That’s how I read post #53.
Well, this is kind of interesting; I wasn’t particularly thinking of the legal aspects of the thing, but simply whether I consider it right or wrong. Kind of silly, on reflection, as the argument is specifically about subpeoneas and their legal justification. So, it’s interesting in that it made me realize that I don’t have a particularly good grasp on subpoeneas.
How do they work? I just spent a short amount of time searching, but didn’t come up with much that was useful. If what BrainGlutton says is correct, I’m with him; his points are not nitpicks in this aspect of the argument (which is admittedly a hijack of the OP intent).
It’s nice to know that the MecuryNews editorial linked to from the original story matches my opinion:
Like what? I ask this in all seriousness, I’m really afraid I’m being dense and not seeing something obvious…
If the Feds win this one, GWB will have another nickname.
Many examples that come to mind, and I’m sure there are more, as I’ve seen some fairly complex search terms. There are people who perform vanity searches on their name, for example. Or search to see if their phone number was previously assigned to a business, which would explain a large number of wrong number calls. They might want to see if their own web site has made the Google index, therefore entering a ton of info only available on their site.
“John Doe” shows up in the report, so what?
“(453) 454-3432” shows up in the report, so what?
You mean the personal data that is available to everyone that has access to the internet?
It’s personal data. That was the question that was asked and that I answered, so what?
No, it isn’t. It is a point of fact that shows that, yes, you can simply say “simply say, ‘Nah I don’t feel like’”, and that puts matters on hold for the time being.
Same here. This suggests that the problem isn’t on the readers’ end of the communication.
Well, not only is your guys reading comprehension poor your nitpicking is wrong. “I don’t feel like it” is not a defense against a subpeona.
Dude, that’s your strawman you’re whacking away at there. Here is a synopsis of the relevent events occuring. It’s not like Google threw the paperwork in the recycle bin with the last Super-Savr coupon book and isn’t answering the phone.
Here’s a more succinct explanation of the grounds Google is using to attempt to render the subpoena void.
My feelings are still that the U.S. government is perfectly capable of doing it’s own research - even if they weren’t, just because someone else has data they want, doesn’t mean they have to hand it over. IMHO the Bush administration is pretty overbearing, but just because the executive branch has nifty letterhead doesn’t mean there’s no recourse.
I guess a judge issued a subpoena - Google didn’t get to argue it then, my understanding is that it gets to now. Don’t think that counts as saying “Nah I don’t feel like”.
Ok guys, reading comprehension isn’t that hard.
Whats hard to understand about this? He said that if Google does not wish to sell the government this data they shoudln’t have to. To which I responded, I can’t simply say “Nah, I don’t feel like it” if subpeonaed why should Google be able to? Where in the world are you guys getting that I think Google is acting illegally? “If” denotes a hypothetical situation not one that is happening in reality.
In this case the U.S. government is not capable in the least bit of doing its own research. They don’t (as far as I am aware) have spiders combing the internet looking for websites. They also don’t have a search engine so they have no way of gathering data on search queries.
Actually it does mean that and it always has. Any party in any legal action has the right to subpeona any piece of information or witness that they feel is relevent. Sure the witness/information holder can challenge the subpeona on various grounds but if a party can show they need the information they have the right to issue a subpeona.
I don’t particularly want to argue this point, but isn’t saying “the U.S. government is not capable” in this case similar to saying any major corporation that is not (or does not own) a web-search company is also not capable? I’d agree with “is not set up for it” or “has not allocated the resources”, but “is not capable”?
I asked this before, but it was kinda buried in the middle of the post…how do subpoenaes work? Could someone supply a synopsis, or a link to one? If not, I’ll start a GQ thread, but I was hoping someone in this thread could help relieve me of my ignorance. In particular, I suppose I’d like to know/get confirmation on the following:
(1) Who can issue a subpoenae?
(2) What are the conditions/justifications for issuing a subpoenae?
(3) Under what circumstances are subpoenaes validly issued?
(4) What are the conditions for refusing (or resisting) a subpoenae?
(5) What are the legal considerations for (and who decides) judging whether a subpoenae is valid?
(6) What are the ramifications of refusing a subpoenae?
(7) Some examples of a subpoenae issued (and honored) in a case similar to this (that is, not in a case where there was no person or entity on trial).
I’d like to note that I wasn’t sure how to word (7); what I’m getting at is that I can understand suboenaes in a criminal (or civil) case where the information is directly relevant to determining the guilt/innocence of a party before a judge. But this seems something different, as no one is on trial. I hope that’s clear…
Hokay. So, in the future when several people interpret a post in a way that the writer doesn’t wish to stand behind, the problem is with all the people who read it, not the one person who wrote it. Gotcha.
This is equivalent to asserting that because we do not have regular flights to the moon, we are not capable in the least bit of doing our own research about the lunar surface.
This is a damn good point. Bricker?
Since no one has answered my questions regarding subpoenas, I’ve opened up a GQ thread. Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming shortly…
Uh oh. You’re royally screwed now. :smack: 
Sorry for taking so long to finish this (work, etc.). From what Gfactor has said in the GQ thread, it seems that my objections are nothing but wishful thinking on how things ought to be.
Dammit. I hate it when reality smacks my idealistic tendencies down.