Comments on: Web 2.0 to suffer from United States Department of Justice request? http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/ Tom Raftery, social media consultant, speaker, blogger and podcaster Mon, 08 Sep 2008 05:36:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: eWisentNet » Blog Archive » This extension uses the popular TrustWatch anti-phishing service http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-60059 eWisentNet » Blog Archive » This extension uses the popular TrustWatch anti-phishing service Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:26:30 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-60059 [...] Web 2.0 to suffer from United States Department of Justice request? at Tom Raftery’s I.T. views A couple of my thoughts on things I.T. which catch my fancy. … Tags: aol, boing, doj, google, msn, search engines, sew, web 2.0, xeni jardin, yahoo. … [...] [...] Web 2.0 to suffer from United States Department of Justice request? at Tom Raftery’s I.T. views A couple of my thoughts on things I.T. which catch my fancy. … Tags: aol, boing, doj, google, msn, search engines, sew, web 2.0, xeni jardin, yahoo. … [...]

]]> By: Francis McKeagney http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-4173 Francis McKeagney Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:57:57 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-4173 Tom, Very interesting podcast contained within Dion Hinchcliffes's Web 2.0 Blog on this topic. Well worth listening to. http://web2.wsj2.com/trust_and_privacy_in_web_20_microsoft_search_and_the_doj.htm Fran Tom,

Very interesting podcast contained within Dion Hinchcliffes’s Web 2.0 Blog on this topic. Well worth listening to.

http://web2.wsj2.com/trust_and_privacy_in_web_20_microsoft_search_and_the_doj.htm

Fran

]]> By: Tom Raftery http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3969 Tom Raftery Mon, 23 Jan 2006 23:07:04 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3969 Sorry Dave - I should have been clearer. Web 2.0 apps are generally about people trusting 3rd party companies with their data (think Basecamp, Flickr, BackPack, etc.). This action by the DoJ is likely to give people pause for thought before they consider handing over thier data to 3rd parties. Sorry Dave - I should have been clearer.

Web 2.0 apps are generally about people trusting 3rd party companies with their data (think Basecamp, Flickr, BackPack, etc.). This action by the DoJ is likely to give people pause for thought before they consider handing over thier data to 3rd parties.

]]> By: Dave http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3968 Dave Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:25:29 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3968 Em, what does Web 2.0 have to do with this? Em, what does Web 2.0 have to do with this?

]]> By: MacManX.com » Blogroll Dive: 1/23/06 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3957 MacManX.com » Blogroll Dive: 1/23/06 Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:04:09 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3957 [...] And, Tom discussed the U.S. Department of Justice’s request to receive “a week’s worth of search data from the major U.S. search engines.” Filed under: Blogs [...] [...] And, Tom discussed the U.S. Department of Justice’s request to receive “a week’s worth of search data from the major U.S. search engines.” Filed under: Blogs [...]

]]> By: Javaflash http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3906 Javaflash Sat, 21 Jan 2006 02:50:30 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3906 Clearly, DOJ aren't after Child Protection. They're after the aggregated, broad reaching data, not the more accurate (with respect to their stated objective) random end user sample. They use this child protection card because it's embarrassing and press worthy. I am shocked by how easily AOL, MSN, and Yahoo hand over their sets without resistance. I applaud Google for standing up against DOJ. "Principles only mean something when you stick to them when it's inconvenient. " Clearly, DOJ aren’t after Child Protection. They’re after the aggregated, broad reaching data, not the more accurate (with respect to their stated objective) random end user sample. They use this child protection card because it’s embarrassing and press worthy. I am shocked by how easily AOL, MSN, and Yahoo hand over their sets without resistance.

I applaud Google for standing up against DOJ.

“Principles only mean something when you stick to them when it’s inconvenient. “

]]> By: Tom Raftery http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3901 Tom Raftery Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:03:15 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3901 <blockquote>I don't think the fact that AOL didn't supply the requested information is the point, rather the fact that they supplied it at the drop of a hat</blockquote> Absolutely Pete - it is scary that they simply handed it over on request, no court order, no subpoena, a simple request was all it took. Moreover, if Google hadn't failed to hand the info over, we might never have heard of this! <blockquote>I have yet to see a mention of the geographical scope the of request. Was this just records of searches originating within the US to US based Google servers, or is it worldwide?</blockquote> I was curious about that too Pete - I presume it is all (in the absence of data to the contrary).

I don’t think the fact that AOL didn’t supply the requested information is the point, rather the fact that they supplied it at the drop of a hat

Absolutely Pete - it is scary that they simply handed it over on request, no court order, no subpoena, a simple request was all it took. Moreover, if Google hadn’t failed to hand the info over, we might never have heard of this!

I have yet to see a mention of the geographical scope the of request. Was this just records of searches originating within the US to US based Google servers, or is it worldwide?

I was curious about that too Pete - I presume it is all (in the absence of data to the contrary).

]]> By: Pete Connolly http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3897 Pete Connolly Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:43:15 +0000 http://www.tomrafteryit.net/web-20-to-suffer-from-united-states-department-of-justice-request/#comment-3897 I notice that AOL are now saying that they didn't give the requested information to the Justice Department, rather they supplied aggregate information that didn't include results or any other personally identifiable information. The sort of info that could be obtained from several sites I don't think the fact that AOL didn't supply the <em>requested</em> information is the point, rather the fact that they supplied it at the drop of a hat. As Homer would say, 3 out of 4 search engines folded faster than Superman on laundry day. I have yet to see a mention of the geographical scope the of request. Was this just records of searches originating within the US to US based Google servers, or is it worldwide? I notice that AOL are now saying that they didn’t give the requested information to the Justice Department, rather they supplied aggregate information that didn’t include results or any other personally identifiable information. The sort of info that could be obtained from several sites

I don’t think the fact that AOL didn’t supply the requested information is the point, rather the fact that they supplied it at the drop of a hat. As Homer would say, 3 out of 4 search engines folded faster than Superman on laundry day.

I have yet to see a mention of the geographical scope the of request. Was this just records of searches originating within the US to US based Google servers, or is it worldwide?

]]>