Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Google will fight warrants like this. They are already complying. It's right there in the article.
My bad. You're right.
Genuine question, what led you to believe Google would fight this sort of thing?
Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
311–320 of 337 posts
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#312I do think that this is just the start. Once they get in touch with better technology, these precautions will probably start ramping up.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#313[deleted]
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only objection I have to this post that I have is the notion that there was a democracy there to begin with. Before Julius Caesar attempted (unsuccessfully) to monopolise power in the Old Republic, there was already a ever widening chasm between the farmers that made up the bulk of Roman citizenry and the people in the Senate. All Caesar had to do was harness this growing discontent of the masses through his fake…
This is a rewriting of how terrible the senate was at the time. Caesar took the existing tyranny of the senate and substituted it for tyranny of an emperor. This is the key that people often miss in this regard. The staggering ROman Republic was hardly a great country.
The exact same thing could be said for the American Republic. There are millions of people living below the poverty line, a stratified society in both financial and political terms, and widespread racism and sexism.
Also, common to Rome is the notion that they are a special people who deserve dominion over the rest of the world. It might be shrouded in more egalatarian language (cue the exporting "freedom" talk) but barely so.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had one of those shirts. Unfortunately even in my circle of nerd friends, I was the only tech nerd. Everyone else was either an anime nerd or a M:TG nerd.
Yeah, that was pre Ice-Age expansion, before it all went to hell. ;-)
I started during Fallen Empires and quit shortly after Planeshift, though I never played competitively. My group of friends had just a few house rules for deck building: Minimum 60 cards, no more than 4 of any card that wasn't a basic land, and no Circles of Protection. Proxy cards were allowed, but only if you could prove you had an original.
In all the years I played, I never really learned what "Type 1" and "Type 2" deck building rules were. I basically only played during lunch in high school.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pre-internet, it feels like a warrant for anyone that ran their finger down page xyz of the phone book. More like inquiring for / looking at certain books in the library. Which is something I'm sure happened all the time, historically.
>in the library Maybe, if "in the library" means "in almost every library in the nation for each warrant".
Sure, but it is still possible. Libraries are historically very well organized. It would be completely feasible to have libraries send over the names of people who checked out certain books on some regular cadence. The Dewey Decimal system already classifies every book by topic, so it would be practical to document every person that checked out a book under, for example, 662 Explosives, Fuels.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another Trump presidency will be the end of democracy in the USA. He will install cronies at the top of the military leadership and do exactly what Erdoğan did in Turkey. It's as sure a thing as the sun rising. He will not depend on a bunch of untrained rabble to take over the Capitol next time.
Why didn't he just do that last time?
Because he thought that a bunch of rednecks could get it done, and if they didn't, well he had (and has) plausible deniability. He will not make that mistake again if he wins the election in 2024. I think he believed 100% that he could get the Republicans to throw out the electoral college vote and get enough states to declare their elections were fraudulent and get enough electoral votes to win. People can down vote me if they like, but the truth will come out with the Congressional Committee. I don't think it will happen soon enough to keep him off the ballot though.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
Slavery existing at the time this country was founded does not make it a founding principle. The only constitutional component of slavery was intended to reduce the power of slave states, and most of the country abolished slavery by 1804.
The entire structure of the senate is designed to give maximum power to the slave-holding states, and every political decision in the country before the civil war was made with the aim of preserving their power in mind (this counts for the electoral college too). This is the reason votes in rural areas count so much more than urban votes. Because rural areas in the south were heavily populated by enslaved people and…
I think you're confusing cause and effect. The constitution was an agreement between states, and the senate was a compromise to ensure signers would retain power even if their population was dwarfed by other states. It is highly unlikely that it was intended to empower slave states; when it was created, only Massachusetts wasn't a slave state. Same goes for the electoral college.
Also, in 1790 the US was much less urbanized. 5% of people lived in cities (vs 80+% today), and the economy was primarily agricultural. It was not a world in which the rural-urban divide was particularly significant. All states were rural states.
If every political decision in the US before the Civil War was made with the aim of preserving slave state power, why is it the South that left the Union? Couldn't they have just used their power?
I'd like to correct my previous comment. I said that the three-fifths compromise was the only consitutional component of slavery; in fact there were two others. The fugitive slave clause, and a clause forbidding the federal government from restricting the slave trade. I apologize for these errors.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why didn't he just do that last time?
Because he thought that a bunch of rednecks could get it done, and if they didn't, well he had (and has) plausible deniability. He will not make that mistake again if he wins the election in 2024. I think he believed 100% that he could get the Republicans to throw out the electoral college vote and get enough states to declare their elections were fraudulent and get enough electoral votes to win. People can down vote…
He thought a few thousand randos with (very generously) a hundred guns and no apparent willingness to use them or kill anybody would be able to overthrow the US Government. And now his plan is to spearhead an actual coup at in 2028, when he's 83. Which is he supposed to be, a totalitarian mastermind or a total buffoon? Dumb enough to attempt a coup with a piddling army, smart enough to avoid any charges for 9 months with the intended victim and his party in power?
And what was his plan if they did violently take over DC? The largest army in the world would just take it back. Don't tell me they would follow his orders, they didn't like him before he started killing US civilians, politicians, and cops.
I guess we'll see what the committee discovers. Apparently, it's your belief that they'll discover nothing of significance in the next three years, but maybe we'll see after.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Sure, you'd get pretty mad if every time you get robbed the police searches your vehicle but they don't need to break anything and you will get over it. Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned.
>Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned. Oh my sweet summer child. Calling the police is never about getting the belongings back. Calling the police is only about striking the perpetrator with violence, hoping that it would equalize the karma levels.
way to blame the victim buddy.