[I.M. Boggled]

Posted on the internet by Blogger
Ann Harrison on January 25, 2006

"Google, Porn and You"

"According to a poll released yesterday, 56% of Internet users believe that Google Inc. should refuse the federal government's demand that it turn over millions of search queries.
More than a quarter of those polled say they will stop using Google if the company complies with the order.

Seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Bush administration subpoenaed Google Inc. for a boatload of data.
The feds want one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches for a one-week period.
Google has vowed to fight the order.

Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft have all complied with the order claiming that they turned over no personal information. Yeah, sure.

It's good to see conformation that Internet users don't want their personal search engine data getting into the hands of the government.
This time, they aren't buying the child porn argument that the government has used before to limit free speech rights.

Federal investigators say they need the data to figure out how often porn shows up in on-line searches - and to help revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act.
The Act was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds.
The government is overreaching again trying to seize the surfing records of people like you and me.

The Act would have required adults to use access codes or other forms of registration before they could see objectionable material on-line.
It would have punished violators with jail time or fines of up to $50,000.

The government wants the Google data to argue that the law is more effective than filtering software which the high court ruled was better able to protect children. The issue is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania.

This has been a big teaching moment for lots of Internet users. Amazingly, more than three quarters of the poll respondents, or 77 percent, did not even know that Google collected information that personally identifies them. Google keeps records of IP addresses, which can be traced back to individual computers.

Poll respondents were more open to Google sharing information In cases where the government is trying to prosecute a crime. About 14 percent said that they were willing to give the government access in such cases, while 44 percent said that they were willing in only certain cases. The poll was conducted over the weekend by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy research group in Elk Rapids, Mich.


Google has been a fat data target since it started expanding its services into e-mail, driving directions, photo sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.
I opened a Google Adsense account for this blog and got into a pissing match with Google because they refused to let me enter a P.O. address instead of a streeet address on the form. This is not smart idea for people who are targeted for aggregating personal data.

Google has not stated guidelines on how long it keeps data.
Data storage is cheap –Google could keep it forever.
The company says it won't release the information because it violates the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets."

https://www.ontherecord.org/blog/arch...n_and.php#more

[I.M. Boggled]

by Matt Buchanan
Opinion Editor
Washington Square News

Information: Today's greatest commodity


January 31, 2006
Whenever the government seeks to expand its power or increase the amount of information it gathers on its populace, there are two arguments at its disposal more powerful than any others to justify such encroachment.
These arguments are typically trotted out during a time of public hysteria or some other mass uncertainty, as they tend to give credence to that uncertainty and even make civilians feel relieved by the prospect of snuggling up a little closer to Uncle Sam.
But as of late, the government been skipping the middleman of reasoning and bargaining, cutting straight to the logic bombs of national security and protecting our nation’s children.

If there’s anything people fear more than the prospect of dying at the hands of some dark-skinned foreigner who believes in a different god than they do, it’s the thought of childhood innocence — at this point sacrosanct in our society — desecrated for the sake of profit. The fear of corrupting children with pornography has been an amazingly persistent menace to public decency since its inception as a mass threat in the late 19th century, amazingly versatile in its ability to be tied to any deviant group Uncle Sam has his eye on, regardless of the time period.

In order for any argument to persist over such vast stretches of time, it must evolve — not only in rationale, but in its demands.
Information, more than anything else, is the commodity of our time, so this is what is demanded.
After the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act scandal broke in the New York Times, those of us who keep up with dealings of information were reminded of the Total Information Awareness project — quite possibly the most massive data-mining scheme ever devised (that's been publicly acknowledged).
Public scrutiny concentrated on the sheer scale and depth of intrusion, striving to sift through every digital communication and transaction, and then use that information to construct networks and devise how people fit into them. The project was loudly scuttled by Congress and its funding cut.

If you paid attention to the coverage following the National Security Agency wiretapping scandal, the most obviously enforced silence surrounded its technical parameters and scope.
That silence speaks volumes, according to the website Ars Technica, which quite methodically ties the ashes of TIA — you don’t vaporize a multibillion dollar project; you dismantle it, ship the parts elsewhere and don’t speak of it again — to the NSA’s program.

Without getting into the piece’s overtly technical aspects, the government’s been pushing the development of large-scale mining techniques combined with voice-recognition technology since at least 1994, forcing telecommunications companies to build the capacity to simultaneously tap 1 percent of all phone calls into its infrastructure.
As Ars points out, no number of judges could sign that many warrants. Therefore, it’s highly probable that the adamantly unspoken of technology is a "high-volume, automated voice recognition and pattern matching system,” Ars concludes.
Moreover, classified next-generation storage and semantic pattern recognition technology would undoubtedly have to be utilized to sift through that volume of data.
It’s no wonder the feds want mouths kept shut.

The other major data-mining event that warrants recent scrutiny is the Department of Justice’s request for search records from the major search engines —a request granted by all but Google, probably the largest private data-miner on the planet.
The government is essentially looking through the data to see how often pornography shows up, so it can use that information in an appeal defending an internet child-protection act struck down in 2004.
It’s not a far leap from there, however, to poring through that data to find individual offenders.

As a number of commentators have brought up, it is in Google’s best interest to make their objection as loud as possible, lest the public become wary of just how much information of theirs the gentle giant really owns.

An almost-new corollary to the "those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear" argument, is the exchange of information for convenience.
You probably have signed some demographic forms in order to access free content online.
Also not-new is the involvement of the private sector to the security industry with a profit-driven furor, through which the "registered traveler" program will be largely implemented.
After all, shouldn’t free market-driven security make us even safer than the government, who has to compete with no one?
All you have to do is sign up, have an extensive background check and prove you’re all-American. In exchange you get shuffled to a less invasive, more convenient, assuredly all-American line in the airport.

While I fell somewhat short of sketching out some grand theory of data-mining, I did, however, lay out some of the basics that will ultimately ground that theory: Far more people than you want to consider know who you are, where you come from and what you like — and they are making more money than you can imagine from that information.

And odds are you are no safer, no less inconvenienced and the world no better off than it was before you clicked Google search or signed that dotted line.

https://www.nyunews.com/vnews/display.../43dedf4d34d27

[I.M. Boggled]

Posted on Wed, Feb. 01, 2006
Knight Ridder Newspapers

Data mining tells government and business a lot about you

WASHINGTON -
You may never have heard the term "data mining," but it's at the core of the argument that's raging over government eavesdropping on Americans.
It's also how commercial companies learn about who you are, where you go, what you eat, what you like, what you buy.

Data mining is the process of using computer technology to extract the knowledge that's buried in enormous volumes of undigested information. Trillions of bits of raw data are culled from telephone calls, e-mails, the Internet, airlines, car rentals, stores, credit card records and a myriad of other sources spawned by the information age.

"A lot can be learned about a person through the combination of massive amounts of data and the use of sophisticated analytical techniques," said Daniel Solove, an associate law professor at George Washington University in Washington.

Whenever you search for information or a product on the Internet, say on Google or Yahoo, you leave a trace.

"Every single search you've ever conducted - ever - is stored on a database somewhere," said Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School in New York. "There's probably nothing more embarrassing than the searches we've made."

Once it's been collected, the data harvest is stored, organized, searched and analyzed by complex computer programs called algorithms.

The programs scour the data for hidden patterns or relationships, such as a suspicious number of insurance claims by an individual or repeated phone calls between, for example, Afghanistan and Detroit.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will open hearings Monday on the Bush administration's use of wiretaps to monitor such calls without a court warrant.

Data mining turns up such potentially meaningful patterns as, say, Person A telephoned B, who e-mailed C, who met with D and E, who rented an apartment together in F-town. Someone at that apartment made a phone call to someone in Country G in the Middle East. Human investigators can take it from there.

Data miners are like gold or diamond miners, who have to burrow through tons of useless material to get the nuggets they want.
They couldn't do it without modern computing systems.

"Human analysts with no special tools can no longer make sense of enormous volumes of data," says an advertisement from Megaputer Intelligence Inc., a data-mining firm in Bloomington, Ind. "Data mining automates the process of finding relationships and patterns in raw data."

In the war against terrorism, data mining is a way to "connect the dots," something the government failed to do before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Jeffrey Ullman, a computer scientist who teaches a course on data mining at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., offered a hypothetical example: Suppose you wanted to check a list of 10 suspected evildoers to see if any two of them spent two nights in the same hotel at the same time, perhaps to plot a terrorist attack.

According to Ullman, you'd have to search through at least 250,000 names to spot the suspicious meeting. That's too much for a human analyst but not for a computer.

"Through data mining, (government) agencies can quickly and efficiently obtain information on individuals or groups by exploiting large databases containing personal information," the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said in a report to Congress last year.

"Before data aggregation and data mining came into use, personal information contained in paper records stored at widely dispersed locations, such as courthouses or other government offices, was relatively difficult to gather and analyze," the GAO said.

A GAO survey found almost 200 data-mining programs in operation or planned at 52 government agencies in 2004.

For example, the State Department draws on a Citibank system to detect fraud or waste by employees using government credit cards.

There's a "greatly increased government hunger for private information of all sorts," said Jonathan Zittrain, an expert on the social implications of the Internet at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Mass. "As such databases grow, the government essentially possesses its own stockpile of the nation's communications on which to perform searches."

A national security data-mining operation might work like this: A search engine - perhaps similar to Google's - monitors phone calls and communications over the Internet, collecting certain key words, such as "bin Laden," "the sheik" or "nuclear plant." It stores the findings in a computer database and looks for links between the key words and other names, places or telephone numbers.

To make sense of the findings, analysts may use a "data visualization" program to create a three-dimensional map, showing the words as hills on a landscape. Higher peaks mean the words appear more frequently. Closer peaks mean the words are related in some fashion.

Data-mining tools also are used in marketing, finance and politics. Investigators detect insurance fraud. Businesses get leads on good sales prospects. Police confirm which precincts are the most crime-ridden. Political candidates learn where best to spend their time and money.

Quadstone, a data-mining firm in Boston, touts its services: "We've created software that can predict your customer's behavior. Whether you're in the banking, brokerage, insurance, retail, or telecommunications industries, we give you the ability to use past customer history as a tool to understand, predict, and influence their future behavior."

The distinction between government and private data mining is blurring.

"Agencies at all levels of government are now interested in collecting and mining large amounts of data from commercial sources," the GAO reported. "Agencies may use such data ... to perform large-scale data analysis and pattern discovery in order to discern potential terrorist activity by unknown individuals."

The FBI's Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, for example, submits queries to commercial databases for information on suspected suicide bombers, which it can combine with secret government files.

Several government data-mining projects - such as Total Information Awareness and the MATRIX, an acronym for Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange - were canceled after a public uproar.

Other government data-mining projects include Talon, a program run by the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity, which collects reports on demonstrators outside U.S. military bases. Thousands of such reports are stored in a database called Cornerstone and are shared with other intelligence agencies.

The Pentagon's Advanced Research and Development Activity, based at Fort Meade, Md., runs a research program whose goal is to develop better ways to mine huge databases to "help the nation avoid strategic surprises ... such as those of September 11, 2001."

Data-mining experts make a distinction between the appropriate use of the technology to detect terrorists or catch criminals and its possible misuse to invade privacy or inhibit free communication.

"The realization that every digital movement is recorded and monitored itself will chill private behavior," Zittrain wrote in the Harvard Law Review.

But Gregory Piatetsky, a Boston-based consultant to data-mining companies, defended the technology in an e-mail interview.

"I believe that data mining technology can be useful," he said, noting its success in detecting credit card fraud and money laundering. In national security cases, he said, the government "may have linked several e-mails from a bad guy to other guys that we know nothing about. Before you can determine whether that guy is good or bad, you first need to intercept" the e-mails.

Some experts say it's all right to use data mining against terrorists, but not against domestic crooks.

"My concern is that the government can't distinguish between fighting the war against militant Islam and ordinary crimes," Stanford's Ullman said in an e-mail. "Just like bank robbery differs in degree from going through a stop sign, terrorism differs in degree from drug crime. ... It's OK to use such a system to pursue terrorists. In fact, I believe it is essential. But we need safeguards to assure it will not be used to track `ordinary' criminals."

https://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/13766572.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Eight Hundred LB. Gorilla is now officially on Steroids,
and bulking up rapidly.

TOTALITARIANISM
(a word coined by Mussolini) is government taken to its greatest extent - government that is involved in every aspect of the citizens' life.

Ive been telling my friends for years now not to use google. But of course, I was always told I am just too paranoid...

damn; after that read, i'm packin up my 4x4 and heading to the hills for good. Fuck computers and the government. I'll be around 3000' on a mountain side, growin' some herb. If I see a man with a AK-47 and turban, i will know we lost the war. If I see a U.S. military soldier, I will know my fellow citizens have lost the war. Hug your loved ones, unplug your PC, and start a home farm. I'm once again deleting my account and destroying my hard drive. Just when i start to trust the system again, they push me back out.. So Library's are not safe to use, nor the web. Looks like the Government got its way, and made their straw dogs more ignorant. Dumb people are so so easy to control and make great Consumers/grunts..

I just wanted to add, I have nothing to hide from these "data miners" except my small med grow I do every once in a while. BUT I am the personality type that thinks people are spying on them 24/7/365. I have been that way since birth, hence my nicknames are crackhead (never used the drug), piglet, and scetch. I grew up in a rough neighborhood and got picked on alot, because of my size. That might explain why my sketchy personality. I hate reading shit like this (but glad i do because I feel the 1000's of dollars i spent on good window blinds so no one could see in my house is waisted... I was around when the internet went live (public) so to say. I had my 286 PC with my modem hooking up at 9600 baud, and i thought that was bad ass! hahah I never thought my own government would spy on me with this new technology that i used for death matching my friends.

Well, best wishes to all here at IC magazine, and the displaced Overgrowers (myself). And one more thing, If you come by someone in your life time that has knowledge about something you are interested in; squeeze as much knowledge out of that person as you possibly can.. Because it may not exist anywhere else in the world... One love

C. Mavin

[I.M. Boggled]

My intention was not to upset people, (I apologize if I spooked anybody reading this), not my intention whatsoever, but to merely inform as to current events being discussed across the internet in forums of all kinds. People in general are very pissed off at these relatively recent revelations of extensive goverment snooping.

Happy Trails Sir, have a good life.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Country Boy Can Survive"
By Hank Jr.

The preacher man says it’s the end of time
And the Mississippi River she’s a goin’ dry
The interest is up and the Stock Markets down
And you only get mugged
If you go down town

I live back in the woods, you see
A woman and the kids, and the dogs and me
I got a shotgun rifle and a 4-wheel drive
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive

I can plow a field all day long
I can catch catfish from dusk till dawn
We make our own whiskey and our own smoke too
Ain’t too many things these ole boys can’t do
We grow good ole tomatoes and homemade wine
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive

Because you can’t starve us out
And you cant makes us run
Cause one-of- ‘em old boys raisin ole shotgun
And we say grace and we say Ma’am
And if you ain’t into that we don’t give a damn

We came from the West Virginia coalmines
And the Rocky Mountains and the and the western skies
And we can skin a buck; we can run a crop line
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive

I had a good friend in New York City
He never called me by my name, just hillbilly
My grandpa taught me how to live off the land
And his taught him to be a businessman
He used to send me pictures of the Broadway nights
And I’d send him some homemade wine

But he was killed by a man with a switchblade knife
For 43 dollars my friend lost his life
Id love to spit some beechnut in that dudes eyes
And shoot him with my old 45
Cause a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive

Cause you can’t starve us out and you can’t make us run
Cause one-of- ‘em old boys raisin ole shotgun
And we say grace and we say Ma’am
And if you ain’t into that we don’t give a damn

We’re from North California and south Alabam
And little towns all around this land
And we can skin a buck; we can run a crop line
And a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive.

[I.M. Boggled]

Source:
New York Times
February 3, 2006

Senate Session on Security Erupts in Spying Debate

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — Senate Democrats on Thursday angrily accused the Bush administration of mounting a public relations campaign to defend the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program while withholding details of the secret eavesdropping from Congressional oversight committees.

An annual hearing on national security threats, led for the first time by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence, was overtaken by acrimonious partisan debate about the program. In response to the Democrats' complaints, Republicans and top administration intelligence officials said the real problem was leaks about N.S.A. eavesdropping and other classified matters.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the Senate Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, compared the administration's public disclosures of limited information about the N.S.A. program in the six weeks since it was first disclosed to what he described as a similarly misleading use of intelligence before the war in Iraq.

"I am deeply troubled by what I see as the administration's continued effort to selectively release intelligence information that supports its policy or political agenda while withholding equally pertinent information that does not do that," Mr. Rockefeller said.

Another Democrat, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, said the administration had engaged in "consistent stonewalling" to prevent the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees from carrying out their oversight duties. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, suggested the administration's public accounts of the eavesdropping program were contradictory, noting that President Bush had described the agency's interception, without court warrants, of "a few" messages, while Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, had referred to "thousands" of messages.

But none of the Republicans on the panel joined the Democrats in their criticism. And in a statement issued later, Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the committee, accused Mr. Rockefeller and other Democrats of derailing the discussion about security threats with their concerns about the eavesdropping program.

"I am concerned that some of my Democrat colleagues used this unique public forum to make clear that they believe the gravest threat we face is not Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but rather the president of the United States," Mr. Roberts said. "There is no doubt in my mind there are marching orders to the minority members of this committee to question and attack, at every opportunity, the president, the vice president, the secretary of state, attorney general and now members of our intelligence agencies."

At the four-hour hearing, Mr. Negroponte and other senior intelligence officials made clear that the decision to limit briefings on the eavesdropping program to just eight members of Congress — the leaders of the Senate and House and the heads of the Intelligence Committees from both parties — had been made by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. He also objected to the Democrats' characterization of the program.

"This was not about domestic surveillance," Mr. Negroponte said. "It was about dealing with the terrorist threat in the most agile and effective way possible."

While the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a public hearing next week to explore legal issues surrounding the N.S.A. program, the entire Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet been briefed on it. Mr. Roberts tried to head off the Democratic attack by announcing that the panel would be briefed in closed session on the program on Feb. 9 by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Gen. Michael V. Hayden, principal deputy director of national intelligence. In addition, he said, the committee would hold a closed business session on Feb. 16 to discuss whether to hold further hearings or open an inquiry into the program, as Mr. Rockefeller has urged.

Mr. Roberts and other Republicans said that the most serious issue was the unauthorized leak of sensitive information on intelligence.

Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, concurred, asserting that leaks had done "very severe" damage to national security and declared that the leakers would be found.

"I've called in the F.B.I., the Department of Justice," Mr. Goss said. "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information."

Mr. Negroponte's recitation of a 25-page prepared text on threats to the nation, including Al Qaeda as well as nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea, contained few surprises. He called terrorism the "pre-eminent threat" and warned of the consequences of failure in the effort to create a stable Iraq.

"We assess that should the jihadists thwart the Iraqis' efforts to establish a stable political and security environment, they could secure an operational base in Iraq and inspire sympathizers elsewhere to move beyond rhetoric to attempt attacks against neighboring Middle Eastern nations, Europe, and even the United States," said Mr. Negroponte, a former ambassador to Iraq.

But as soon as senators were permitted to question Mr. Negroponte and other spy chiefs who flanked him, an emotional debate ensued over the conduct of the intelligence agencies and the proper degree of public and Congressional knowledge of their activities.

President Bush approved the eavesdropping without warrants shortly after the 2001 terrorist attacks, but since the program's existence was revealed in December by The New York Times, some legal experts and members of Congress have asserted that it violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In a pointed exchange, Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, asked Mr. Negroponte whether there were any other "intelligence collection" programs that had not been revealed to the full Intelligence Committees.

Mr. Negroponte replied, "Senator, I don't know if I can comment on that in open session."

In other action on national security, the Senate voted 95 to 1 on Thursday night for a second five-week extension of the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act. The extension, which was approved by the House on Wednesday, now goes to President Bush to be signed into law. It gives negotiators until March 10 to work out a deal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/po...nt&oref=slogin

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
.............................. .............................. ..
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press
https://fact.trib.com/1st.free.speech.html

this world is going to shit

[Verite]

Wheres my cosmic diaper?

[I.M. Boggled]

Source: google-watch.org
https://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html

It's not that we believe Google is evil.
What we believe is that Google, Inc. is at a fork in the road, and they have some big decisions to make.
This Google Watch site is trying to articulate and publicize the situation at Google, and encourage more scrutiny of their operations. By doing this, we hope to play a small part in maintaining the web as an information tool that is more useful for the masses, than it is for the elites.

That's why we and over 500 others nominated Google for a Big Brother award in 2003. The nine points we raised in connection with this nomination necessarily focused on privacy issues:



1. Google's immortal cookie:
Google was the first search engine to use a cookie that expires in 2038. This was at a time when federal websites were prohibited from using persistent cookies altogether. Now it's years later, and immortal cookies are commonplace among search engines; Google set the standard because no one bothered to challenge them. This cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie if you don't already have one. If you have one, they read and record your unique ID number.

2. Google records everything they can:
For all searches they record the cookie ID, your Internet IP address, the time and date, your search terms, and your browser configuration. Increasingly, Google is customizing results based on your IP number. This is referred to in the industry as "IP delivery based on geolocation."

3. Google retains all data indefinitely:
Google has no data retention policies. There is evidence that they are able to easily access all the user information they collect and save.

4. Google won't say why they need this data:
Inquiries to Google about their privacy policies are ignored. When the New York Times (2002-11-28) asked Sergey Brin about whether Google ever gets subpoenaed for this information, he had no comment.

5. Google hires spooks:
Matt Cutts, a key Google engineer, used to work for the National Security Agency. Google wants to hire more people with security clearances, so that they can peddle their corporate assets to the spooks in Washington.

6. Google's toolbar is spyware:
With the advanced features enabled, Google's free toolbar for Explorer phones home with every page you surf, and yes, it reads your cookie too. Their privacy policy confesses this, but that's only because Alexa lost a class-action lawsuit when their toolbar did the same thing, and their privacy policy failed to explain this. Worse yet, Google's toolbar updates to new versions quietly, and without asking. This means that if you have the toolbar installed, Google essentially has complete access to your hard disk every time you connect to Google (which is many times a day). Most software vendors, and even Microsoft, ask if you'd like an updated version. But not Google. Any software that updates automatically presents a massive security risk.

7. Google's cache copy is illegal:
Judging from Ninth Circuit precedent on the application of U.S. copyright laws to the Internet, Google's cache copy appears to be illegal. The only way a webmaster can avoid having his site cached on Google is to put a "noarchive" meta in the header of every page on his site. Surfers like the cache, but webmasters don't. Many webmasters have deleted questionable material from their sites, only to discover later that the problem pages live merrily on in Google's cache. The cache copy should be "opt-in" for webmasters, not "opt-out."

8. Google is not your friend:
By now Google enjoys a 75 percent monopoly for all external referrals to most websites. Webmasters cannot avoid seeking Google's approval these days, assuming they want to increase traffic to their site. If they try to take advantage of some of the known weaknesses in Google's semi-secret algorithms, they may find themselves penalized by Google, and their traffic disappears. There are no detailed, published standards issued by Google, and there is no appeal process for penalized sites. Google is completely unaccountable. Most of the time Google doesn't even answer email from webmasters.

9. Google is a privacy time bomb:
With 200 million searches per day, most from outside the U.S., Google amounts to a privacy disaster waiting to happen. Those newly-commissioned data-mining bureaucrats in Washington can only dream about the sort of slick efficiency that Google has already achieved.