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."
Google oogles you (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:4, Interesting)
SCOTUS is supposed to hold the law as written in higher regard than previous ruling on it.
Otherwise none [wikipedia.org] of [wikipedia.org] the [wikipedia.org] terrible [wikipedia.org] supreme [wikipedia.org] court [wikipedia.org] decisions [wikipedia.org] could ever be overturned.
Re:Though I should have done this a while ago... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would you do that? Where are you going to go that the government kind use a legal means to get your data?
Do you connect to the internet? then you connect to a service that the government can legal get data from.
Based on you post, I would say you have neither a bookshelf or a diploma.
Kills any business use (Score:3, Interesting)
Last year Google gave a presentation to the government I work for (which is not in the US). They made a big pitch as a sizable part of that presentation to try to convince us to move off Exchange and to the commercial Gmail offering. There's some pretty good reasons why that's a good idea.
Unfortunately, stuff like this kills the idea entirely. There is absolutely no sales pitch that will convince people here that we really want to turn over our government email to the US government. (Hell, with the way things are going now we don't even allow people to take laptops with anything on them across the border, even if they're encrypted.)
Re:Ask Eric Schmidt (Score:2, Interesting)
I do actually [cnet.com] think so [techdirt.com]. These ISP's clear your traffic data and have gone to court to defend your privacy and won. Some mail providers do the same, and some utilize encryption so that they wouldn't even have access to your emails even if they needed to.
Re:You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do corporations have the right to bear arms?
(Half-joking, but I believe the question is actually not settled, and not really litigated. 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.)
Re:You can't fight a subpoena. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet when I do the same it's "Europeans spew vitriol against America."
You've also suffered a rather critical observation failure if you're comparing the EU to US Government. EU is completely unable to force anyone do anything, due to not having any military forces. Unlike the US, we're a group of independent nations with our own militaries; if a member state decides to ignore a decision the EU can threaten, it can sanction, it can make a lot of noise, but ultimately it simply cannot coerce. One of the things we really should decide is whether to go the path of a true Federation, or remain as a loose trade alliance; however, as it is, a member state can for all intents and purposes nullify any decision it doesn't like.
Since you missed this kind of basic thing, your observations really aren't worth much.
I have not done so. I have pointed out a conflict in your posts. If you wish to read "implications" to that then that's your problem..
Drawing this conclusion from "implications" you project to other people's posts is indicative of rather severe paranoia.
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Interesting)
Otherwise none of the terrible supreme court decisions could ever be overturned.
I find it interesting that you include two cases that haven't yet been overturned in your links, namely Wickard v. Filburn and Kelo v. New London. While Kelo, even though a horrible idea from a moral standpoint, could potentially be viewed as a reasonable interpretation of the law by some (the Fifth Amendment doesn't really say anything about when or why eminent domain could happen, only that one must be justly compensated when it does), Wickard is just a ridiculous abuse of law that has remained in effect for almost 70 years.
For those who don't know, Wickard is essentially the case that makes it right for the federal government to do just about anything in the name of "interstate commerce." In the ruling, a farmer who grew food on his own land for the consumption of his own family and his own animals was ordered by the federal government to destroy that food. Why? Because, by not buying food from local merchants, he somehow was participating in "interstate commerce," which the federal government has the power to regulate under the Constitution. If someone can ever explain to me the convoluted logic, not to mention the crazy moral position, that makes anyone think this is a just and fair ruling....
And yet, Wickard is what allows the federal government to do much of its work, including, for example, the recent health care stuff. And yet all of this power in the federal government is based on a case involving a horrific abuse of power. If the government can decide not to allow you to grow your own food to feed your own family, what can't it do?
Re:If not China, why US? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end it's all the same.
What exactly is 'all the same' between Chiba and the USA?
Like many people who sense that something is very wrong, you fail to articulate what it is.
What's wrong with the US and China is that they are both run by criminal organizations called 'states'.
Murray Rothbard explains what the state is and why it it's illigitimate wherever it runs; his book 'For a new Liberty' is a good place to start.
The state is the source of the majority of the social problems faced by humans. That is the unthinkable and unsayable truth, made so by very efficient education in state schools.