×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Report Shows Governments Want More Private Data

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the hungry-hungry-government dept.

Google 89

judgecorp writes "The latest Google Transparency Report, which tallies the number of times personal data is requested from Google, shows that governments are becoming more inquisitive than ever. Requests for user data have gone up by 70 percent since Google started these reports in 2009 — but the report shows Google is getting better at saying no: in 2009 it complied — fully or partially — with 76 percent of requests, and that figure is now down to 66 percent." This report is the first to feature requests broken down by the legal process used.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

89 comments

better at saying no? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671189)

More like governments are overreaching asking for data they have no legal right to than ever before.

Re:better at saying no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671325)

Look at the numbers for Turkey and Russia. The percentage of time google complies is 0 or 1%.
So definitely overreach on the part of governments!

Re:better at saying no? (2, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42671941)

Patriot Act, dude. Gubbermint wrote themselves a blank check with that one. And, they've written more blank checks since then. Everything the Buggermint - I mean GUBBERMINT! wants is "legal". Don't confuse "legal" with "moral", or "ethical", or "right". If the buggerers in gubbermint ever figures out that something they want is illegal, they'll just write some new laws!

Re:better at saying no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42673491)

So vote more responsible people in. This is what we as citizens get when we vote in people based on dumb emotional issues rather than real important things.

Re:better at saying no? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42675021)

Wait, what? Who do you vote for, Puppet 1 or Puppet 2? It was so obvious in the last election it was creepy, and very few people said a damn thing. My 12 year old Nephew noticed how only certain people ever made media time. How Ron Paul was called "crazy" by media and never shown to say anything from his speeches or the debates. During live debates, the audience would applaud him madly yet the media only replayed the idiocy they wanted people to see. If Ron Paul was interviewed, it was with a question like "What do you think of being Herman Cane's running mate?" or some other bullshit.

The tell all was when the Iowa Republican Caucus stated on NPR "We don't care what the public thinks, Ron Paul will not be on the ticket in Iowa.". Think critically! Take out Ron Paul's name and insert any name you want on the ticket, and the statement will stand. "We don't care what the public thinks, will not be on the ticket.". People plain old ignored that statement, and of course it was never repeated on the controlled media or made issue of in media.

If you don't get that the Republic is already fucked, you really have not been paying any attention to what is going on around you.

Re:better at saying no? (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year ago | (#42672261)

And wasting Google shareholders' money asking them to answer requests that they are presumably not paying for.

Re:better at saying no? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year ago | (#42672619)

The interesting thing regarding government's wishes is that whatever is illegal today tends to be legal tomorrow.

Re:better at saying no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42674515)

Solution: Google stops collecting, indexing, and/or archiving that private data.

Re:better at saying no? (1)

SnowZero (92219) | about a year ago | (#42678765)

If the government started raiding your bank account, the correct reaction would not be to store your money in your mattress, nor to ask that banks hold less money.

The government can't search the inside of my locked car just because it is parked on the street, but when effectively the same thing happens electronically it's open season.

Property laws need to be updated to reflect the reality that many people want to store their email, photos, and other account data on a server somewhere.

The lawmakers have quite purposely dragged their feet on updating the relevant laws, while law enforcement uses outdated legal analogies to exploit loopholes in laws that didn't foresee the present reality.

Getting better at saying no. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671199)

I feel more allegiance to Google than the US government tbqh.

Little math here (4, Insightful)

DJ Jones (997846) | about a year ago | (#42671211)

If the requests went up by 70% and the the amount of "no"s dropped by 20%. They are not "getting better at saying no" on a raw numerical basis.

Think about it.

Re:Little math here (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671327)

Came here for this.

Old scheme, 100 requests filed, 76 requests filled.

New scheme, 170 requests filed, 112 requests filled.

Providing more information isn't the same as providing less.

Re:Little math here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42675795)

You sir, are not playing by the rules. The rules clearly state that one must accept what they're told as truth by those in authority. That is simply un-American.

Re:Little math here (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671389)

i think the amount of "yes"s dropped by 10% (66% complied with vs 76%)
your point is still valid tho ...

Re:Little math here (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year ago | (#42671437)

Proportions still matter. Google is still expanding, people's use of google is still expanding, and government awareness of google is still expanding. I'd expect more responses. Whether or not 70% is in line with the above growth, I don't know. The drop in granted was only 10%, not 20%.

Still, I can't help but think that as much as we might detest it, sometimes these requests for data is to prosecute valid, serious crime. Various forms of fraud and theft, for example. Cracking, perhaps.

Re:Little math here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671659)

I don't detest it if there is a specific warrant. Sadly, hardly any of these request accompany one.

Re:Little math here (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#42672241)

RTFS, FFS. What part of "requests broken down by the legal process used " did you fail to understand? The link shows only 10% were "other", the rest were subpoenas and warrants.

Re:Little math here (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42672019)

Yeah, what AC said.

I have zero problem with a police department doing actual police work, building a case strong enough to warrant reasonable cause, then actually getting a warrant. This is cool - it's what we have police for. Joe Schmuck is suspected of whatever, they find a couple of things on Facebook that indicates he might really be guilty, he's overheard making a couple comments in a bar, and those few things add up to, "Your honor, we believe that Mr. Schmuck is guilty of at least three counts of preying on the elderly (or whatever) but we need access to his email and stuff - will you sign this warrant?" The judge accepts these bits and pieces as probable cause, or he tells the cops to get their asses to work, and do a better job of convincing him that Joe is a crook.

Warrant in hand, they can browse anything and everything available on the guy.

Fishing expeditions should cost cops their careers.

Re:Little math here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42673589)

Yeah, what AC said.

I have zero problem with a police department doing actual police work, building a case strong enough to warrant reasonable cause, then actually getting a warrant. This is cool - it's what we have police for. Joe Schmuck is suspected of whatever, they find a couple of things on Facebook that indicates he might really be guilty, he's overheard making a couple comments in a bar, and those few things add up to, "Your honor, we believe that Mr. Schmuck is guilty of at least three counts of preying on the elderly (or whatever) but we need access to his email and stuff - will you sign this warrant?" The judge accepts these bits and pieces as probable cause, or he tells the cops to get their asses to work, and do a better job of convincing him that Joe is a crook.

Warrant in hand, they can browse anything and everything available on the guy.

Fishing expeditions should cost cops their careers.

HOPE you didn't vote for the guy who pretty much guaranteed he'd take more of your money in taxes. Taxes that only help PAY for this kind of crap.

Re:Little math here (1)

Changa_MC (827317) | about a year ago | (#42685593)

HOPE you didn't vote for the guy who pretty much guaranteed he'd take more of your money in taxes. Taxes that only help PAY for this kind of crap.

I'm with you on this, man.
Bush's warrantless wiretapping combined with running up a huge deficit, thereby increasing taxes long term pissed me off as well.

Not just warrants (1)

Firethorn (177587) | about a year ago | (#42675131)

Warrants aren't the be all and end all of information requests. For example, in a civil suit you can't get a warrant for information, you file subpoenas for it. Some of the 'others' might just be for research purposes. Or the CIA asking for information.

That Google rejects nearly half of the requests, at least initially, I like because it indicates that Google isn't 'rolling over'. Police officers and other agencies don't actually need a warrant to simply ask - they need one to force.

For example, I could run a store and allow anybody with a badge to view my security camera footage without a warrant if I wanted. But I wouldn't be protecting my customer's privacy very well if I allowed that. I'd be being an obstructionist to the police though if I required a warrant for everything. Personally, if the police can provide sufficient justification to me, a private citizen, then I might let them see the footage even without a warrant - provided that their request is sufficiently narrow(We need to see Tuesday's footage between 1600 and 1615 of your outside lot - we think XYZ may have tried to escape through there during that time).

Wouldn't it be nice... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671217)

If Google voluntarily encrypted messages between Google users (Gmail, GApps), and any message stored on their servers? That way, even their own employees couldn't violate other peoples' privacy?

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (3, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | about a year ago | (#42671407)

Don't wait on it. They're still too busy harassing YouTube users to show their Real Name, and tweaking the same to look more like Facebook (noticed those pics next to the comments? --oh who am I kidding, I'm trying to get people to read YouTube comments to make a point...silly me).

Tough to stop employees from doing something when it's the company goal.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#42671429)

Wait, what? Gmail has a setting to make it run over https: http://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=74765 [google.com]

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#42671481)

Which has exactly nothing to do with encrypting the messages themselves. SSL just encrypts the transport, they're still stored in nice, invasion-friendly cleartext.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#42671777)

If Google voluntarily encrypted messages between Google users (Gmail, GApps), and any message stored on their servers

He's talking about user to gmail server, https covers that. What you're talking about is something like pgp: http://www.instructables.com/id/Encrypt-your-Gmail-Email/ [instructables.com] . Both users need it set up for it to work, but that's how encryption typically works, and it's there if you need it.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about a year ago | (#42672323)

No he's not. He said messages between "Google Users" and "Messages stored on their servers," which seems to pretty clearly put the context on message storage, not transport, which, again, is what SSL does.

And since we're talking about google-to-google communication, there are lots of ways that said encryption could be handled, with various levels of effectiveness against google/government intrusion (none of which really approach "good") with little user hassle.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about a year ago | (#42672927)

Typically those that use pgp /any email encryption in their email communications have good reason to do so, typically related to security and sensitive data. If both google users set up pgp, they could do it, google setting up pgp by default has financial consequences & greatly affects the level of support required. Google even supporting pgp is a testament to this approach, and the correct implementation of pgp: by choice.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice... (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about a year ago | (#42672421)

No, it would just give you a false sense of security.

If Google does the encryption, then Google has the encryption keys. If an employee can access a user's e-mails, why wouldn't they be able to access the encryption key? (Or, to put it the other way: If you plan on protecting the user's privacy by not letting employees access the encryption keys, why not just use the same mechanism to not let the employees access the user's data, now? It's the same level of protection.)

Encryption isn't magic pixie dust that solves security and privacy problems.

Pity (4, Insightful)

captbob2002 (411323) | about a year ago | (#42671257)

Pity that Google even has user's private data to give to governments

Re:Pity (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#42671499)

Why is it a pity that Google is held to same legal standard as every other company or individual in the US?

Re:Pity (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#42677749)

You misread the comment you replied to.

Pity that Google even has user's private data [...]

That's the key of that comment. Google has heaps of private data of heaps of users. And that's not just the e-mail you ask them to store on your behalf in a gmail account.

Re:Pity (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671577)

If you didn't give them private data. They don't have it.

Nobody to blame but yourself.

(captcha:blamable That is so weird.)

Re:Pity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42672535)

Wait a minute, consider what constitutes "giving" Google data. There's the obvious like using GMail or using their search engine, but they also have trackers all across the web. Unless you explicitly block Google's domains, they know a fair amount about what websites you visit (much less if you block their cookies, but Panopticlick [eff.org] showed that blocking cookies doesn't actually protect you from tracking very well). This, of course, doesn't only apply to Google, but Google's analytics is a lot more common than Facebook's share links or other trackers.

Off-topic, I have a personal (mostly joke) theory that the captcha words are chosen by a machine learning algorithm that gets positive weight from the word appearing in the final post.

Re:Pity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671639)

I wonder what the stats are with local ISP's who are really cozy with law enforcement. Google has a pretty good record in this area (i.e. China).

Re:Pity (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year ago | (#42671879)

You're probably giving Google permission (more likely, pleading) to use it somewhere in their EULA jibber-jabber you accept when hitting the OK button.

Re:Pity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42672139)

It's a pitty that they don't release the user names that the "authorities" are asking for. ...or do they?

Am I reading that correctly? (0)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#42671343)

Requests are up 70%, but compliance is down to 66 percent which still means (napkin math) that Google is servicing 10% MORE requests in total.

Re:Am I reading that correctly? (1)

exploder (196936) | about a year ago | (#42671795)

So? Summary says they're "getting better at saying 'no'". Let me exaggerate the numbers a bit to make the point clearer: If 10 people ask me today and I say "no" to 5 of them, and then tomorrow 1000 people ask me, and I say "no" to 990 of them, then okay, I've said "yes" twice as many times today as I did yesterday. But I've most definitely gotten better at saying "no".

Re:Am I reading that correctly? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about a year ago | (#42672057)

I knew a girl like that, she got better at saying no after college. So now only a small circle of her friends gets head constantly.

Re:Am I reading that correctly? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#42673135)

This is more like the same girl going on almost 2X as many dates and only giving head to 50% as opposed to 75% of them, then saying she's become a more discriminating lover.

Privacy not a concern for citizens (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about a year ago | (#42671371)

I'm not talking about the lip service. I'm talking about what people actually do. I have a placeholder facebook page (not an active user) and I regularly get spammed with activity updates from "friends." People seem to have no hesitation about what they post. And, I don't just mean kids. Until people show they care, it'll just get worse.

Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens (1)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year ago | (#42671469)

The younger generations do not view privacy in the same light as previous ones. It's just not something that is important to them anymore, mainly because they never had it to begin with I suppose.

Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year ago | (#42671825)

I'm not talking about the lip service. I'm talking about what people actually do.

What the fuck does "what people actually do" have to do with anything? It's already been shown that "reasonable expectation of privacy" has absolutely nothing to do with what human beings actually expect in any given situation, so why does it matter what we do when the government will decide that privacy means whatever is convenient for them.

Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#42672129)

People look at me weird when I make any attempt to explain what Facebook does with their data. People over the age of fifteen seem to forget that very recently they did stuff for which they would be embarrassed today. Prepubescent children do a lot of weird, disgusting things. People over the age of 20 forget that they were freaky-ass zit-faced punks very recently, and that the conduct that seemed so amusing a couple years ago would be very embarrassing today.

But - they continue to post all manner of stupid shit, never thinking for a moment that some of it might be embarrassing someday, in a divorce court, or a slander case, or at an employment interview.

Dumb. Just plain dumb. Post all your stupidest shit online, so that your worst enemies will always have it to use against you. And, who knows - maybe today's best friend will be your worst enemy next year!

Re:Privacy not a concern for citizens (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#42677753)

Ah yes, the right to be forgotten. It's impossible to have stuff forgotten these days.

I know! We can give those gov't's MORE money!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671381)

Because giving overweening governments MORE tax money from our pockets works SO WELL!!!!

Big brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671421)

I thought they knew every thing all ready

Supplying more private data that it appears (1)

Unknown1337 (2697703) | about a year ago | (#42671425)

Despite the appearance of the fulfilment rate going down, if you do the math, since requests are up 70%, Google is still supplying a little over 20% more private data than they were in 2009. It would be nice to have the exact numbers or percentages of partial vs. full requests AND how much information is requested on average. These statistics really do not shed much light on anything. For example: A full request compliance could be as innocent as your GMail account name. A partial request compliance could be as much as everything they've excluding your credit card numbers. (which still wouldn't leave you feeling very safe, despite being a 'partial compliance')

Re:Supplying more private data that it appears (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#42672621)

While the statistics are indeed vague, we are meant to understand that Google is scrutinizing each request harder. But let's look at the potential causes for them to say "no":

  • Improper request using an official process - invalid warrant, unclear requests, etc.
  • Overbroad legitimate request: "We need a list of everyone on Google+ who has the state of TX in their address line."
  • Technically unable to comply: the data could have been purged before the request was made
  • Illegally unwilling to comply: they wanted tax data on Sergei, and the Google person decided to "lose" the request in the paperwork shuffle
  • Legitimate request using an unofficial process - "we have a lit-fuse bomber, you gotta break the rules and help us without a warrant!" "No."
  • Improper request using an unofficial process - "Hey, Sally, I'll take you to dinner if you get me this data."
  • Legitimate request from an illegitimate organization: "This is Turkish Secret Police, give us this data so we can break some skulls."

Of those, only a few are the moral high road, yet they're all lumped into that "reduction in granting requests." We have no way of knowing what percentages are attributable to which reason.

Also, take a look at the bottom link. While the overall compliance is 75%, the rate of compliance in the U.S. is about 90%, regardless of the legal process used to request it. They're not complying at all with requests from Turkey or Russia, and they don't even accept requests from China.

Re:Supplying more private data that it appears (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#42672999)

and they don't even accept requests from China

You missed the whole "Google pulls out of China" thing?

Re:Supplying more private data that it appears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42678563)

Those examples suggest that it is the good standing of the legal system that determines the rate. Compliance rate for Hungary, an EU member state, is 0% too. Portugal, Czech republic about 30%, France 40%, etc. Perhaps size matters as well?

Re:Supplying more private data that it appears (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42678951)

I did the maths.

Google are getting 1.7 times the requests they were in 2009.
They complied with 0.66 requests for every one they received.
0.66*1.7 = 1.112
That means they complied with 12.2% more requests last year than the total requests they received in 2009.
They complied with 0.76 requests for every one they received in 2009.
1.112/0.76=1.476
That means they actually complied with 47.6% more requests than they did in 2009.

Actually, when I first did it I stopped after the first sum and thought they only supplied 12.2% more data than in 2009, which is why I hit reply, but I realised my error while actually writing the post. Where did you get the figure for 20% more from anyway?

What perhaps should be disturbing to US citizens/residents is that despite only having 5 times the population of the UK, your government made over 14 times more requests for data than the UK government. That's nearly 3 times more requests per capita.

Yeah about that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671445)

Even if Google did say no, which I doubt they do for anything that appears even somewhat serious, I somehow doubt that intelligence agencies with billion dollar budgets and long histories of shady behavior and violence are just going to accept that. I'm sure the NSA is going to back right down after Google lays down the law...

Furthermore, do people honestly believe that both domestic and foreign intelligence agencies haven't already infiltrated places like Google and Facebook? Do you think that they're just going to sit on the sidelines while places like Google and Facebook build comprehensive profiles and network graphs on large portions of the population?

Move along nothing to see here (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#42671461)

Move along - nothing to see here. It should be obvious to anyone who stops and thinks, for even a brief moment, that as more people move more and more of their life online that there will be more requests to access that information.

And when you break down the numbers it works out to about a hundred a day, and since Google doesn't specify that this is limited to Feds, one is forced to assume it includes all governmental bodies at all levels. As a result, I'm not horrified that the number is so high but rather I find it interesting that the number is so low.

Foolish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42673057)

Move along? Nothing to see? I hope you are being sarcastic. If not, you are a fool and part of the problem.

Re:Move along nothing to see here (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year ago | (#42677771)

It probably does not include requests that Google is not allowed to talk about. Like stuff under things like that patriot act, and probably some more scary and secret(ive) laws you guys have.

Re:Move along nothing to see here (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year ago | (#42678883)

Even so, the number is *still* pretty low considered on a per capita or per annum basis, even if it seems pretty big and scary spun as a $BIGNUM.

so google is giving out more info... (1)

night_flyer (453866) | about a year ago | (#42671657)

Requests for user data have gone up by 70 percent since Google started these reports in 2009 â" but the report shows Google is getting better at saying no: in 2009 it complied â" fully or partially â" with 76 percent of requests, and that figure is now down to 66 percent."

unless this is worded poorly, Google is giving out even more info...
if in 09 they had 100 requests and they complied with 76% that would be 76 records... but if requests have gone up 70% (170 requests) and its "down" to 66% compliance, that's still 92 records!

Re:so google is giving out more info... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#42673267)

It's not "worded poorly", I think you and others posting similar drivel are being deliberately obtuse. It's quite clear they meant they now service a smaller percentage of the requests, any card carrying geek should know that comparing percentages is a very common method of analyzing growth. In fact I'm pretty sure that knowledge is not unique to geeks, I believe the average Joe reading TFS would also be fully aware that 90% of $1 is a lot less in absolute terms than 50% of $1M.

In other words your posting "dumb kids math" on a geek site?

The obvious concern: (2)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42671693)

At least for US citizens should be the fact that the US government has increased their requests by astronomical amounts, and is the majority of the requests. 21,389 requests for private data of 33,634 This makes it obvious that these requests are not all "give me info on John Doe", but rather "Give me info on Jane and John. Now to the point I start with: According to this [blogspot.co.uk] , the US owns at least a third of all of the requests. You _should_ be asking why and not just shrugging off this information.

No, we are not suffering from a rash of terrorism in the US (unless we go and rightfully call what the self proclaimed elites are doing terrorism). The Government is systematically shutting up anyone that observes their first amendment rights, especially those that begin to make headway with the sheople. OWS and the admitted collusion between DHS, FBI, TSA, Local Police departments, and Banks should be more than an obvious glimpse at how big the problem is. Better get to waking up the neighbors, this won't get better on it's own.

Re:The obvious concern: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42671863)

sheople

This word has only ever been used by those it describes. There has never been an exception.

Re:The obvious concern: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42672995)

Since you quoted the word, I guess that would make you one?

You said no exceptions...

Re:The obvious concern: (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#42672789)

the US government has increased their requests by astronomical amounts

A 33% rise over one year is high, but certainly not astronomical (at least not by any measure we used in astronomy class.) The question is who and why. Is it more requests from local governments, or more from the FBI? Are they asking about local drug dealers, violent felons, drunken frat party pictures, or is it "did Abdul al Tikrit search for a copy of PowerPlantBlueprints.pdf?" Have they moved on to asking "what church does he belong to?" or "what political party does he donate to?"

I'd certainly like to know more before waking the neighbors.

Re:The obvious concern: (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42674565)

I'm pretty sure that this one has an obvious answer. "what political party does he donate to?" It has become public information that Ron Paul supporters were put on DEA and DHS watch lists labelled as potential terrorists. I won't even get in to how the media treated anyone not in the "program", which by the way even my 12 year old nephew could notice.

I agree that we don't know what they are asking for, if that was your point. My point still stands, that we should be concerned and demanding clarity on who and why things are being asked for. As a bit of sarcasm, I don't believe that the open and honest government the establishment claimed to believe in would deny us.. Of course looking further, their actions don't match their rhetoric so we are fucked.

Re:The obvious concern: (1)

plover (150551) | about a year ago | (#42685091)

"what political party does he donate to?" It has become public information that Ron Paul supporters were put on DEA and DHS watch lists labelled as potential terrorists.

That's an almost unbelievable accusation to simply take your word on. As it's public information, could you please post a citation for the Ron Paul donors ending up on a DHS watchlist? By citation, I don't mean an episode number of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or another Rupert Murdoch source, or an interview with a tea party fancier like Michelle Bachmann. I would need to see actual proof before I would believe such a claim. That proof would include the watch list in question, authenticated by the DHS, as well as a list of Ron Paul supporters.

Let's just say that outrageous claims like these need to meet an extremely high level of proof. Lacking such evidence, they sound very much like paranoid conspiracy theorist ravings, little more than echoes of Fox News beating the Scare Drum; and are completely devoid of merit.

Re:The obvious concern: (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42717273)

Those accusations are all searchable. In fact /. had a hefty discussion due to the article which revealed the collusion between DHS, FBI, Police and Banks within the last few weeks. The slander and libel in media was apparent to anyone that watched any of the numerous specials on the government controlled media depicting OWS as a bunch of potheads that only wanted handouts and never wanted to work. Every major network had at least one "special report". Nothing is hidden if you actively search.

For the Ron Paul watch list, search for Jesse Ventura and the same key words. You don't have to trust Ventura, but the stories will lead you to released reports and documents.

The New York Post a few months back had several reports indicating that it received approval from the Government for "any" article relating to Politics. I.E. Wars in foreign lands, taxes, election coverage, etc... When you see it in one, the bias in the others should be enough logical proof that the collusion is and has been occurring. I have yet to see any media outlet act in a way, or attempt to disprove their collusion.

Google still works last I checked, and you are asking way to much information to cite in a post.

Not all that useful (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about a year ago | (#42672051)

Interesting on the face of it but without data by requesting agency it really doesn't tell us too much. Are most of the requests coming from municipal or state authorities? Federal? If the latter, which agencies? Short of a NSL they should have no legal problem providing that kind of summary info.

Smokescreen to fool you (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42672079)

Google provides 100% of its data to the NSA, and other 'deep' intelligence agencies. Google was created and funded for this purpose, and also to create hardware/software systems that the intelligence agencies could use for their own 'shadow' Google systems (the 'shadow' systems are where mined data and other information is stored and processed by the NSA etc).

Likewise, Facebook exists purely to persuade as many people as possible to reveal details about their lives. The recent 'graph' feature is just another NSA goldmine.

Govenments like that in the USA have an 'onion' model, with multiple layers operating largely independently of each other. Propaganda stories like this article refer to requests from 'upper' layers of government, where the pretence of Google as an independent entity is played out.

Morons are told to assume the mass monitoring of the Human population is to find 'terrorists' etc. In reality, the purpose of such surveillance is an attempt to understand the 'mob' more perfectly, and thus control the mob, directing it in directions desired by those that rule. For instance, any concept of democracy disappears in any nation stupid enough to use 'majority wins' voting rather than true 'proportional representation', because of systems like Google and Facebook. Why? Because near perfect real-time intelligence gathering on the collective mind of the mob allows propaganda methods to be perfectly tailored to the desired result.

If you are in power, you use that power to control the output of the mass media. Thus you control the messages the mob receives on a moment by moment basis. Facebook and Google provide the feedback, allowing perfect assessment of the impact of the propaganda messages.

Of course, Google and Facebook also allow those in power to preempt emerging 'political' movements that would threaten the status quo. Any sufficiently powerful movement MUST have visible presence on Internet services like these, allowing flawless tracking, but also providing for sabotage opportunities. The book '1984' explored a world where the State existed as a consequence of perfect surveillance and control of the masses. Those that ruled in the world of '1984' didn't have to fear replacement or overthrow, because they controlled the very mechanisms that rendered such acts impossible.

Today, we have reached the same point in nations like the USA and UK. People THINK they vote, but they discover that regardless of choice, the same policies always progress. Sure, the 'right wing' party in power takes the opportunity to do some 'right wing' stuff, and likewise the left-wing, but the people that rule NEED access to both kinds of policy, same as you need a hot and cold tap when running a bath.

We see the process in the disarming of citizens in every mock-democratic state. The excuse given to the mob for taking their weapons always differs, but the end result is always the same- the government ends up armed to the teeth, and the people are left with ZERO means of possible revolt. Government shills say "this is how it must be in a civilised society" and "they wouldn't be your masters if they weren't better than you".

The problem with such power games is that they are devoid of any rational intelligence. Those in power become no different from serial killers, concerned only about the 'thrill', without a care for long term consequences. Like the serial killer, the Obama type thinks "everyone dies in the end, so we might as well forget all rules, and simply do whatever we can get away with".

The repulsive psychopaths behind Facebook, Google and Wikipedia do not even have to attempt to hide their true natures from us. A serial killer must work in the shadows, and almost certainly alone. Those that see the whole planet as their likely victims are proud to operate in the brightest daylight. They love the fact that THEY finally figured out ways to make '1984' a reality, and to prove once and for all that the Human Race splits between prey and predators.

Re:Smokescreen to fool you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42672169)

Dude, check this out [lilly.com]

Re:Smokescreen to fool you (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42674861)

You do realize that your rhetoric is the easiest to spot, even by the mobs that can't critically think for themselves. You at least have to toss a strawman out there to make the ad hominem less obvious. Thanks for trolling though, good to see the noobs are out there trying.

Other? (1)

ink (4325) | about a year ago | (#42672101)

What is the "other" category that the US government is using outside of search warrants or subpoenas?

Re:Other? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42672187)

There's a little i icon that says "Includes court orders issued under ECPA by a judge and other court-issued legal process."

The problem I see with this report is .... where are the national security letters?

The Twiddler (0)

profBill (98315) | about a year ago | (#42672189)

Come on, who could forget the twiddler ( http://www.handykey.com/ [handykey.com] ). It's a chord keyboard, its a severe carpal tunnel generator and its a foul verb, as in: "Hey, who have you twiddled today" or "Twiddle me when you get home". Nice!

Define better. (1)

Alsn (911813) | about a year ago | (#42672291)

While their compliance rate has indeed gone down, a 70% increase coupled with only 10 pp decrease mean that they actually comply with more requests. In fact, it works out to be a 15% increase in the total amount of requests that were complied with.

Google is complying *more* now (1)

Laxori666 (748529) | about a year ago | (#42672711)

Uhm, if the number of requests went up by 70%, and Google now complies with 66% of requests instead of 76%, that means they are now giving away 47.63% more data than in 2009.

What about the data google has (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#42672809)

Google only wants to advertise the data the governments want to take people's eyes off how much data Google is collecting on people. At least governments are some what accountable to us.

Check out Canada's request and compliance rate... (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year ago | (#42673335)

I find it interesting that the request for Canadian data is so low (38 requests, vs. the US at 8,438 requests [google.com] ), and that even with this low request rate, the rate of compliance by Google for Canadian data requests is less than 25%...interesting indeed.

Maybe our government just hasn't heard of teh google yet? :)

Re:Check out Canada's request and compliance rate. (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42674925)

Partially due to population, that should be obvious. Also, Canada is already a socialist nation where the people have a laughable amount of control. I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a small strike in Canada. OWS and Teaparty type movements simply don't exist. What on earth does the Canadian Government have to worry about with Canadian citizens, compared to the US especially. The NWO took over Canada fully about 40 years ago. Long live the Queen eh?

Re:Check out Canada's request and compliance rate. (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | about a year ago | (#42680187)

Partially due to population, that should be obvious. Also, Canada is already a socialist nation where the people have a laughable amount of control. I don't remember ever seeing anything other than a small strike in Canada. OWS and Teaparty type movements simply don't exist. What on earth does the Canadian Government have to worry about with Canadian citizens, compared to the US especially. The NWO took over Canada fully about 40 years ago. Long live the Queen eh?

Hmmm, you do seem to have some funny and completely inaccurate ideas about Canada.

A socialist nation? Because we have publicly funded healthcare, and don't let people just die in the street no doubt. Oh, and a stable banking system, let's not forget that. Although we did have those pesky OWS demonstrations too, as I recall. In fact, it was Canadians that started them [wikipedia.org] (sad to say). And yes, our Unions are quite active, if maybe not quite as militant, as their counterparts are south of the border. You not hearing about strikes and labour actions speaks more to your listening skills outside your precious borders...

The population difference is only a multiplier of 10: i.e., the US has 10 times the population of Canada. Harder then to explain why there's over 200 times more requests logged from the American government, eh? Seriously, it's time you guys brought your government back in line down there :)

Re:Check out Canada's request and compliance rate. (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#42717501)

I don't disagree with your statement "Seriously, it's time you guys brought your government back in line down there :)", in fact I quite agree. I was just pointing out some of the obvious reasons for the discrepancies. Canada AFAIK is a Socialist nation, just like the UK is a Socialist nation. It's not just "national health care", there are numerous factors involved. Canada (and the UK), at least to the US has been Socialist since the Monarchies dissolved.

Media coverage for OWS in the US was abysmal for OWS in the US. Could be that same bias that prevents US Citizens from seeing more active social uprisings in Canada. At least, as I mentioned, anything beyond the Unions striking.

Stop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42684665)

Please stop it government(s). I promise most people are good and don't need to be bullied and spied on. It's unfair and annoying to a huge degree. In other words, stop STEPPING ON MY HUMAN RIGHTS damn it.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...