Reconciling assholes for nearly a decade.

Right, I'm sure it's about porn

If Google didn't save this amount of information in the first place we wouldn't have this problem. Sure, keep statistics on how many times "horse sex" was searched for, but don't store IP addressed or store cookies to track what else that user searched for.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
I'm with Mark on this.

This administration has shown itself to be very adept at using one issue ("terrorism") to further its policies ("attack Iraq").

Why not use 'porn' to get access to Google records?

Because it's wrong, that's why, but that has only slowed them down in the past, not stopped them.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 19th, 2006
Read 'bout this on slashdot. I find it a bit strange that Google, a private entity is more trusted then the goventment.

I suppose google lives or dies by the trust the users have for them, but shouldn't the same be true of a government?
Permalink Zoot 
January 19th, 2006
Where you been, 'Zoot'? The Republicans have been tearing down trust in the Government since the New Deal.

Personally, I think it's much more likely that my Social Security is going to be paid than my private company pension. The Government can't just declare bankruptcy, for one thing.

Now, trust in a company depends on that company's behavior. Nobody now would trust Enron, for instance. But Google so far has gotten a reputation as a smart, savvy, and trustworthy company. Sure, I'd trust them more than the current administration.

Good thing my Social Security checks aren't going to be issued by THIS administration. If it were up to them, they'd privatize it tomorrow.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 19th, 2006
Ok Allan, glad to see you're not partisan. Lets say a democrat gets elected in 08, and congress becomes democratic too. Lets pretend its 09. Now what do you have to say about this issue?
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
"The Republicans have been tearing down trust in the Government since the New Deal."

Actually, the Constitution is based on the premise that government can't and shouldn't be trusted... and the last time I checked, that pre-dated the New Deal.

"If Google didn't save this amount of information in the first place we wouldn't have this problem. Sure, keep statistics on how many times "horse sex" was searched for, but don't store IP addressed or store cookies to track what else that user searched for."

For months now I've noticed myself thinking "should I search these terms on Google?" I've seen what sort of information is available on the backend and immediately switch my ISV's email away from GMail (the search is to die for, but I'm not willing to let them have the info)...

Don't worry, the Liberals will protect us from government after all, they support property rights... oh wait.
Permalink KC 
January 19th, 2006
> Now what do you have to say about this issue?

Phil, you are just revealing your partisanship. Not everyone has declared their gang as democrat or republican. Not everyone tries to bend the truth the make the disquiting little problems with their gang go away.
Permalink son of parnas 
January 19th, 2006
SOP, I have no clue what your talking about but I was refering to allans: "The Republicans have been tearing down trust in the Government since the New Deal." statement. Personally I trust the government more then Google whether it's Clinton in the White House or Bush.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
Actually, the Constitution is based on the idea that power tends to corrupt, and the way to control (reveal, minimize, even prevent) the corruption is to have checks and balances built in to the system.

Otherwise, "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people" would make no sense at all. Absolutely they thought you could put in place a Government you could trust -- based on the existence of these checks and balances.

We may be saying the same thing, KC, just in different words.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 19th, 2006
"Absolutely they thought you could put in place a Government you could trust -- based on the existence of these checks and balances."

NO. If you could trust the government, you wouldn't need the checks and balances. The checks and balances were there to play the branches against each other to keep them honest.

For example, the US Constitution & Bill of Rights places limits on government and what it can do. Not the other way around. ( http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html )

As opposed to the USSR Constitution which enumerates what an INDIVIDUAL is allowed to do... and leaves everything else to the government. ( http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10 )

There's a fundamental difference. One distrusts the government and therefore limits it... the other trusts the government and therefore limits the people.
Permalink KC 
January 19th, 2006
"The Republicans have been tearing down trust in the Government since the New Deal."

Like that famed Republican George Orwell. (Who has probably done more to create mistrust of government than any man in history)

And of course "No Child Left Behind," the PATRIOT Act, and the establishment of the TSA were all attempts to show how little government should be trusted.

"Personally, I think it's much more likely that my Social Security is going to be paid than my private company pension. The Government can't just declare bankruptcy, for one thing."

You're kidding, right?
The government doesn't HAVE to declare bankruptcy. They just pass a law saying "no SS benefits for you!"

You don't honestly believe that "lockbox" stuff or the statements you get in the mail, do you?

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 19th, 2006
BTW, regarding the OP, I'm positive it's about porn. The only thing GWB hates more than heretics is porn.

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 19th, 2006
"NO. If you could trust the government, you wouldn't need the checks and balances. The checks and balances were there to play the branches against each other to keep them honest."

I think you have this backwards - the checks and balances exist support trust in the government. Without the checks and balances, what reason would you have to trust them? The default position most people have when presented with a new entity (person, organization, etc.) is not to trust it. Trust is earned by demonstrating that the entity is worthy of the trust. The checks and balances serve this purpose.
Permalink A. Nonymous 
January 19th, 2006
So what do you do when the government chips away at the checks and balances? (For example, ignoring the FISA court or passing a law excluding detainees from the jurisdiction of federal courts)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 19th, 2006
Vote against them at the next election?
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 19th, 2006
"Vote against them at the next election?"

But if it's the judges that are validating the laws, and they are in there for life and completely unelected....
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
Then your options become limited. Assuming you have exhusted all methods of opposition within the legislative process, then it's a matter of changing the government.

Now there are two ways to change a government: elections or hanging them from streetlights. I prefer elections.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 19th, 2006
"You don't honestly believe that "lockbox" stuff or the statements you get in the mail, do you?"

Philo, it's because although he claims not to trust the government, he places full and complete trust in it.

Allan, all it takes is Congress increasing the retirement age... or changing benefits... or redefining who gets it... or any number of other things.

Now they'd never do that, right?
Permalink KC 
January 19th, 2006
"Trust is earned by demonstrating that the entity is worthy of the trust. The checks and balances serve this purpose."

No, not at all. Please go read the documents where these terms derive (Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Federalist Papers). There was a fundamental distrust in a centralized (aka federal) government and the C&B were put there to divert/slow/reign in the other branches.
Permalink KC 
January 19th, 2006
I can't get over the doublespeak in that article. All the headlines and government statements say it is about preventing "child porn". Yet when you look at the details, it is apparently about whether minors may accidentally see unsuitable things in Google search results. Seems to me there is a world of difference between that and what they claim. It is obvious the government is misrepresenting the whole thing to arouse public sympathy.
Permalink Ian Boys 
January 19th, 2006
But that's exactly my point, KC. There is a fundamental distrust, so something must be done to encourage a level of trust (perhaps not to the point where you would invite the gov't to watch your house for the weekend, but at least so you do not overthrow it at the first opportunity). Hence, the checks and balances.
Permalink A. Nonymous 
January 19th, 2006
I'm so glad the government has all this spare time and money to waste worrying about pornography. Maybe someday they'll get around to those lesser problems of world hunger, disease, terrorism, and global warming.
Permalink Dana 
January 19th, 2006
Pushing retirement accounts off the books... not just Enron, but the US Gov too:

http://www.scrivener.net/2006/01/you-thought-2005-federal-budget.html
Permalink KC 
January 19th, 2006
"I'm so glad the government has all this spare time and money to waste worrying about pornography. "

You don't want them worrying about child pornography? Thats more important then some of the things you mentioned IMO.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
child pornography is more important than children dying from hunger? from disease?
more important than the entire human race being wiped out from global warming?

dude, your priorities are shot all to hell.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
"child pornography is more important than children dying from hunger? from disease?"

Yes, JHC. There are very few children dying from hunger and disease in the United States (from things the government can control). There are many children being abused and exploited. The matter isn't just the people that view it, its the children who are abused to make the material.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
ah! *in the united states*

right.

the other poster was, I think, referring to *world* hunger.

next time you narrow your reference maybe you should be specific about the fact :)
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
Isn't kiddie porn 99% urban legend? It's my understanding that it's kinda like snuff films (100% urban legend). People always *talk* about it--"Police say they found child pornography on the councilman's computer"--but you never actually *see* the stuff.
I mean, really--I've been on the interwebs for over a dozen years now. I've seen shit I really wish I hadn't (Goatse.cx, anyone?) I've seen a man eat a woman's feces, gay midget diaper porn, www.ratemypoo.com, and John Ashcroft singing, but I've never seen anything that even remotely qualifies as bona fide kiddie porn.

I'm just saying, is all...
Permalink Star Wars Kid 
January 19th, 2006
"The matter isn't just the people that view it"

in point of fact I dont think that there is a problem with people who view it at all. *except* that for it to be viewed it has to be created which requires the abuse of children.

ie, I wouldn't have a problem with people viewing 'virtual child porn', because no children are harmed in the creation of it.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
"www.ratemypoo.com"

ewwwwww my eyes, my eyes...

oh my fucking christ thats foul.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
Jesus, you went to ratemypoo?
Sorry, I should have warned you.
Permalink Star Wars Kid 
January 19th, 2006
Yeah in theory JHC I would agree with your last statement. But it is your first paragraph that hits the nail on the head. Because there is a customer out there, there will be a supplier. Although from some of the stories i've seen its often like a trading club, where the people are abusing the children, and swap pictures and stuff with other abusers, thus they are just sick fucks in general, and i'm not sure a virtual child would stop the abuse.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
"I find it a bit strange that Google, a private entity is more trusted then the goventment."

Of course. If Google decides that they don't like me, they would have to work with the government to make my life miserable. If the government decides that they don't like me, I'm screwed.

Therefore, I would much rather have Google know all about me, b/c I only have to worry about issues that BOTH google and the government agree are bad.
Permalink Steamrolla 
January 19th, 2006
"thus they are just sick fucks in general, and i'm not sure a virtual child would stop the abuse."

yes. and Im sure it wouldn't.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
"Sorry, I should have warned you"

meh. Im a dumbass for going. its not like the name isn't a bit of a giveaway.
...its not the first time my curiosity has bitten me on the internet...
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
I trust neither Google nor the US government implicitly, but Google is far less likely to drop bombs on me or sell me up the river for a handful of oil^H^H^Hmagic beans. Sure, Google wil feed me adverts based on my emails, but those I can ignore, and they're not fatal or even remotely life threatening, something which can't be said for the Bush posse...
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 19th, 2006
> you never actually *see* the stuff

I suppose we can be thankful for some things, at least.
Permalink  
January 20th, 2006
I have a better idea than ratemypoo.com - shitornot.com! People can send in pictures of poohs that might or might not be real and everyone can try and guess which are genuine. A trip to the joke shop, some peanut butter and some chocolate spread and I'm all set :)
Permalink Andy 
January 20th, 2006
"Sure, Google wil feed me adverts based on my emails, but those I can ignore, and they're not fatal or even remotely life threatening, something which can't be said for the Bush posse..."

Now the question is... look at the political breakdown of Google employees (demonstrated by contributions during the 2004 election cycle) and ask "what would happen if the next anti-Bush (Democrat, UN, whatever) asked for the same thing?"
Permalink KC 
January 20th, 2006
I'd still trust Google more than the government -- they've got shareholders to satisfy and if they pissed enough people off there'd be some serious financial damage, whereas once the government is in they're good for four years and don't really have to register on the give-a-shitometer.
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 20th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics