On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:28:06 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>__/ [ canadafred ] on Wednesday 15 March 2006 02:05 \__
>
[snip]
>> I already raged about this two week ago in a discussion here so I'm staying
>> out of it this time, if it starts up again. But yes, Google has capitulated
>> and is handing over a percentage of the records.
>
>
>How long before ISP's are forced to do the same? There's the dataretention
>act, but no logs have been passed around as far as I know. Yet!
I doubt ISPs will be asked to hand over search listings. Well, AOL
does offer their version of a search facility for their users ... but
AOL would probably comply if asked.
In terms of log files being passed around - would depend, perhaps, on
why and how asked. If email providers have been known to cooperate and
places like Yahoo Groups (when requested to turn over names of people
trading certain kind of files or posting certain content/info] then
who knows? I do know that as far back as 1995 sys-ops joked about
people private messaging on IRC and thinking their convos were
"secret" while the sys-ops 'eavesdropped' in on those private
messages.
Personally I think the whole "request of searches performed data" is
silly. As Google pointed out already - some of the data will be
outdated by the time anyone on the staff tried to replicate some of
those searches and sometimes the porn is cleverly hidden to not show
up in the abstract/snippet that would be shared but only be "in your
face" when clicking on the link and the page starts loading in. In
other words, the hard work isn't done for the staff people as they
have to perform searches and click to see what they do get and what
they don't get.
I won't share my other opinions about people wanting the gov't to
enforce laws so they (the people) can be lazy ...
Carol
|
|
