This is a gripping story that penetrates the veil of copyright and trademark law and brings satisfaction to people lusting for more information. A story that inflates the pulsing underbelly of international intrigue and enlarges the knowledge base of all of your breathless readers. A story whose breath and girth can only increase as your opponent tries harder and harder to control your gushing flow of commentary.
I have to wonder if the Feds already know what's on this phone but don't want to admit how they found out. I mean, I know that would be dishonest and the Feds would NEVER do anything like that (cought.. parallel construction.. cough), but....
First, the customer of a search engine is the person SEARCHING, not the person whose name is searched for. When Google says it protects its customers information, it is talking about people who sign up with Google for Google services. It's not talking about names it has listed in search results.
Second, Google is only indexing what is SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET!!! If you think you have the "right to be forgotten", you need to contact the company / site that has the information and have THEM remove the info from the internet then it will quit being indexed by Google.
Blaming Google for doing exactly what it is there to do seems disingenuous at best.
First off, I don't get the whole "Google is the enemy" position. If you choose to use Google (gmail, search, etc), then you are CHOOSING to use Google. Just because Google managed to make money, doesn't make them evil... just successful.
Second, I haven't seen anyone mention SSL. It would seem that if all websites were 100% SSL (as Google and most security folks recommend), it would make this process a lot harder.
Third, am I the only one that suspects that if the ISPs actually block the Google adds, they will not remove them, but REPLACE them with their own (without payment to the site that generated the traffic)?
When Holder said Rosen "was labeled as a co-conspirator. I mean, you had to do that as a result of the statute", what he could have meant was "for us to prosecute the reporter under this statute, we had to name his as a co-conspirator because we couldn't charge him any other way (and we were bloody well going to charge him)."
His remorse was that he couldn't go after him directly. ;)