They didn't have to cooperate, they could have forgone the business which would have caused internal pressure against the censorship. With this acquiescence to the censorship, they have not only facilitated the destruction of freedom of speech, but endoresed it. All for money. Please see the example in my other post.
No, because they did. Complicity with the Chinese government to censor is exactly that. There was no "goalpost moving" here. They sold out their so called values along with freedom of speech.
I recall that there is at least an exception to that for a donation of stock -- you can take the higher value without having to pay tax on the increase in value of the stock. If you're serious, obviously consult a tax advisor:).
. . . with the potential to prolong many lives -- except that insurance companies will use the information to deny coverage, making it impossible for those identified to afford care.
Not to mention that there's a tax deduction for the value of the footballs donated -- which you can bet will be set at the auction price the charity gets, not by the purchase price for the football.
Wouldn't it be required in order for them to take a deduction exceeding the $20 or so they actually paid for the football, for them to declare the difference between that $20 and the charity auction price as income, making it a wash?
Thanks -- the Data Privacy legislation is the EU version and the Data Protection Act is the UK version. Still no instructions on how to request your data or correct it, as you noted. That's because they're non-compliant, even though the Googlepoligists seem to be quite in denial about that.
You're kidding, right? Not offering any service would have been the morally correct thing to do -- collaborating with the dictators to "ensure access for the Chinese people" (i.e. ensure ad sales within China) isn't a noble choice. I suppose next you'll say it's okay because someone else would have come in with a censored search engine.
Point taken with regard to the Ministry of Truth--but I submit that selective censorship of information is the practical equivalent of twisting it. Hiding one viewpoint isn't much different than spinning another.
Google would have committed stock price suicide if they publically turned over those records. And the Chinese privacy issue is more likely about cost than principle. You'll have to do better than that to convince the enlightened that "Do no evil" is anything more than (now quite unconvincing) marketing-speak.
The EU Act is called the Data Privacy Act, which is implemented by the UK Data Protection Act. Spouting off when you don't seem to really know what you're talking about is mind bogglingly stupid, to use your words. I guess I can't blame you for trying to go for the quick nitpick, shame you're wrong.
I googled for "Data Privacy Act" on google.co.uk (anonymously, of course) -- there's no mention. Don't you think that if they were complying, they might provide information on how UK citizens can request and correct their information?
I'm making no such claim, only that Google won't comply in one instance. Surely you can produce one example of their compliance. If you can't, then just concede already.
Oops--I didn't mean the EUCD (DMCA-style legislation purchased by the copyright cartel) but rather the UK Data Protection act. Please make the appropriate pen and ink change in the above post.
Right--I don't remember who said it, but someone referred to Google's search history data as a "database of intentions." It was sometime around then that I started anonymizing my access to the Internet to the extent practical. I don't want the (example) fact that I was curious about eco-terrorism to make me a suspect in a fur-vandalism case or worse sometime down the road.
No, all it took was their complicity with an oppressive regime in censoring their subjects' access to the Internet. The hypothetical was merely an illustrative tool that seems to have failed to enlighten you. Please post back with evidence that Google has complied with the EUCD on an individual EU citizen's request when you find it--until then, it's not even completely a hypothetical.
I'll concede to you when the OP or another UK citizen posts that Google has complied by supplying him or her with all the information they hold on him or her, individually, and provides him or her with the opportunity to correct it. I'm not holding my breath.
Splitting that hair doesn't make Google innocent of complicity with an oppressive regime. It's as if George Orwell's publisher published a PRC-friendly version of 1984 without all the obvious parallels to the government for use in China and excused themselves because the government was confiscating and burning the original version.
Bottom line: Google sold out freedom of speech for cash, no matter what contorted logic they and their apologists use to try to absolve them from the justifiable blame associated with having done so. Google is China's willing Ministry of Truth.
The power for the government with respect to search histories is that they've been compiled without the users' having realized they might be turned over to the government, RIAA, lawyers, et al. But now that awareness of this has increased, the use of search histories as a surveillance tool is going to decrease dramatically, as people will realize their searches are visible through the electronic fishbowl and think at least twice before searching for anything that would reflect badly on them. This is doubly true in your described scenario of a daily feed to the Feds.
It's possible that such a handover has been happening all along, in secret--the whole Justice department porno search flap might only be a smokescreen to make people think this isn't the case.
and not taking the easily available countermeasures (e.g. TOR, JAP) is playing with fire. But this isn't necessarily bad news for Google--if they can charge a "reasonable fee," they could make complying with subpoenas from prosecutors on fishing expeditions, the entertainment cartel, and divorce attorneys into a profit center!
What do you bet that if you invoked this, Google would say "But we're not a UK company!" Of course, when it comes to appeasing the ChiComs for a shot at the billion-enslaved-Chinese market, "We have to comply with Chinese law because we do business in China."
Google's "Don't be evil" veneer has worn off even quicker than I expected.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't have to cooperate, they could have forgone the business which would have caused internal pressure against the censorship. With this acquiescence to the censorship, they have not only facilitated the destruction of freedom of speech, but endoresed it. All for money. Please see the example in my other post.
Well, that explains how then--I should have checked the date!
No, because they did. Complicity with the Chinese government to censor is exactly that. There was no "goalpost moving" here. They sold out their so called values along with freedom of speech.
I recall that there is at least an exception to that for a donation of stock -- you can take the higher value without having to pay tax on the increase in value of the stock. If you're serious, obviously consult a tax advisor :).
. . . with the potential to prolong many lives -- except that insurance companies will use the information to deny coverage, making it impossible for those identified to afford care.
Awesome. How I got through the 80s without having seen that, I don't know, but thanks!
Wouldn't it be required in order for them to take a deduction exceeding the $20 or so they actually paid for the football, for them to declare the difference between that $20 and the charity auction price as income, making it a wash?
Oh, wee. Apple's own apps are supported. Well, that's 50% of the "high end" software manufacturers that support the Mac.
Nice :). But wouldn't however he walked have been walking like an Egyptian, by definition?
Thanks -- the Data Privacy legislation is the EU version and the Data Protection Act is the UK version. Still no instructions on how to request your data or correct it, as you noted. That's because they're non-compliant, even though the Googlepoligists seem to be quite in denial about that.
You're kidding, right? Not offering any service would have been the morally correct thing to do -- collaborating with the dictators to "ensure access for the Chinese people" (i.e. ensure ad sales within China) isn't a noble choice. I suppose next you'll say it's okay because someone else would have come in with a censored search engine.
Point taken with regard to the Ministry of Truth--but I submit that selective censorship of information is the practical equivalent of twisting it. Hiding one viewpoint isn't much different than spinning another.
Google would have committed stock price suicide if they publically turned over those records. And the Chinese privacy issue is more likely about cost than principle. You'll have to do better than that to convince the enlightened that "Do no evil" is anything more than (now quite unconvincing) marketing-speak.
The EU Act is called the Data Privacy Act, which is implemented by the UK Data Protection Act. Spouting off when you don't seem to really know what you're talking about is mind bogglingly stupid, to use your words. I guess I can't blame you for trying to go for the quick nitpick, shame you're wrong.
I googled for "Data Privacy Act" on google.co.uk (anonymously, of course) -- there's no mention. Don't you think that if they were complying, they might provide information on how UK citizens can request and correct their information?
I'm making no such claim, only that Google won't comply in one instance. Surely you can produce one example of their compliance. If you can't, then just concede already.
Oops--I didn't mean the EUCD (DMCA-style legislation purchased by the copyright cartel) but rather the UK Data Protection act. Please make the appropriate pen and ink change in the above post.
Right--I don't remember who said it, but someone referred to Google's search history data as a "database of intentions." It was sometime around then that I started anonymizing my access to the Internet to the extent practical. I don't want the (example) fact that I was curious about eco-terrorism to make me a suspect in a fur-vandalism case or worse sometime down the road.
No, all it took was their complicity with an oppressive regime in censoring their subjects' access to the Internet. The hypothetical was merely an illustrative tool that seems to have failed to enlighten you. Please post back with evidence that Google has complied with the EUCD on an individual EU citizen's request when you find it--until then, it's not even completely a hypothetical.
I'll concede to you when the OP or another UK citizen posts that Google has complied by supplying him or her with all the information they hold on him or her, individually, and provides him or her with the opportunity to correct it. I'm not holding my breath.
Bottom line: Google sold out freedom of speech for cash, no matter what contorted logic they and their apologists use to try to absolve them from the justifiable blame associated with having done so. Google is China's willing Ministry of Truth.
It's possible that such a handover has been happening all along, in secret--the whole Justice department porno search flap might only be a smokescreen to make people think this isn't the case.
and not taking the easily available countermeasures (e.g. TOR, JAP) is playing with fire. But this isn't necessarily bad news for Google--if they can charge a "reasonable fee," they could make complying with subpoenas from prosecutors on fishing expeditions, the entertainment cartel, and divorce attorneys into a profit center!
Google's "Don't be evil" veneer has worn off even quicker than I expected.
Teoma serves Google ads--I wouldn't be too confident that using Teoma constitutes avoiding Google profiling.