FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Google advocates: Another thing to watch for
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Our Man Fletch: Seems as if Sequoia Capital has funded every significant silicon valley and internet marketing development of the last five years.

In Sequoia Capital's 'SEQUOIA' logo, an obscure but distinctive font is used: 'Times New Roman Bold'... there are indications that manual kerning was applied to the final product...

All the rest of the story, Fletch has filled us in on nicely. Good work. ;-)
__
"But what is the robbing of a bank compared to the FOUNDING of a bank?"
~ Groucho Marx
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jerry Fletcher



Joined: 21 Jan 2006
Posts: 837
Location: Studio BS

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
All the rest of the story, Fletch has filled us in on nicely. Good work. Wink


Quote:
Great post Jerry! Naw... it must ALL be a coincidence!


Thanks y'all!

Knowing an intelligent interested audience actually exists for my tinfoil ramblings is downright inspiring.

Trust me, my girlfriend loves you people.

Hocus Locus, I offer you a belated welcome and am currently still unraveling your first 30 posts, but am enjoying your perspective on the towers, aids, etc.

I think, like 'Hoodie', the only dialect I immediately understand is the scathing and vulgar sarcasm spoken by the 'creative' laborers of America's media metropolises.

But I'm learning to translate... Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm... Something I've long suspected.

But I'm somewhat surprized that this actually was mentioned on prisonplanet. I would have thought that if they were REALLY onto things, they would have mentioned this A LONG TIME AGO.

No surprize as Jones has been saying "just Google it..." (more times than I can count) on his daily radio show... (i.e. directing listeners into the monitoring system)

1) Does Jones now feel like an ass for directing people directly to CIA-Google all these years?
2) Will he stop directing people to the CIA-Google? (we will see)
3) or did this "former" agent accidentally slip something out that he shouldn't have?

We will see how long this story lasts, or whether they let this one fade away...

Quote:
Former Intelligence Agent Says Google In Bed With CIA
Steele also sounds off on 9/11 doubts

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 27 2006

A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is "in bed with" the intelligence agency and the U.S. government. He has also gone public on his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11.

Robert David Steele appeared on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show and began by voicing his deep doubts about the official 9/11 story.

While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration.

"The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over," said Steele adding, "I'm absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I'm concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated."

"There's no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition."

Steele pointed the finger of suspicion directly at the Vice President saying, "There's no question in my own mind that Dick Cheney is the tar baby in this whole thing."

Steele outlined the bizarre circumstances preceding the attack that would have greased the skids for bombs to be planted in the buildings.

"You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush - I mean if you smell a rotten fish there's probably a rotten fish somewhere around."

Steele's biography is impressive. He was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.

He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.

Before the 2004 election Steele advocated the re-election of George W Bush and he has been cited by numerous Republican luminaries as a credible source. His testimony is added to the chorus of other credible 9/11 whistleblowers both in and out of government and academia.

Steele raised eyebrows when he confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with "the agency," a claim made especially volatile by the fact that Google was recently caught censoring Alex Jones' Terror Storm and has targeted other websites for blackout in the past.

"I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I'm hoping they'll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off," said the ex-CIA man.

"Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development," said Steele.

Steele called for more scrutiny to be placed on Google if it continues to engage in nefarious practices, saying, "If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I think it's important that be documented and publicized."
http://infowars.com/articles/bb/google_in_bed_with_gov_cia_says_former_agent.htm

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Also, in viewing the Infowars website, there is a link in the middle of the page, highlighted in red, which is a link to video.google.com of "TerrorStorm".

It says "SEND THIS LINK TO EVERYONE".
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&sourceid=zeitgeist
Please notice the sourceid=zeitgeist at the end of the link.
Although in plain sight, this is another form of referral tracking.

I find the use of the word/account "zeitgeist" to be a peculiar choice.

Quote:
Zeitgeist - It is a term that refers to the ethos of a cohort of people, that spans one or more subsequent generations, who despite their diverse age and socio-economic background experience a certain worldview, which is prevalent at a particular period of socio-cultural progression. Zeitgeist is the experience of a dominant cultural climate that defines, particularly in Hegelian thinking, an era in the dialectical progression of a people or the world at large. Hegel's main contribution to the formulation of the concept of Volksgeist is the attribution of a historical character to the concept. The spirit of a nation is one of the manifestations of World Spirit (Weltgeist). That Spirit is essentially alive and active throughout mankind's history. Now, the spirit of a nation is an intermediate stage of world history as the history of the World Spirit.


And from Google itself...
Quote:
The term "zeitgeist" comes from the German "Zeit" meaning "time" and "Geist" meaning "spirit". The term is defined in English by Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary as "the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era." Google believes that this word and its definition appropriate to describe the program it implemented to share global search statistics and trends from the world's most popular search engine.


Google created a "Year-End Google Zeitgeist - Search patterns, trends, and surprises"
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2002.html
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2003.html
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2004.html
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist2005.html

A quick search on any search engine, and one can see all sorts of referrals to google video by this account (search for "sourceid=zeitgeist")
1) Who owns this "zeitgeist" account?, a Jones staff member?
2) Why ad the sourceid tag in the first place?, why not remove it before posting on the home-page?
3) Leaving it on was just an oversight right? Wink, or is it a way to track the connectedness of each of us.
I've never posted anything to video.google, so I'm not sure if this is a "feature" of the posters account to track how your "link" has spread throughout the web. Anyone in the know?

ED

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1716
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
sourceid = type of the source (ie7, opera, navclient, navclient-ff - navclient is used for Google software like the toolbar)


From: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_googlesystem_archive.html

No idea which client 'zeitgeist' is though - but I like the way you think. Wink

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
basireid
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

oh my, try and wrap your head around all this info, just on Google.....

ok, never mind them spying on us, huh, they Gave Us the Internet in The Beginning right? They Gave us Jesus, the Bible, hell man, they gave us All Our Illusions in the First Place! They Gave us Everything we got, well, actually, we have to buy it, but, they set it all up man, they been recording everything we do with computers, the net, telephones, TV oh wow, why even bother going on....

I already sound like a nutso, so why not just say, the Bible (buybull remember) is nothing more than their handbook, their Book Of Shadows... they said there is nowhere to hide right? Exclamation

I do have to say, I read right away somewhere on this vast forum, nothing to be afraid of, I got me nowhere to hide, nowhere to run, and, even if I keep reading all this, I will too, nothing else to do, I cannot do Anything to stop them... why bother, I gonna die one day....

until then, I will keep reading and hope I can like, I dunno, at least have something worthwhile to do....

Oh and Hey, this just In, there are what 4 trillion $$ or some absurd number, Missing, right? how else can Google 'give' us free vids and gmail,

Bandwidth still costs Money -- Ask the Owner of this site and forum...

videos use A Lot of Bandwidth

but, do what you like, Google it!!

haha, no, sorry if I do sound irrational and crazy, but really, this whole, them watching us, ah, I better just continue lurking in the background, damn, way too many brain injuries seem to cause me to reply too much....
Back to top
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This article is so chock-full-o-garbage, I can't be bothered to highlight the whole thing.

As long as Google is always the "good guy", then we have nothing to worry about... Wink

Quote:
Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google
Internet Search Yields Names Cited in U.N. Draft Resolution

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A01

When the State Department recently asked the CIA for names of Iranians who could be sanctioned for their involvement in a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the agency refused, citing a large workload and a desire to protect its sources and tradecraft.

Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign Service officer to find the names another way -- by using Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

Policymakers and intelligence officials have always struggled when it comes to deciding how and when to disclose secret information, such as names of Iranians with suspected ties to nuclear weapons. In some internal debates, policymakers win out and intelligence is made public to further political or diplomatic goals. In other cases, such as this one, the intelligence community successfully argues that protecting information outweighs the desires of some to share it with the world.

But that argument can also put the U.S. government in the awkward position of relying, in part, on an Internet search to select targets for international sanctions.

None of the 12 Iranians that the State Department eventually singled out for potential bans on international travel and business dealings is believed by the CIA to be directly connected to Iran's most suspicious nuclear activities.

"There is nothing that proves involvement in a clandestine weapons program, and there is very little out there at all that even connects people to a clandestine weapons program," said one official familiar with the intelligence on Iran. Like others interviewed for this story, the official insisted on anonymity when discussing the use of intelligence.

What little information there is has been guarded at CIA headquarters. The agency declined to discuss the case in detail, but a senior intelligence official said: "There were several factors that made it a complicated and time-consuming request, not the least of which were well-founded concerns" about revealing the way the CIA gathers intelligence on Iran.

That may be why the junior State Department officer, who has been with the nonproliferation bureau for only a few months, was put in front of a computer.

An initial Internet search yielded over 100 names, including dozens of Iranian diplomats who have publicly defended their country's efforts as intended to produce energy, not bombs, the sources said. The list also included names of Iranians who have spoken with U.N. inspectors or have traveled to Vienna to attend International Atomic Energy Agency meetings about Iran.

It was submitted to the CIA for approval but the agency refused to look up such a large number of people, according to three government sources. Too time-consuming, the intelligence community said, for the CIA's Iran desk staff of 140 people. The list would need to be pared down. So the State Department cut the list in half and resubmitted the names.

In the end, the CIA approved a handful of individuals, though none is believed connected to Project 1-11 -- Iran's secret military effort to design a weapons system capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The names of Project 1-11 staff members have never been released by any government and doing so may have raised questions that the CIA was not willing or fully able to answer. But the agency had no qualms about approving names already publicly available on the Internet.

"Using a piece of intel on project 1-11, which we couldn't justify in open-source reporting, or with whatever the Russians had, would have put us in a difficult position," an intelligence official said. "Inevitably, someone would have asked, 'Why this guy?' and then we would have been back to the old problem of justifying intelligence."

A senior administration official acknowledged that the back-and-forth with the CIA had been difficult, especially given the administration's desire to isolate Iran and avoid a repeat of flawed intelligence that preceded the Iraq war.

"In this instance, we were the requesters and the CIA was the clearer," the official said. "It's the process we go through on a lot of these things. Both sides don't know a lot of reasons for why either side is requesting or denying things. Sources and methods became their stated rationale and that is what they do. But for policymaking, it can be quite frustrating."

Washington's credibility in the U.N. Security Council on weapons intelligence was sharply eroded by the collapse of prewar claims about Iraq. A senior intelligence official said the intelligence community is determined to avoid mistakes of the past when dealing with Iran and other issues. "Once you push intelligence out there, you can't take it back," the official said.

U.S., French and British officials came to agree that it was better to stay away from names that would have to be justified with sensitive information from intelligence programs, and instead put forward names of Iranians whose jobs were publicly connected to the country's nuclear energy and missile programs. European officials said their governments did not rely on Google searches but came up with nearly identical lists to the one U.S. officials offered.

"We do have concerns about Iranian activities that are overt, and uranium enrichment is a case in point," said a senior administration official who agreed to discuss the process on the condition of anonymity. "We are concerned about what it means for the program, but also because enrichment is in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution."

The U.S.-backed draft resolution, formally offered by Britain and France, would impose a travel ban and freeze the assets of 11 institutions and 12 individuals, including the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, the directors of Iran's chief nuclear energy facilities, and several people involved in the missile program. It would prohibit the sale of nuclear technologies to Iran and urges states to "prevent specialised teaching or training" of Iranian nationals in disciplines that could further Tehran's understanding of banned nuclear activities.

The text says the council will be prepared to lift the sanctions if Mohamed ElBaradei, the IAEA's director general, concludes within 60 days that Iran has suspended its enrichment and reprocessing of uranium and has halted efforts to produce a heavy-water nuclear energy reactor.

Many Security Council members are uneasy about the sanctions. The Russians and the Chinese -- whose support is essential for the resolution to be approved -- have told the United States, Britain and France they will not support the travel-ban element of the resolution, according to three officials involved in the negotiations. Russia is building a light-water nuclear reactor in Iran and some people on the sanctions list are connected to the project.

"The Russians have already told us it would be demeaning for people to ask the Security Council for permission to travel to Russia to discuss an ongoing project," a European diplomat said yesterday.

U.S. and European officials said there is room for negotiation with Russia on the names and organizations, but they also said it is possible that by the time the Security Council approves the resolution, the entire list could be removed.

"The real scope of debate will be on the number of sanctions," one diplomat said. "Companies and individuals could go off the list or go on."

Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000959_2.html

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2006 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
What little information there is has been guarded at CIA headquarters. The agency declined to discuss the case in detail, but a senior intelligence official said: "There were several factors that made it a complicated and time-consuming request, not the least of which were well-founded concerns" about revealing the way the CIA gathers intelligence on Iran.

That may be why the junior State Department officer, who has been with the nonproliferation bureau for only a few months, was put in front of a computer.

An initial Internet search yielded over 100 names, including dozens of Iranian diplomats who have publicly defended their country's efforts as intended to produce energy, not bombs, the sources said. The list also included names of Iranians who have spoken with U.N. inspectors or have traveled to Vienna to attend International Atomic Energy Agency meetings about Iran.

It was submitted to the CIA for approval but the agency refused to look up such a large number of people, according to three government sources. Too time-consuming, the intelligence community said, for the CIA's Iran desk staff of 140 people. The list would need to be pared down. So the State Department cut the list in half and resubmitted the names.

This sort of thing does happen all the time though, before cubs learn 'the system'. Where was mama bear?? I feel sorry for that 'junior officer', it's an embarassingly awful way to start a State Department career. This should never have gone public.

The kind of anecdote that in hard-core intel circles would not even be bandied about as funny, too far into the eye rolling zone. And of course by saying "can also put the U.S. government in the awkward position of relying, in part, on an Internet search" the reporter (a 'junior staff writer'?) is missing the point that the tasking effort of 'fulfilling' such a request is high budget, a ten-thousand or so page item.. In real life a 'worldly' SD supervisor should verbally shut it down at the source by explaining the nature of things. Are there any such people left?

In the US news arena dropping 'Google' in a sentance yields gee-whiz magic-decoder-ring surface sentiment, "Wow! I use Google too!". Could this be another psyop leak to push keywords 'Iran', 'nuclear' and 'be very afraid' that, like so many others I've seen, is woefully demeaning to the US Governments general 'level of professionalism'?

I have this subtle "nah, they wouln't do this, not even for that obvious reason" detector which is starting to chime. Could we have moles in the US government gathering this intel -- this being a prime example of something that never should have never reached the CIA, never even left the building -- and sowing leaks that not just hit on credibility of the current administration but the professional level credibility of the US itself?

Reading too much into it, almost certain. But if true... on a strictly Bambi level, I don't think these 'G8' people, or whomever, are our friends. Goo goo goo joob.

___
Mulder: "Are you Sally Kendrick?"
Eve 6: "No. But she is me. And I am her. And we are all together..."

~The X-Files
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elbowdeep



Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 395

PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A little video clip I seemed to have missed back in January 07,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zKXCQpUnMg

_________________
One day the cows will sprout wings and fly away...
http://twitter.com/elbowdeep
http://elbowdeep.posterous.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't 'worry' about Google, worry about who's camping out in the infrastructure around it. Having an informal corporate motto of "Don't be evil" is the best assurance we could ever have. They've done their part. Far more than we-consumers have ever been given before. I would gladly shred every clickthru agreement, all the fine print on all the forms I have ever signed --for that one motto. Gut intuition, because it fits the reality of the situation.

Privacy can only be struggled for, and when it is achieved, what has been achieved is actually not privacy, but an assumption we make about the level of privacy. I go about never making too many assumptions about privacy, but I do devote a fair amount of mental processing to knowing where I stand in terms of exposure.

You don't need to believe that Google is watching you. But it *is* safe to assume that the world's intelligence services are camped out on, and around their doorstep, watching the connection between you and google. That's a much better way for them to do it. Google is the golden egg -- infiltrate them with operatives, sure. But infuse in their corporate culture a casual program of abuse of their vision and you kill the goose.

Surround the goose, on the purely telecom level, with packet parsing hardware that funnels all or as much traffic as one can capture (filtered on levels) to other places for reassembly and parallel processing and you have a win.

It need not be physically proximate either. For example, if I have a piggyback slurp at an Internet traffic point around South Africa, with a few ip address filters I can tag all traffic destined for and returning from Google's servers in North America, and apply the same types of traffic and target analysis as Google itself. I see Google's cookies, search terms. I'm even in a better position to invade click-privacy than Google -- because Google's search results click directly to the site: Google never knows which one you picked (unless you click 'feel lucky', shorthand navigation to the first ranked). But I as the slurper in the middle do, and I can watch where you go from there.

Could Google lock everything down and go https-encrypted for all their transactions, even searches? Yes. It would be incredibly expensive for them. They move so much data in and out that the layer of encryption would significantly impact their ability to deliver product the way they do. Not just on their end, installing the dedicated standalone cryptographic hardware that would be required (gigabit encryption is on a level by itself, lots of session keys)... even on the client side there would be problems, as web browsers typically do not cache secure pages and images to disk -- this means more traffic than exists in a plaintext scenario.

And with all the extra CPU cycles burned up in the process -- then you'd really have 'Global Warming'. ;-)

And even then -- in an atmosphere of commonly used SSL encryption between you and Google -- you have some cloaking from the man in the middle. But what if there is at least one three-letter agency in the world that has stolen their keys without their knowing (a 'black bag' operation)? Or been given them outright to counter a mortal threat, and avoid harassment? See this post and scan 'bachelor behind door number 2' to see what I mean.

Privacy is absolute and inviolate in vivo, in the family bathroom when you were a kid growing up, in theory, in naive assurance when you steal that first kiss. When guys do a quick side-to-side glance and adjust their pants. When you step outside, into the crowd it changes...

In todays world Goggle can, and most likely is a golden egg that is still inside the goose.

Anti-Google privacy centric sentiment may have some not-so-naive motivations. It may be competing corporate interests. It may even be that true 'CIA Fakes' are pushing an anti-Google gestapo agenda to implant the false doctrine that the infrastructure can, is and 'will' always remain pristine and private -- and the straw man and good corporate citizen at the end of the tunnel is the 'problem'.

That false doctrine would serve their purposes well. Build up a Google. Invent a scandal, a real one -- with real data exposure, doing stupid things, whistleblowers and indictments. Then sabatoge the brand. Build a new Google ('Noogle') and staff it with people who have freshly minted haloes. Everybody uses Noogle now, who happened to acquire the assets of Google of course (no reconfiguration of surveilance equipment necessary!) "All clear! As you were!" And the show goes on.

Aren't we seeing evidence that governments are being run this way? Iran's past its shelf-life.

But people must realize that we must hold governments, even infrastructure infused surveilance, in check. At least to the point where only one's own government, or immediate service provider can so-easily listen to domestic traffic! I fear 'privacy' has so eroded in the infrastructure that even that may no longer be the case.

And the Constitutional right to privacy must exist too, even in grey worlds; while those with more simplistic views are sitting around waiting for fake-scandals to end and all-clear to sound... there have to be enough clued in people in positions of trust to clearly see, and manage the greyness. And not only those people. That's what got us where we are today. Others among us as well.

___
Has your family tried 'em? POWDERMILK BISCUITS. Heavens, they're tasty and expeditious! They're made from whole wheat, to give shy persons the strength to get up and do what needs to be done.POWDERMILK BISCUITS. Buy them ready-made in the big blue box with the picture of the biscuit on the front, or in the brown bag with the dark stains that indicate freshness.
~Unix 'fortunes' database, anon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan



Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1408
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Sat Jun 13, 2015 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Canadian Court Affirms Global Take-down Order to Google
Vera Ranieri | June 12, 2015 | EFF


Quote:
In a dangerous ruling yesterday, a Canadian appeals court upheld an order requiring Google to edit the Internet and effectively “disappear” websites selling a product that allegedly infringed trade secret rights. Google had challenged the order as an improper overreach: a Canadian court shouldn't be using its authority to make rules about what users in other countries can and cannot access. EFF filed a supporting brief, explaining that the order would have likely violated the U.S. Constitution—one of many reasons a foreign court shouldn’t presume to issue orders that will affect citizens far beyond its jurisdiction.

In the case, Equustek Solutions v. Morgan Jack, the plaintiff Equustek accused the defendant Morgan Jack of selling counterfeit routers. After getting an order requiring Morgan Jack to stop its activities, Equustek turned to Google, asking it to take down links to the websites. Google offered to remove particular pages that came up on searches on Google.ca, but Equustek wanted more. It wanted to have entire domains removed, and for Google to stop indexing or referencing the entirety of allegedly infringing websites on its search engines worldwide. The trial court ordered Google to do just that.

The appeals court’s decision to affirm that order sets a dangerous precedent. A Canadian court is free to issue orders controlling activity within its jurisdiction. But global orders requiring an intermediary to edit the Internet are something else entirely. Yesterday’s ruling, in a nutshell, lays the groundwork for nations with authoritarian restrictions on speech to also impose their own rules on the global Internet—even if those rules conflict with the laws of other nations. For example, as we explained in our brief, the trial court's injunction decision would likely not have survived in the U.S., where Google is based.

The case need not end here; Google can still appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. We hope it does so. No single country should have veto power over Internet speech.

Decision: equustek_v._morgan_jack_-_appeal_decision.pdf

_________________
"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> State Terror: 9/11, 7/7, CIA Fakes All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.