Google Gives the US Government Access To Gmail 445
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."
Re:Though I should have done this a while ago... (Score:4, Informative)
Or even better, use www.scroogle.org
Re:You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:5, Informative)
Look, it doesn't matter who or where you are. The government has bigger guns than you.
Fixed.
Re:Anonymous Coward (Score:2, Informative)
Isn't it a shame that Google, once regarded as a leader in privacy, seems to have gone and sold its soul? "Don't Be Evil" seems to be more and more fluid in its meaning, and suddenly Google is looking like another Microsoft. What happened to "The Good Guys"? I'll be sure to cancel my gmail account very soon, such a shame.
Google has never been leader of privacy. "Don't Be Evil" is PR. Google is a marketing company - to begin with your privacy is gone. Microsoft is at least selling you software and has no reason to violate your privacy. The Good Guys? They developed Google and started making money. And you know, Google is a publicly traded company with shareholders who can tell the company to do anything they like.
Nice headline, Trollitor (Score:2, Informative)
Being intentionally vague about whether they share data is not the same thing as "Giving the US Government Access to Gmail"
Re:Though I should have done this a while ago... (Score:4, Informative)
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 [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 [prq.se] too.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:1, Informative)
There are private security forces, private mercenaries, and private bounty hunters that everyone uses, including the government, both overseas and in the States. I think the issue is pretty clear as "yes".
Re:You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Kills any business use (Score:1, Informative)
As I understand it the commercial offering allows you to host your own server.
They might have a back-door in, but exchange is just as likely to have such a backdoor.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Informative)
There's actually no rule for how a court comes up with its own decisions; at least none with the force of law. Stare decisis is a principle, but whether or not previous decisions by a given court are repeated (or even applicable to the case at hand) is left to the discretion of the individual judge(s) or justice(s). Honestly, as much as it's held to be a sacred standard, it's even more of a de facto description of the behavior of the courts than anything. A court does not wantonly change its methods unless there is good reason to do so, but that's typical human behavior anyway (we don't normally change our reasoning unless we have good reason to do so) and in any event, "good reason" is subjective; not objectively disprovable. Lower courts are, of course, "mandated" to follow the precedents set by their superior counterparts, but since each case is unique, there is still room for discretion.
As for the text of the law, even Justice Scalia, a devout textualist, strays from his strict adherence when he believes the law is in error. In other words, the law is more than the text itself. The extent to, and circumstances under, which external factors apply is a matter of ongoing debate. Indeed, the idea that it could ever be fully settled both conflicts with the reality of human nature to meddle, and implies that the law will, at some point, be "finished," which is comedic.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Informative)
I joined the Tea Party protests in December 2008
It's probably worth noting, just for the record, that the Tea Party protests/movement started in January 2009 at the earliest. You may have been protesting back in December 2008, but it wasn't the Tea Party.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:2, Informative)
SCOTUS can justify overturning the DC handgun ban without citing precedence or any case law
Really?
I don't give two shits whether you ban firearms, I don't and never will own any, but the the only body not providing citations is yours.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-290&friend=usatoday [findlaw.com]
They cite:
- The Constitution of the United States
They reference previous case law as not counter indicating:
- United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553
- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265
- United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174
The held points:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.
This issue is cut and dry. Our right to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the constitution. There are limits to this right, but you can't just ban handguns cause you think they are dangerous. Sorry. If you don't like it, you need enough votes to amend the constitution.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Informative)
Harry Reid and Joe Biden were two of the biggest supporters of warrantless wiretaps. Biden loves to brag that he pushed for them after the Oklahoma City bombings, long before anyone else.
Obama voted for the FISA bill, and extended the warrantless wiretaps.
Both parties have voted for warrantless wiretaps.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Informative)
Has that been tested in court yet? ISTR some speculation about encryption keys being analogous to safe keys, where you cold make them try to break the encryption but they could charge you with an obstruction-related offence (although depending on what your emails were, that might be worthwhile. Also, for sent emails, you wouldn't be able to give up the key, and there are AFAIK (IANAL) no laws in the US requiring you to keep keys (although keeping the emails without the keys would be suspicious).
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Informative)
Which weapons? If the supreme law gives the right to own weapons manufactured at the time it was passed, so be it
No. The 2nd amendment protects those weapons "in common use at the time" U.S. v. Miller (1939) and those weapons that are "part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" U.S. v. Miller (1939)
If your implication is that that supreme law gives people the right to hoard nuclear or biological weapons
No. Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons are not in common use at this time, are not part of ordinary military equipment and it would be difficult to argue that its posession by an individual could conceivably contribute to the common defense.