Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Internet Privacy

Shamrock
January 30th, 2006, 05:07 PM
My hubby and I were discussing the controversy surrounding Google's refusal to turn over it's Search records as requested.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/

Though the issue being tackled is one of great concern to anyone, I am bothered by the "big-brother" concept of this endeavor.

My phone conversations would be as boring as my search records, but I wouldnt wanting anyone tapping my phone lines as part of a mass-screening to look for illegal activity.

My hubby disagrees, feels the end justifies the means - people with nothing to hide shouldnt object.

Others say there is no such thing as internet privacy..tracking and hacking are a fact of internet use.

Perhaps "surveillance" of varying types has just become a part of society today.

Though a U.S matter in the legal sense - what do you feel about this in "general"?.

Is the internet as a medium an area where we should not expect complete confidentialilty?

jjgeonerd
January 30th, 2006, 06:24 PM
I agree with you and google.

jawert1
January 30th, 2006, 07:07 PM
i'm still in a state of rage over the RIAA suing ppl for downloading music (if they had a real leg to stand on, they'd be arresting, not suing) because ISP's have turned over info to them. the us government is no different, and also gets another portion of my rage. unfortunately, they feel justified, have spat on the bill of rights in the name of safety, and created an entire society full of fear willing to turn over life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness whenever the terror rainbow goes up a color (pathetic). i worked for earthlink when the FBI installed the carnivore boxes (1999-2000) and knew then that no matter what rights we THOUGHT we had in those early days of internet, they did not really exist. i hate to sound alarmist, but this is only going to continue to get worse, so much so that soon, anyone with a shred of free thought and dissent (though constitutionally protected) will become an enemy of the state. already happening on a smaller scale, so ya know what, i have nothing to hide and i DO mind being snooped on, or told what to do or not do with my body, or have my insurance rates RAISED because of something on my credit report.

Prin
January 30th, 2006, 09:33 PM
I think we are entitled to privacy from the companies we associate with. I was so proud of Costco for standing up for us and not giving the BC government the client list from an Alberta store near the BC border. I expect that privacy from every company I work with. If google wants my business, they have to respect me at least a little bit in return.

Schwinn
January 31st, 2006, 10:12 AM
I personally couldn't care less about my personal info (minus the obvious, like credit cards and such). Mrs Schwinn is completly opposite of me (I've been told that I can not put her picture on my website, and Gracie is verboten after one year). Sometimes she's so secrative with people about personal info, I've accused her of thinking she's in the CIA.

That being said, the possibility of searches being used for investigations does bother me. While I agree, extraordinary measures should be taken to protect the vunerable, it could easily become a witch hunt. I volunteer with Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, and I'm highly sensitive to child pornography and pedophiles, yet I don't think that anyone who search for terms that MIGHT be construed as looking for porn should be subject to suspicion. What if a kid is doing a project and enters "child pornography"? What if someone in the CCAA is doing research (which does happen) enters some common search words? Heck, what if someone is looking up a newstory about a little kid who was naked walking down the street and enters "naked boy"? Suddenly we have to worry about searching for double entendre's and "code" words used by sickos lest we become suspect.

I think, in today's society of panic now, ask questions later, it could open up a whole pandora's box of issues.

joeysmama
January 31st, 2006, 12:34 PM
I'm in the minority here. But I have no problem with anyone seeing what I search for on Google or any other invasions of my privacy for the safety of others. Would I want information about myself or my family given to the world at large? Of course not. But that's not realistically going to happen.

There is so much going on out there about which we know nothing. But to quote a woman who is a Pentagon official (said in a private conversation with a White House volunteer) "If you knew the things we are tracking --all the time--you wouldn't sleep at night."

On 9-11 there were members of my family in NY City. They saw the policemen crying in the streets. My daughters school was informed about it during an assembly. We're close to the city and so many of the children have parents who work there. The students were told and then dismissed to class. The children who had parents in the city were asked to stay behind and the school would help them to learn of their parents safety. My daughter said the worst thing was filing out of that auditorium and seeing the fear in the faces of the ones still sitting there.

When I went to pick my daughter up there was a boy on the steps with a teacher and he was beside himself, crying and pacing, because he hadn't been able to reach his folks.

Two children were sent home, having lost their mother.

My son goes to Liberty University. The school has a huge American flag painted on the field. They were in lock down, having already received threats to the schools chancellor. In those first few hours we didn't know that other places in the country wouldn't be targeted. We were worried for his safety and so far away from him.

I look at these measures as temporary and the end justifies the means to me.

My father was so proud to have protected his country. That was a huge part of his legacy to his children and grandchildren. I took 9-11 personally.

I survived cancer after being told I would not and I will tell you that being attacked on our soil shook me at least as much as my diagnosis.

Anyone is welcome to come to my home and ransack my drawers if they want to, if there is a chance that it will make the tiniest dent in the war on terror. My position isn't popluar I know, but children were killed because they were American. Please, bore yourself with my google searches.

Since the computer doesn't convey tone of voice I want you all to know that none of this is said with anger. I'm crying all over my keyboard.

Prin
January 31st, 2006, 12:46 PM
joeysmama, those of us who are fairly close on a world perspective but not close enough to be there don't have a clue what it was like. I mean what we saw was tragic, but the aftermath gradually became, in our eyes (or just mine- I don't want to bring anybody down with me), a manipulation to get Americans to agree to lose their privacy. Why would they need everybody's info? Why not those who are clearly ONLY searching for words associated with terrorism? Why can't google search for those for the government and turn them over, if that is the real issue?

Didn't they nail R.Kelly on child porn or something based on websites he has searched? It might not be him, but I'm 100% sure that some pedophile with a big name was found that way.

I just picture my brother who doesn't really know how to search for things, plugging in anything without realizing what else he is searching for by accident and getting arrested. Face it, it's a skill to figure out how to word things and pick the major words so that you don't get 100 000 000 results.

jjgeonerd
January 31st, 2006, 01:25 PM
That being said, the possibility of searches being used for investigations does bother me. While I agree, extraordinary measures should be taken to protect the vunerable, it could easily become a witch hunt. I volunteer with Canadian Centre for Abuse Awareness, and I'm highly sensitive to child pornography and pedophiles, yet I don't think that anyone who search for terms that MIGHT be construed as looking for porn should be subject to suspicion. What if a kid is doing a project and enters "child pornography"? What if someone in the CCAA is doing research (which does happen) enters some common search words? Heck, what if someone is looking up a newstory about a little kid who was naked walking down the street and enters "naked boy"? Suddenly we have to worry about searching for double entendre's and "code" words used by sickos lest we become suspect.

I think, in today's society of panic now, ask questions later, it could open up a whole pandora's box of issues.

Well said. I personally have nothing to hide, but I don't believe in giving up our basic rights in the name of law enforcement or terrorism. They are more than capable of doing their job within the restraints of our constitution. If we keep giving up our rights willingly, pretty soon there won't be any to give up. Believing the measures will be temporary is just naive...they never are.

jawert1
January 31st, 2006, 04:01 PM
joeysmama, those of us who are fairly close on a world perspective but not close enough to be there don't have a clue what it was like. I mean what we saw was tragic, but the aftermath gradually became, in our eyes (or just mine- I don't want to bring anybody down with me), a manipulation to get Americans to agree to lose their privacy. Why would they need everybody's info? Why not those who are clearly ONLY searching for words associated with terrorism? Why can't google search for those for the government and turn them over, if that is the real issue?

Didn't they nail R.Kelly on child porn or something based on websites he has searched? It might not be him, but I'm 100% sure that some pedophile with a big name was found that way.

I just picture my brother who doesn't really know how to search for things, plugging in anything without realizing what else he is searching for by accident and getting arrested. Face it, it's a skill to figure out how to word things and pick the major words so that you don't get 100 000 000 results.


Prin you're absolutely right, rampant exploitation of the fear, heartbreak, sadness, injury and illness we witnessed or were subject to that day has taken a significant event and turned it into the means to an end. And Schwinn's right too, how many of us miskeyed something in a search or how many ppl do you know that honestly can't spell to save their lives. As DNA testing and exoneration is proving, the innocent can be accused and pay a miserable price.

melanie
January 31st, 2006, 04:07 PM
its all a bit to suspicious to me, i dont trust governemtns and i dont trust most authoritys, i jsut think their all up to no good. and i certainly would go to the ends of the earth to protect my privacy and what i do, its my business not theirs.

its like the new id systems werhe you scan iris and finger prints (biometric systems, i cant quite tell if thats the real word, only reading about it yesterday, but my mind cant get that word back)...

i think its horrid that ppl want my info, its no ones business and i can see a million ways in which it can be used against me, i should never ever have to prove to anyone who i am in a normal situation, yeah at the bank i will let them see my licence, but never touch it, but thats as far as i go. its like the australia card system they keep bringing up, its a system wehre all aussies would have a special id card, now to me thats too far and my privacy means too much, again i feel i have no need to and no one has the right to make me prove who i am or what my busines is about...

the worlds a weird place and i feel we have much reason to be paranoid and untrustworthy.

buggered if their gettin anything on me. :angel:

Shamrock
January 31st, 2006, 05:18 PM
Well said, Schwinn!:highfive:
A serious issue, but surely there is a better way.
Mass screening of the public indirectly casts everyone under suspicion, promotes fear of being "singled out".
And once they have this information... what "else" might they be looking for?

In the same way that the police cannot search your home without a valid reason - I dont believe govt agencies should be on "fishing expeditions" of the general public.
While most would stand up to this scrutiny...should we "be" under it?

CyberKitten
January 31st, 2006, 11:25 PM
In a case involving terrorism, I do not understand why the various agencies just do not get a court order and then obtain the files rom Google. I have been of two minds of this - if that makes sense. What I seek on Google is so boring, I am certain anyone reading my files might fall asleep - unless they are truly intiged with Siamese cats, anything about cats and even dogs and rabbits for that matter, academic info, a plethora of cancer info. I do look up phone numbers of friends and that kind of thing and researched party issues during the election for the Election Kit The Cdn Medical Assn put together - it is still avaialable by the way and I thought we did a good job tho some of my collegaues complained it sounded like it was put together by someone who assumed others would care what a DRO or official agent did, lol (Apparently, not everyone shared my deep interest, hehhe) That said, I think it is helpful (if I do say so myself) for anyone seeking to lobby about an issue, the pitbull issue comes to mind. If you want to read it - and it is avail to the public, it is avialable at:

http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/CMA/Content_Images/Inside_cma/Advocacy/Election_2006/election_handbook_2006_e.pdf

Also of interest is the new study that shows which provinces have the best access to cancer drugs (produced by another group but well done I thought - you may have heard about it on the news today, NB was number 2 :) , NS at the bottom:( ) Whether your province has access to the latest drugs can mean the difference between whether or not you beat cancer or not so this is truly an important study and I am glad they did this!!! It was always in obscure journals before and it was the local doctor vs the provincial govt (We have a good Health Minister who is resigning tho, sighhhhhhhhhhh!!!! I will so miss him, such a good man!)
That report is here:

http://www.canceradvocacy.ca/reportcard/2005/REPORT%20CARD%202005.pdf


Anyway - sorry to digress, my apologies but these are life and death issues - the second one anyway, not the election unless we end up with a Health Minister who is willing topay for every new life saving cancer med!!

I guess the part of me that does not worry is the fact that most of the countries that use Echlon (whioch beats the FBI's programs by several country miles) - and that includes Canada, US, NZ, Australia, etc. Echlon can access what you are writing right this very instant and they do key searches of words (which I won't type and can only guess at anyway) but you can pretty well figure it out.

I too take 9-11 very personally. Tonite, there was a segment on CNN about the move on A&E last nite about the Pa plane (which I missed, darn!!) and even watching that brought me to tears!!! My sister was at the Twin Towers that day and it took a day for us to find her - her company has an office there and they were holding a meeting. I also lost a good friend on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. So one funeral and one almost funeral brought it home for me - plus in Halifax, we had people who we put up in our homes and hotels and everywhere we could find - think something like 50 planes on the tarmac at that airport which yes is international but is not O'Hare. Even they would be hard pressed to know where to put all those huge jets! And all these people were so upset as were we all. I had to give a speech on behalf of the Health Minister from New Brunswick and it was all I could do to concentrate on that effort - with my thoughts on mt cell phone. Fortunately, the Premier iof NB was in NYC thaty day - but 40 blocks away - and someone in that entourage managed to track her down for me and her son and my family!! She saw the second plane hit and still has nightmares of it ramming the building and recalls seeing a small child (and cannot remember why a child was there or whether that was later - she was suffering from post traumatic stress tho it took a bit to convince her into counselling but we did!!) asking her why was the piulot flying like that? Her descriptions of it are so so vivid that even I from time to time have dreams of planes hitting buildings. Never the WTC but smaller buildings. She lost friends and co workers.

I have seen much of the stuff she and JoeyMama have described in my own work in such countries as Sudan and Bosnia and the Middle East and and... you know what I mean so that was not new to me. So a part of me says I have nothing to hide - I live in such a small area that my life is an open book anyway and it would be all but impossible to hide anything anyway and what I google is akin to what books I take out at the library or what purchases I make and pay with my VISA, all records on some database somewhere.

I also have long since given up on privacy online - there is really no such concept. A 12 year old hacker (with a white hat, not a phreaker who is out to destroy records or steal data) who knows what he or she tho I have to admit they are mostly he - can tell us who is online here and with our IP numbers have our addresses pretty quickly. And then our residences with Google Earth. My sil worried Google Earth would allow terrorists to see places like the White House - and you can look right into the Rose Garden and Parliament Hill or other places like nuclear plants with that program - but the fact is these groups already have that software. Which means I hope to God the FBI , CSIS and NSA are well ahead of them!!

I do worry about civil liberties though and while I do not know any RCMP officers or FBI people who would use that info for nefarious means, there is always the potential of someone using one's personal data for nefarious means. Now, what they do with the fact I looked up the latest adoption at Siamese Rescue or downloaded the biochemical properties of a test being used in a clinial trial really is beyond me - and pretty much useless for their purposes.

I am not happy that US airports are now allowing some of these things like scissors back on planes again - it makes me feel less safe. Or that the security person at the Hfx airport because she knew who I was (tho she not know me) and was seeking to volunteer at the Children's Hospital forgot to look thropugh my computer case or purse. But at the Bathurst airpot they did take out some syringes I had in a medical bag - which made no sense even though I could get more and pick them up later. (But by the time I return to that airport, I won't recall that and who knows where they have been, even if they are still in plastic and unopened, I cannot use them now). So I find these inconsitencies hard to understand.

They can get the data without Google giving it to them so why the the big commotion?