Plant Trees SF Events 2006 Archive: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Event

 
Amerikan fascists and games with google

Years ago I was in a night chat group that was far more like a think
tank.  We all shared much in common in the fact we saw the writing on
the wall.  We all saw the Bush regime as well as most of all the
Amerikan system as fascist.  So every night we did research, posts
and explored how "they" would complete the plan of global
domination.  We also talked about what we needed to do to survive and
eventually bring down fascism as well as other authoritarian systems.

One night we focused on how would "they" take over the internet.
Obviously the internet emerged out of the military-industrial complex
(specifically through the various research and accademic institutes),
but to much extent the genie was out of the bottle because of the
dotcom boom of the 90s (well at least that is what we assume).  Our
group concluded that if you wished to control the internet then all
you needed to do was control the search engines.  Search engines are
the normal means for people to get from one site to the other and
ofcourse the normal means to get information.  But if you could
control and weed out sites or simply not put them in the search or
put the sites that support your ideology as the top site everytime
then you could have an impact to the transfer of information.
Ofcourse since then there is googlewatch and other watch groups
(though keep in mind that the office of disinformation can also put
up watch sites).

So now google is in the news for several reasons.  First is that that
Gonzales is demanding a look into "hits" and other information so he
can continue his "crusade" on porn (I guess Jeff Gannon wants
Gonzales to weed out his competition or find more smut for Karl Rove
to use for blackmailing Republicans and Democrats).  The second news
is google stock is down after the news of the law suit (which means
Pat Robberson, Halliburton, Time-Warner, AOL, FoxNews and the other
Fascists can buy more stock and eventually secretly own it).

Third note is remember I posted months ago that the way "they" will
silence many anti-fascists will be in false child porn cases, but I
think the fascists will actually use this in two ploys.  One is to
secretly accuse or suggest that indiduals in power (police chiefs,
city officials, lower judges, governors and the like) so that the
accused will comply to the systematic crackdown.  Two is to bring up
accusations in public of anti-imperialist leaders or activists.
Systematically eleminating the "enemies of the state".  So I believe
the Corporatists are preparing for such a witch trial.  Plus if the
corporate media starts focusing on any opposition leader in  porn
scandal then CNN, Fox, MSNBC, NBC and all the other media-fascists
can play the story over and over and over (like the OJ trial or the
Peterson case) while the Bushite fascists do other acts under this
smoke screen.



Stories with URLs:

Google refuses White House search request

Simon Jeffery and agencies
Friday January 20, 2006


Google is resisting a White House subpoena to hand over the records
of the searches internet users are asking it to perform, it has
emerged.
The request was first made last summer, but when California-based
Google refused to comply, the US attorney general, Alberto Gonzales,
lodged papers with a federal judge in San Jose to enforce the order.

The White House argues that a list of all requests entered into its
search engine over a single week - which could span tens of millions
of queries - will help it build up a profile of internet use it needs
to defend an online pornography law.


It also wants a million randomly selected addresses from the index of
websites that Google searches.
The papers said Google's search record "would assist the government
in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users [and]
to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material
in the course of their searches".

The Bush administration insists it does not want to tie the search
requests to the person or computer that made them but the subpoena
has nevertheless raised serious privacy concerns.

Ashok Ramani, Google's lawyer, replied in a letter to the White House
that the internet giant - whose corporate motto is "Don't be evil" -
would not hand over its records.

"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to
reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a
perception that Google can accept."

He added that the subpoena also threatened to expose some of
Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets". Google is concerned that its
requests could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many
computers it uses. "This information would be highly valuable to
competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Mr
Ramani wrote.

Google's main competitors have complied with the White House
subpoena, according to the court papers. A spokeswoman for Yahoo!,
the second-placed search engine, said it did not consider the
request "a privacy issue" while MSN refused to comment on the White
House request. A statement merely said it worked "closely with law
enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested".
Google is one of the fastest growing companies of all time and its
booming advertising revenues turned a third-quarter profit of 215m
in 2005. The company's strength as an advertiser is that it knows
what people want because they tell them every time they use it.

As the world's dominant search engine, Google has built up valuable
records of the wants of internet users.

Pam Dixon, the executive director of the World Privacy Forum, told
the Associated Press that Google was right to resist the requests.

"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with
search engines for some time. Google should be commended for fighting
this."

She said she hoped the case would remind people to be careful when
they used search engines. "When you are looking at that blank search
box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt
you unless you take precautions," she said.

Privacy concerns in the US have been magnified by recent revelations
that the White House authorised eavesdropping on civilian
communications after 9/11 attacks without obtaining court approval.


found at http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1691273,00.html

Google shares fall 8.5%, largest one-day drop ever
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters)  Google (GOOG) shares tumbled more than 8.5%
Friday as smoldering concerns ranging from a sluggish sector outlook
to a legal spat with the U.S government burst into flames and helped
sparked a drop in broader U.S. markets.
"The most obvious reason were the mixed earnings results from Yahoo,"
Standard & Poor's analyst Scott Kessler said of Tuesday's
disappointing quarterly earnings report from Yahoo (YHOO).

Analysts said Yahoo's results suffered from higher investments in new
product development that pose the threat of mounting competition for
Google and other Web companies in the coming year. Google is due to
report its results in late January.

Shares of Google fell $36.98, or 8.5%, to $399.46, according to
preliminary calculations  their sharpest daily fall. Combined with
declines earlier in the week, Google had its worst weekly decline,
having lost 12.8% since Tuesday.

"We are seeing a little bit of a rush to the exits," said Herb
Kurlan, president of Vtrader, an online trading company in San
Francisco.

Google stock on Tuesday was trading at $470, representing a roughly
450% rise since its initial public offering in August 2004. "It was
just a matter of time before there was some consolidation of these
gains," Kessler said.

Kessler and analyst Scott Devitt of Stifel Nicolaus both downgraded
Google shares to rare "sell" ratings this week, among the negative
factors that may only now be figuring into the market's sharp
reaction.

The accelerating decline of Google stock Friday eventually pulled
down the whole Internet stock sector, and the broader Nasdaq 100
index with it.

Another issue is the brewing controversy between Google and the U.S.
Justice Department. Google is resisting a request by the government
for Web search data to help the United States make its case in
support of a federal online pornography law.

"There are potentially concerns that Google could be in the cross-
hairs of the Justice Department," Kessler said.

"Investors are worried about interest rates and inflation and they
felt technology stocks like Google, Apple, Yahoo and others were able
to withstand these kinds of pressure. But now that ability is in
doubt," Kurlan said.

found at http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2006-01-
20-google-shares_x.htm


Google, Yahoo, MSN Subpoenaed In Anti-Porn Effort


By Antone Gonsalves, TechWeb News
3:03 PM EST Thu. Jan. 19, 2006
Three of four major search engines subpoenaed by the Bush
administration have acknowledged that they handed over search data in
the government's efforts to revive an anti-porn law that was rejected
by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Microsoft Corp., which owns MSN, Yahoo Inc. and America Online Inc.
said they sent data to the government, but insisted no personal
information on users was given to government attorneys. The exception
among major search engines was Google Inc., which said it
would "vigorously" fight the government's requests.

The government had asked Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., for
a broad amount of data, including a million random Web addresses and
records of Google searches over any week, the Associated Press
reported. The information came from U.S. Justice Department papers
filed Wednesday in a San Jose, Calif., federal court.

Microsoft, Redmond, Wash., Yahoo, Sunnyvale, Calif., and AOL, Dulles,
Va. unit of Time Warner Inc., said they provided the data without
handing over personal information on subscribers.

"We did comply with their request for data in regards to helping
protect children in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy
of our customers," MSN spokesman Adam Sohn said in a statement. "We
were able to share aggregated query data, not search results, that
did not include any personally identifiable information at their
request."

A Yahoo spokeswoman said, "In our opinion, this is not a privacy
issue."

"We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally
identifiable information," spokeswoman Mary Osako said in an email.

An AOL spokesman said Friday the company did not provide any
information that wasn't already available on the Web.

"We did not comply with the request made in the subpoena," spokesman
Andrew Weinstein said. "Instead, we gave the Department of Justice a
list of aggregate anonymous search terms that did not include results
or any personally identifiable information."

The high court ruled two years ago that the 1998 Child Online
Protection Act requiring adults to use access codes or register with
a site before receiving adult material violated free speech. The
court also ruled that filtering software was adequate to protect
children. Administration lawyers are hoping that the search data will
help convince a Pennsylvania federal court that technology is doing
an inadequate job, the AP said.

Google said that it was not a party to the government's legal action,
and felt the Justice Department was going too far in its requests.

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for
information overreaches," Nicole Wong, Google associate general
counsel, said in a statement. "We had lengthy discussions with them
to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist
their motion vigorously."

At least one search expert argued that the government could test
whether children can get pornography through search engines, without
seeking such a huge amount of data from search engines.

"If you want to measure how much porn is showing up in searches, try
searching for it yourself rather than issuing privacy alarm sounding
subpoenas. It would certainly be more accurate," Danny Sullivan,
editor for Search Engine Watch, said Thursday in his Web log.

While it appeared the government was not seeking personal data that
would identify individuals, there was still reason for concern,
Sullivan said.

"Nothing suggests that they wanted to know who did the searches in
any way," Sullivan said. "Having said this, such a move absolutely
should breed some paranoia. They didn't ask for data this time, but
next time, they might."

Sullivan also noted that the government-requested data could also be
obtained through Internet service providers.

found at 
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=177102200
<http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=177102200>
For updates and info, contact scott at planttrees dot org.