are republican] or any combination of those factors, and they have gender identity issues, they certainly have a right to expect me NEVER to share their personal information.
It's one reason I don't regret that I dropped my US-based host - Canada == much better privacy legislation. It's also why the privacy policy doesn't mince words - I don't say "we release information if we have a reasonable expectation that the requesting party has made an enforceable request" - which is google's way of saying "If we think they COULD get a warrant, we'll roll over on you." - it says "get a warrant"
This is the only way to conform to Canadian privacy laws. A "reasonable expectation" that they "could" get a warrant is not enough.
Commercial sites could do the same - invoking the long-arm statute by a foreign commercial entity STILL requires a valid warrant.
No - but I want to see a future where "cloud computing" means everyone connected to everyone else, sharing what they want without some jerk in between trying to intrude on your and my civil rights.
Old news - for years, they don't even need a warrant, just a "reasonable expectation" that the requesting agency "could" get one if they had to. It's right there in their privacy policy. No mention of needing a warrant.
Don't laugh - I bought a 50" plasma TV and a nice surround-sound system last year ... I might watch it two or three times a month (and there's been at least one month I didn't turn it on at all).
Read what he said - his exact words were "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place,", not "If you're committing a crime ...".
Think of all the personal things you do every day that are just nobody's business. Like what you watch on TV, or what you look at on the Internet, or who you had supper with, or your last meeting with your doctor or lawyer or clergycritter ...
Schmidt thinks that your data, in his hands, is HIS data.
One of my new years resolutions was to dump google. I removed them from the list of search engines in my browsers. I don't need gmail - I have 2 email accounts with my ISP and about a dozen others on my various domains, and I have a lot more storage space than google will ever give me. I've never used google docs. I don't want or need google gears. I switched away from openDNS. There are alternatives to google news, and google maps, and google whatever - there is not much they're doing that is unique. The only thing I'll check (through scroogle.org) is how they rank a site, vs the other search engines. If they were to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't need to do even that.
I simply don't trust them - at this point, I'd even trust Microsoft more.
It couldn't impact their pre-existing user base. Their user base already had 3.5 installed ... and would mostly try out something on a spare computer before killing their main machine (or at least installing on a different drive or partition) All that happened was that some distros that didn't include both 3.5 and 4.0 side-by-side lost some of THEIR potential user base to other distros.