I'm pretty sure that drug trafficking is illegal and as such it's the Sheriff's job to arrest all drug dealers. Assuming there's at least one drug dealer in his county, he is isn't doing what he has been legally ordered to do. So he needs to arrest himself, right?
"Even getting to 11 may be tricky without some serious compromises. If you assume (which is already unlikely) that the non-law enforcement/intelligence guys would all agree on something, you're still left with the 6 law enforcement and intelligence commissioners. One of them would have to be convinced to go along with the report."
I think this is incredibly optimistic. What we have is a committee comprised of 16 individuals - we can be pretty darned sure the 6 LEO folks are going to be anti-encryption, but what worries me is that the other 10 are hand picked to also be anti-encryption.
Somehow, I really don't see that it's going to be hard to get 11 votes, but almost impossible to get 11 pro encryption votes.
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)?