Google Says Privacy Is Bad For you

***Fundraising Time again - Well, here we are at our beginning deficit of $300 that we need to raise by the first of the month.   I don't feel so bad anymore, as I saw sites that are asking for  $3,000.  LOL   We pay all but the last $300 that we just don't have, so any help we can get from our readers is what keeps us going. If you feel you benefit in anyway from our work, then please help us out by donating off to the right of the blog toward our deficit.

Even  small donations are welcome since they definitely do add up and can help us through the hump, so please donate off to the right of the blog at the pay pal button, any amount you can afford, it all helps big time.

Bless you all for your support in so many ways.  We appreciate and value you tremendously.

Vatic Note:  I am waiting on some information before I condemn google, YET.  If it pans out then for sure I will jump on that band wagon, since they are an American company here in the USA, and that means, since they want to be treated as individuals when it comes to campaign contributions, then they should also be treated as individuals when it comes to committing treason.

Here is where I have a problem.  There was a falling out between the two google owners who are dual Israeli citizens and Schmidt who was their CEO.  He left and we don't know why, but this might help to clear it up.  He was the one that went to court to prevent complying with the FBI request for info on Individuals.  

He lost in court, he was also a Ron Paul supporter and behaved as anyone would who was a true patriot and against these police state tactics.  Now this CNBC owned by the neocons/neolib bankers through their corporations, are slandering him when he is not here to defend himself. I would need much more proof before accepting this since its coming from the MSM and anything from the MSM is suspect.  

I bet its the real owners saying all this and the press is pretending its Schmidt.  Like I said, I don't have any proof either way , so we will have to wait and stay vigilant with anything that comes out about this.  But the fact that other search engines are the same way, makes this almost moot. 

Google Says Privacy Is Bad For you

Jason Mick
From www.dailytech.com


Editors note: Mussolini defined fascism as the merger of the corporation and the state. Bear this in mind as you read the article below

Google Remarks anger many who are concerned with Google’s ever expanding influence  (VN: and their apparent movement toward the enemies of our country, I hope I am wrong, but ever since Schmidt left, its been strange to post here, to say the least.  This article blames Schmidt but he was the one that filed the refusal with the court to honor the FISA court warrants and the FBI letters, he also was a balant Ron Paul supporter to the point where he publically came out and said so.  Now all of a sudden he is gone as CEO.....so maybe he is being set up to take the heat off the two dual Israeli citizens that own the company.  Just saying..... wondering..... pondering......)

Corporate Controlled Internet

Google is stockpiling a wealth of user data.  With its search engine, its advertising services, its applications, its new free DNS service,and more, the company has an incredible perspective on exactly what users are looking at.  

Many fear that Google could abuse this information or allow it to be abused, either for profit or to prosecute citizens who aren’t necessarily guilty. In short, fears that “Big Brother is watching you” have been replace with fears that “Google is watching you”.

Google’s recently responded to such doubts, blasting those that would harbor them.  Google CEO Eric Schmidt commented to CNBC, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” 

He also admitted that Google does sometimes release its users’ private data, stating, “If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines – including Google – do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.” 

Taken by itself, this comment seems pretty reasonable.  Yahoo’s Law Enforcement guide offers similar comments, indicating that law enforcement officials must ask within 45 days and come bearing a 2703(d) order to access users’ instant messenger logs.  However, there is an expedited process if there’s “imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.”

The more troublesome comment is Mr. Schmidt’s indictment of those who wish privacy.  One must also consider Mr. Schmidt’s own demands for personal privacy.  Mr. Schmidt banned CNET, one of the top tech news sites on the web, from Google for an entire year for publishing information about the CEO, including his salary; his neighborhood, some of his hobbies and political donations.

Where did CNET find this info?  From none other than Google itself.

In total, the comments paint what is perhaps an alarming picture, when you consider that even large companies have been subject to hacks, data leaks, and subpoenas.  While some may indeed want to cover up their “evil” actions, others may seek privacy to hide persecution at work over medical conditions, or to protect their business from competitors who could seek to use inside info to gain an unfair advantage.  In short, while Mr. Schmidt may consider privacy a luxury a privacy that citizens don’t need, it’s essential to many.  (VN: and its a protected God Given right under our Constitution that cannot be overridden, by anyone.)

The CNBC‘s Maria Bartiromo, who has interviewed Mr. Schmidt before in the past, asks tough but fair questions, like “People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?”

Mr. Schmidt’s responses indicate a clear disregard for consumer privacy.  At the same time his company has fought deals like the Microsoft-Yahoo partnership complaining that they provide an unfair competitive advantage and possibly endanger consumers’ privacy.  And he has fought equally hard to protect his own privacy.

A clip of the interview can be viewed at Gawker.

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

No comments: