"Anyhoo, when more than one AG comes after you, it's just possible that you're engaged in fairly obvious fiddling."
Nice appeal to authority there. Obviously there's no reason to believe that if one AG seeks to improve their chances of career advancement by grandstanding on a stupid issue like this, that others would jump on the bandwagon for the same ulterior motives. No, AG's clearly have moral superiority when in numbers...
So you're trying to convince us that you've never done anything in your life that was completely legal but you'd still like to keep completely private? Man your life must be dull...
"What a shame that you can't be bothered to defend anything you publish. That says it all about you, unfortunately."
The fact that you feel fully entitled to an author's time and attention says a lot about you. You have an unrealistically high impression of your own worth.
"So Mike, are you saying that whistleblowers should just not even try to report whatever wrongs they perceive through proper channels first?"
Did you even read the link that was in the text you quoted? Clearly not, or you'd realise how ignorant your comment sounds. Why would you choose a path that will have the exact opposite outcome that you want?
Feel free to link to examples of Mike attacking someone while ignoring the merits of what they said. If it's so common it should be easy for you. Way you go, we'll wait...
"...trying to draw out a sophisticated debate here..."
Can you point to which parts of your contribution you consider to be "sophisticated"? Because I'm seeing a staggering lack of sophistication in all the people 'criticizing' this post and the commentors who support it.
If think the sheer volume of flagged comments proves AG Wright's point. Someone clearly wants this discussion shut down or discredited.
"I don't live my life based on the statistical probability of the method of my death!!! Do you?"
I do and so do you. You make decisions like that every day without even thinking about it. If you step in front of an approaching truck you have a high statistical probability of dying, so you decide to wait 'til it's passed and there's a safe gap in traffic. You probably make multiple such decisions daily.
The chances of dying in a terrorist attack play practically no part in my daily decision making, because there is practically zero chance of it happening.
"You don't mind being under surveillance when you are the beach by life guards, because you know they are there to watch over you and protect you."
This ridiculous comparison proves you're either not smart enough or not honest enough to play a meaningful part in this discussion.
"Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians."
Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations, an action you claim is them "trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians". So are you implying that terrestrial radio stations are already getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Because that's the only logical conclusion to make from your claim. So where's your rant about terrestrial radio stations getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Should I look on The Trichordist?
Pretentious wankers like this probably don't even realise that these sorts of actions can leave a very sour taste in fans' mouths, and are probably far more damaging than YouTube could ever be.
"Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime, and tacitly admit that crime is going on."
Okay then, answer me this (I know you won't). Which of these two scenarios best meets your requirement to "prevent crime"?
1. Google caves to AG's grandstanding and delists websites allegedly engaged in "illegal activity". AG claims success! Meanwhile said illegal activity continues unabated, but is a tiny bit harder to find on the internet. Or...
2. AG's leave Google alone and do their damn job, using proper law enforcement tools to locate "illegal activity" (easy to find, look on Google!) and stop it from actually occurring.
I genuinely believe you're not smart enough to see the correct answer here.
"The same could be said for having someone note the license plates of cars that go to local gun shops (legal) and those who visit local politician's offices (also legal), and combining that list."
And if that were happening on anywhere near the same scale as this you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't.
What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata — the details about phone calls, without the actual voice — isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
Sorry, your phone records—oops, "so-called metadata"—can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying.
Re:
Sorry, who got censored where in this story?
Re: Mike and Tolles against AG investigating Google for antitrust.
"Anyhoo, when more than one AG comes after you, it's just possible that you're engaged in fairly obvious fiddling."
Nice appeal to authority there. Obviously there's no reason to believe that if one AG seeks to improve their chances of career advancement by grandstanding on a stupid issue like this, that others would jump on the bandwagon for the same ulterior motives. No, AG's clearly have moral superiority when in numbers...
Re: Re:
"...don't address the merits of anything I say."
Very little you have to say at the moment has any merit. You have quite literally lowered yourself to the level of spam.
Re: Who cares
So you're trying to convince us that you've never done anything in your life that was completely legal but you'd still like to keep completely private? Man your life must be dull...
Re:
"What a shame that you can't be bothered to defend anything you publish. That says it all about you, unfortunately."
The fact that you feel fully entitled to an author's time and attention says a lot about you. You have an unrealistically high impression of your own worth.
Re:
"So Mike, are you saying that whistleblowers should just not even try to report whatever wrongs they perceive through proper channels first?"
Did you even read the link that was in the text you quoted? Clearly not, or you'd realise how ignorant your comment sounds. Why would you choose a path that will have the exact opposite outcome that you want?
Re:
Feel free to link to examples of Mike attacking someone while ignoring the merits of what they said. If it's so common it should be easy for you. Way you go, we'll wait...
Re: Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
"...trying to draw out a sophisticated debate here..."
Can you point to which parts of your contribution you consider to be "sophisticated"? Because I'm seeing a staggering lack of sophistication in all the people 'criticizing' this post and the commentors who support it.
If think the sheer volume of flagged comments proves AG Wright's point. Someone clearly wants this discussion shut down or discredited.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And they spoke English !!"
While discussing their plot between themselves? No, not likely.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't live my life based on the statistical probability of the method of my death!!! Do you?"
I do and so do you. You make decisions like that every day without even thinking about it. If you step in front of an approaching truck you have a high statistical probability of dying, so you decide to wait 'til it's passed and there's a safe gap in traffic. You probably make multiple such decisions daily.
The chances of dying in a terrorist attack play practically no part in my daily decision making, because there is practically zero chance of it happening.
"You don't mind being under surveillance when you are the beach by life guards, because you know they are there to watch over you and protect you."
This ridiculous comparison proves you're either not smart enough or not honest enough to play a meaningful part in this discussion.
Re: Re: Re:
"So according to this idiot, if you simply tell the security services you are no threat that is somehow supposed to prove you are no threat?"
No, that's not what he said, and only a complete moron could possibly interpret it that way.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Runs and hides.
Every single time."
So Mike, who posts under his real name every day, is "hiding", says his anonymous accuser.
Irony, thy name is AC...
Re:
"Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians."
Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations, an action you claim is them "trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians". So are you implying that terrestrial radio stations are already getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Because that's the only logical conclusion to make from your claim. So where's your rant about terrestrial radio stations getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Should I look on The Trichordist?
Re: Re:
Not terrorist, TerrORist! It's right there in the name...
Re: On the way out
Pretentious wankers like this probably don't even realise that these sorts of actions can leave a very sour taste in fans' mouths, and are probably far more damaging than YouTube could ever be.
Re:
"it's what you sign onto when you join the military, it's called an "ethic"."
No, it's called a rule, and rules are not ethics.
"I know ethic's are foreign to you, you might want to look it up."
Ironic, since you've mangled the definition of ethics so badly.
Re: Google loves infringing content.
"Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime, and tacitly admit that crime is going on."
Okay then, answer me this (I know you won't). Which of these two scenarios best meets your requirement to "prevent crime"?
1. Google caves to AG's grandstanding and delists websites allegedly engaged in "illegal activity". AG claims success! Meanwhile said illegal activity continues unabated, but is a tiny bit harder to find on the internet. Or...
2. AG's leave Google alone and do their damn job, using proper law enforcement tools to locate "illegal activity" (easy to find, look on Google!) and stop it from actually occurring.
I genuinely believe you're not smart enough to see the correct answer here.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: troubling
"The same could be said for having someone note the license plates of cars that go to local gun shops (legal) and those who visit local politician's offices (also legal), and combining that list."
And if that were happening on anywhere near the same scale as this you might have a point. But it's not, so you don't.
Re: Re: Re: troubling
"Nobody is recording your calls and listening to them..."
They don't need to:
http://gizmodo.com/why-the-metadata-the-nsa-has-on-you-matters-512103968
What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata — the details about phone calls, without the actual voice — isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
Sorry, your phone records—oops, "so-called metadata"—can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying.
Re: Re: Re: troubling
"The question would be when did Wyden have knowledge, and why hasn't he been forthcoming about it?"
You seem to be woefully behind the times regarding Wyden's actions. Please try to keep up.