All Hail Google!

Re: All Hail Google!

It will be a sad day if Google does turn over client information to
the government. I think users, if they care, will start using
different search engines like Yahoo, Altavista, or Zeal. Or better
yet, people will start using IP masks for anonymous web browsing.

For those that continue to use Google, it looks like there will also
be a Google calendar so that you can let the government know where
you will be in the future.

http://www.paulstone.net/google_links_and_calendar

That's if the justice department does get hold of client information.

Bo
--- In spiers@yahoogroups.com, "John Spiers" wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I think Google is doing well and doing good, by not cooperatng
with the US Government, and
> cooperating with the Chinese government. Leave it to a Russian
kid to get it right in USA.
>
> Here is the problem: the justice department wants a private
company (Google) to turn over
> trade secrets and client information so the justice department can
go on a fishing expedition
> for criminals. UnAmerican!
>
> China is making a mistake by limiting access to the internet for
its citizens. We are in
> competition with China, so we ought to be happy to let them make
mistakes. Calls for
> Google to somehow cause China to do what is right are misplaced,
beside the fact that China
> is China's business, not ours.
>
> This reminds me of the do-gooders who want to pass a law everytime
big biz exploits
> consumers. Recall the demand to get banks to stop gouging ATM
users. Why should govt
> stop bad bank behaviour? If it is bad, it leaves an opening for
someone to come in and do
> good. Washington Mutual capitalized on the fee bandits by makng
WAMU ATM's fee-free and
> thereby stealing customers and punishing the fee bandit banks. Go
USA!
>
> A more intriguing reason why China wants to limit access to google
has to do with...well...
> you read... this is rather over my head...
>
>
> China, Google, and press spin
>
> 7 September 2002
> China's recent blocking of Google and AltaVista has us asking
whether they might be doing it
> for reasons that have not been mentioned in the press.
>
> Our proxy has not been blocked. We wonder who will block us first -
- China or Google, Inc.?
> The former because we're a back door to Google's index, or the
latter because our interface is
> ad-free and unauthorized by Google?
>
> U.S. intelligence agencies have recently shown a great deal of
interest in Internet surveillance.
> One thrust of this is determining geolocation from IP number.
Currently this is about 80
> percent effective in fixing the IP number to a major city, and
over 90 percent in fixing it to a
> country.
>
> Another important aspect is the search terms used to query search
engines. These terms are
> absolute pearls; they are a succinct window into the Internet
user's interests and state of
> mind at a particular point in time. Cluster analysis that uses
geolocation along with search
> terms would provide an insight into a society and its
subcultures.
>
> Chinese officials may be worried that Google logs all search
terms together with the IP
> number, a time stamp, a unique cookie ID, and browser information.
If this information is
> available to the National Security Agency from Google -- and
current U.S. laws almost require
> Google to provide this information to the feds, especially when
the Internet user is a non-U.S.
> citizen in a country that's of national security interest to the
U.S. -- then China may be well-
> advised to block the use of U.S. engines to protect their own
national security.
>
> The NSA, if it gets this information straight from Google, is
operating at a level of efficiency
> much greater than Chinese officials themselves, who must intercept
and collate such
> information by monitoring the packet stream. This puts the NSA at
a tremendous advantage
> in determining where pro-U.S. sentiment may exist in China.
>
> The privacy policies of search engines generally do not cover
items such as IP number
> storage, and storage of search terms. In the case of portals that
use Google results, it is
> important to know whether the portal forwards the IP number to
Google along with the
> search terms. We've asked this question of several portals, and
received a reply only from
> Netscape, which said that they do not forward the IP number to
Google.
>
> Journalists interested in privacy can provide a service by asking
search engines and portals
> about the user data they collect. When engines fail to reveal
this, then they should at least
> allow proxies and meta-engines to access their index as a matter
of policy and convenience
> to Internet users around the world. We hope our proxy can continue
to operate, both in China
> and in the U.S.
>
>
> Geolocation links:
>
> Washington Post article on geolocation from IP number
> Digital Envoy
> GeoIP by MaxMind
> Google searches are geolocated on the fly (Wired, May, 2003)
>
>
> News item: "The winner of the 2002 Google programming contest and
the $10,000 prize was
> Daniel Egnor. Egnor's winning project allows users to search web
pages based on locale.
> Egnor took street addresses, converted them to latitude and
longitude coordinates, and then
> created a location index. The result was a system that allows
users to focus keyword searches
> to an area of a specific location."
>
> Bottom line: Geolocation is neither fad nor fantasy. It's
something that must be considered
> when evaluating the behavior of major Web players.
>
> Update, March 2003: We still don't know the story behind China's
blocking and unblocking of
> Google. It may be that Google's acute interest in geolocation by
IP number is designed
> primarily to sell more ads in more markets. In an article by Josh
McHugh ("Google vs. Evil,"
> Wired Magazine, January 2003), several paragraphs imply that
Google worked out some sort
> of secret deal with Chinese authorities:
> Brin was no expert on international diplomacy. So he ordered a
half-dozen books about
> Chinese history, business, and politics on Amazon.com and splurged
on overnight shipping.
> He consulted with Schmidt, Page, and David Drummond, Google's
general counsel and head
> of business development, then put in a call to tech industry
doyenne Esther Dyson for advice
> and contacts. Google has no offices in China, so Brin enlisted go-
betweens to get the
> message to Chinese authorities that Google would be very
interested in working out a
> compromise to restore access. "We didn't want to do anything
rash," Brin says. "The situation
> over there is more complex than I had imagined."
>
> Four days later, Chinese authorities restored access to the site.
How did that happen? For
> starters, the Chinese government was deluged with outcries from
the nation's 46 million
> Internet users when access to Google was cut off. "Internet users
in China are an apolitical
> crowd," says Xiao Qiang, executive director of New York-based
Human Rights In China. "They
> tend to be people who are doing well, and they don't usually voice
strong views. But this
> stepped into their digital freedom."
>
> The quick workaround: Chinese authorities tweaked the national
firewall, making the new
> Google China different from the site that was turned off. Today,
Chinese who use Google to
> search on terms like "falun gong" or "human rights in china"
receive a standard-looking
> results page. But when they click on any of the results, either
their browsers are redirected to
> a blank or government-approved page, or their computers are
blocked from accessing
> Google for an hour or two. "They have a new mechanism that can
block the results of certain
> searches," Brin says. Did Google help China find or obtain the
filtering technology? "We didn't
> make changes to our servers" is all he'll say.

Bookmark this post --- Email this post