4 ms·

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Yes it is, if you're a political activist. Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on peopl

by mahmud 16y ago

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Yes it is, if you're a political activist. Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government.

moultano 16y ago
>Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government. [citation needed]
- mahmud 16y ago
  And ye shall receive: "An Indian man is facing five years in jail for making an "offensive" comment [against Sonya Ghandi] after Google handed his personal data to local police." http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-information http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-... Yahoo taken to task over China http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.htm http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.h...
  - joesb 16y ago
    Distortion. That's not Google spying on people. The guy use Orkut, a social network website, surely there's his account information there. The personal data that is handed over is email address of the account. It's probably a privacy violation if it's really that hard to find out someone's email address once you know his social network account, but it's not spying on people.
    - mahmud 16y ago
      Google OWNS Orkut, in fact, it says so on the 2nd line: Google's Orkut social networking site Here is the same story on TechCrunch showing how Google provided more than just an email address: The owner of the email id Rahul Vaid was traced, using information supplied by Google, to Chakarpur in Gurgaon city of Haryana. http://techcrunch.com/2008/05/18/hit-pause-on-the-evil-button-google-assists-in-arrest-of-indian-man/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/05/18/hit-pause-on-the-evil-butto...
      - joesb 16y ago
        Yes, Google own Orkut. That makes it even less sensible to call Google "spying" on people when one signup for Google's social network.
dschobel 16y ago
"spying on people" is a really unfair way to describe what happens when you voluntarily share your information with a third party who is in turn subpoenaed. You should be taking issue with the governments demanding the records rather than expecting these companies to break the law on your behalf.
- mahmud 16y ago
  Where do you draw the line? what governments is google allowed to hand over information to vs which ones it can deny?
  - dschobel 16y ago
    The simple answer is wherever they have operations. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if you are going to run ops within a country you implicitly have to follow the law of the land. That being said, thinking they shouldn't be in a particular country which obligates them to do these things is a much more sound position than just saying they shouldn't follow the law in a few particular cases. Ultimately, if you know they are operating in a country with a government which likes to do these sorts of things, caveat utilitor. (At least, try not to look so surprised when the police come knocking.)
    - mahmud 16y ago
      wherever they have operations And because of that I choose to use a 1-man search engine, without loss of quality, while gaining everything last bit of privacy. And because of this, his stunt of a billboard ad is actually truthful.
      - dschobel 16y ago
        Whether you place your trust in a multibillion dollar company, a one man shop, or just use an anonymizing proxy, the issues are the same. The billboard is just noise and you are technically sophisticated enough to know better.
- 16y ago

by mahmud 16y ago

Is the whole privacy on search thing really a big issue? Yes it is, if you're a political activist. Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government.

moultano 16y ago

>Both Yahoo and Google have a proven history spying on people on behalf of government. [citation needed]

mahmud 16y ago
And ye shall receive: "An Indian man is facing five years in jail for making an "offensive" comment [against Sonya Ghandi] after Google handed his personal data to local police." http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-information http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2217063/google-handing-user-... Yahoo taken to task over China http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.htm http://www.boycottyahoo.com/yahoo_taken_to_task_over_china.h...
- joesb 16y ago
  Distortion. That's not Google spying on people. The guy use Orkut, a social network website, surely there's his account information there. The personal data that is handed over is email address of the account. It's probably a privacy violation if it's really that hard to find out someone's email address once you know his social network account, but it's not spying on people.
  - mahmud 16y ago
    Google OWNS Orkut, in fact, it says so on the 2nd line: Google's Orkut social networking site Here is the same story on TechCrunch showing how Google provided more than just an email address: The owner of the email id Rahul Vaid was traced, using information supplied by Google, to Chakarpur in Gurgaon city of Haryana. http://techcrunch.com/2008/05/18/hit-pause-on-the-evil-button-google-assists-in-arrest-of-indian-man/ http://techcrunch.com/2008/05/18/hit-pause-on-the-evil-butto...
    - joesb 16y ago
      Yes, Google own Orkut. That makes it even less sensible to call Google "spying" on people when one signup for Google's social network.

dschobel 16y ago

"spying on people" is a really unfair way to describe what happens when you voluntarily share your information with a third party who is in turn subpoenaed. You should be taking issue with the governments demanding the records rather than expecting these companies to break the law on your behalf.

mahmud 16y ago
Where do you draw the line? what governments is google allowed to hand over information to vs which ones it can deny?
- dschobel 16y ago
  The simple answer is wherever they have operations. I don't think it is unreasonable to say that if you are going to run ops within a country you implicitly have to follow the law of the land. That being said, thinking they shouldn't be in a particular country which obligates them to do these things is a much more sound position than just saying they shouldn't follow the law in a few particular cases. Ultimately, if you know they are operating in a country with a government which likes to do these sorts of things, caveat utilitor. (At least, try not to look so surprised when the police come knocking.)
  - mahmud 16y ago
    wherever they have operations And because of that I choose to use a 1-man search engine, without loss of quality, while gaining everything last bit of privacy. And because of this, his stunt of a billboard ad is actually truthful.
    - dschobel 16y ago
      Whether you place your trust in a multibillion dollar company, a one man shop, or just use an anonymizing proxy, the issues are the same. The billboard is just noise and you are technically sophisticated enough to know better.
16y ago