Comments on: Google Wants Shareholders to Permit Censorship http://www.theprivacyblog.com/free-speech/google-wants-shareholders-to-permit-censorship/ Anonymizer's Privacy Blog Fri, 03 Sep 2010 12:38:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: lance http://www.theprivacyblog.com/free-speech/google-wants-shareholders-to-permit-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-75 lance Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:24:21 +0000 http://www.theprivacyblog.com/?p=24#comment-75 I can't really speak to the Loompanics story. In my experience all of the major search engines maintain search data and will turn it over given a court order or subpoena. I am not aware of any search engines that do not keep such logs or have similar policies. While Google is the 900 pound gorilla of the search industry, I don't think they are any worse than the other players in the space. I can’t really speak to the Loompanics story. In my experience all of the major search engines maintain search data and will turn it over given a court order or subpoena. I am not aware of any search engines that do not keep such logs or have similar policies. While Google is the 900 pound gorilla of the search industry, I don’t think they are any worse than the other players in the space.

]]> By: Simon DiGale http://www.theprivacyblog.com/free-speech/google-wants-shareholders-to-permit-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Simon DiGale Sun, 17 Jun 2007 22:54:39 +0000 http://www.theprivacyblog.com/?p=24#comment-74 Guess what GOOGLE HAS BEEN ALLOWING CENSORSHIP - OF THE WORST KIND - FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW!! AND I AM ANGRY ABOUT IT. All you have to do, if you don't believe me, is go to what once was one of my favorite little "off the wall" book shops, www.loompanics.com - at that website, you will see they went out of business, out of fear. The F.B.I. was pressing on this book store to give up the list of their customer's names. Everything you fear about censorship has already come to pass. And Google was RIGHT SQUARE in the middle of this problem. If you are bright enough (and you don't have to be too bright - I did it - to read the archives of their old articles, and some of the stuff at "Uncle Festers" bookshop, one of the links Loompanics supported that was most similar to their website, but NOTHING like the real thing, then you can find the articles that explain WHY there is no more "Loompanics Book Store" and at least 75 percent of the problem was GOOGLE I am beyond disappointed to let the people who don't bother to do the research for themselves know. It is a bummer, but Google has already sold you out, which is why it is one of the few searh engines that I NEVER USE - and I have found out that there are plenty out there that are better anyway. Does anyone want to share their favorite search engine that they know for a fact will keep their search engine's information confidential - even if it comes to a showdown with the FBI? If you thought Google was the right answer, well, you fell for the way they cleverly used the media to advertise and convince you of that thought, but sadly it IS NOT TRUE. Guess what GOOGLE HAS BEEN ALLOWING CENSORSHIP – OF THE WORST KIND – FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW!! AND I AM ANGRY ABOUT IT.
All you have to do, if you don’t believe me, is go to what once was one of my favorite little “off the wall” book shops, http://www.loompanics.com – at that website, you will see they went out of business, out of fear. The F.B.I. was pressing on this book store to give up the list of their customer’s names. Everything you fear about censorship has already come to pass. And Google was RIGHT SQUARE in the middle of this problem. If you are bright enough (and you don’t have to be too bright – I did it – to read the archives of their old articles, and some of the stuff at “Uncle Festers” bookshop, one of the links Loompanics supported that was most similar to their website, but NOTHING like the real thing, then you can find the articles that explain WHY there is no more “Loompanics Book Store” and at least 75 percent of the problem was GOOGLE I am beyond disappointed to let the people who don’t bother to do the research for themselves know. It is a bummer, but Google has already sold you out, which is why it is one of the few searh engines that I NEVER USE – and I have found out that there are plenty out there that are better anyway. Does anyone want to share their favorite search engine that they know for a fact will keep their search engine’s information confidential – even if it comes to a showdown with the FBI? If you thought Google was the right answer, well, you fell for the way they cleverly used the media to advertise and convince you of that thought, but sadly it IS NOT TRUE.

]]> By: lance http://www.theprivacyblog.com/free-speech/google-wants-shareholders-to-permit-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-23 lance Thu, 10 May 2007 05:06:04 +0000 http://www.theprivacyblog.com/?p=24#comment-23 There are certainly many things Google or other search engines could do to fight censorship. Your suggestion would make a powerful statement. If Google did this alone, it is very possible that China would simply block them completely. A united front by the various major portals and search engines would be much harder (more painful) to block. In the beginning it would have been easier and more effective. Now, since China has many regulated internal alternatives, it is a harder fight. Don't misunderstand me. It is hard. I understand why they are doing what they are doing. I also think they are wrong and should fight the good fight anyway. There are certainly many things Google or other search engines could do to fight censorship. Your suggestion would make a powerful statement. If Google did this alone, it is very possible that China would simply block them completely. A united front by the various major portals and search engines would be much harder (more painful) to block. In the beginning it would have been easier and more effective. Now, since China has many regulated internal alternatives, it is a harder fight.

Don’t misunderstand me. It is hard. I understand why they are doing what they are doing. I also think they are wrong and should fight the good fight anyway.

]]> By: Ardan Michael BLUM http://www.theprivacyblog.com/free-speech/google-wants-shareholders-to-permit-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Ardan Michael BLUM Wed, 09 May 2007 03:47:16 +0000 http://www.theprivacyblog.com/?p=24#comment-22 The idea that Google, or for that matter any search engine could be controled by governments in say CHINA to AVOID showing (and not providing) content which mentioned for example Tibet's right to self determination is part of the sad reality of the present world. A SOLUTION TO THIS DOES EXIST: Google could place on its first search page links to proxy servers for the citizens of these countries to use - to see google.com with no censorship. One such link could be to Anonymizer. The idea that Google, or for that matter any search engine could be controled by governments in say CHINA to AVOID showing (and not providing) content which mentioned for example Tibet’s right to self determination is part of the sad reality of the present world. A SOLUTION TO THIS DOES EXIST: Google could place on its first search page links to proxy servers for the citizens of these countries to use – to see google.com with no censorship.
One such link could be to Anonymizer.

]]>