Tuesday, 19 June 2007

Thumbs down for Google

Anyone interested in Internet privacy issues will find this report informative - and worrying.


Emmett said...

19 June 2007

ARE These? real issues -- or is it just a fishbowl?

I Mean if any of THESE presumed snoops come up and go: "nyaah-nyaah, Nyaah-NYAHH! YOU Look at Porn-O!" I mean the answer /is/ rather clear, isn't it:

"SO Do YOU, Jackoff-Lips -- now go to Hell!"

THIS Is the whole problem with the 'privacy-issue', so-called -- it is an anachronism, and it belongs to the high-modern pre-1870 nineteenth century. Now, if only Old Clinton ten years ago had just told the neurotic & wormy-looking Kenneth Starr that "...at least /I/ can get some chick to look at me, Loser! AND a place to keep MY cigars...!" this whole hypothetical load of crap about how WE are going to be somehow 'shamed' by people who are exactly /our/ moral-equals (the OTHER 'baby-boom' defectives & morally-insane bedwetters, and all the rest of the post-modern quasi-american God-damned!) would have long-since died the death!

THE Complete lack of self-possession & /no/ sense of an inner authority whatsoever among these hysterics is the real historical problem -- not the prurient & the window-peepers whom, as Jesus I think it was said in the fable, 'you shall have with you always'

Merkin said...


I have used Scroogle (a Google scraper) for the past coupla years.

It is the same as Google, except :

no cookies
no search-term records
access log deleted within 48 hours

Plus, all importantly, no ads as it srapes them off the Google output.

The main Scroogle site also gives you interesting information about how Google operates as a company.

Even more frightening is the link to the Public Service search facility.

It is possible (for a small fee to get a profile using anyone's name that will show Who That Person Is Linked To.

With x degrees of separation you can see that is very easy for the Security forces to 'prove' a link to a known terrorist (whatever that may mean).

Shocking, in fact.

Jose said...

Interesting, although I always have my reservations as to credibility or bias in these investigations.

Thank you for sharing, Anticant.

Yankee Doodle said...

It seems to me Emmett, in his concern for pornography, completely misses the point.

When elements of your government are involved in illegal activities, and you question that and call attention to it, they have government resources to track you down and shut you up.

In a world where "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists", once you question your government enough, you're with the terrorists. The Bush Administration has already shown what it thinks of a US citizen's constitutional rights in the Jose Padilla case.

Good post, Anticant.