Reply With Quote
brah, you sound bitter tbh
Right. You're the smart one.
brah, you sound bitter tbh
No.
I've had years of seeing our nation come to this. I'm sad. Not bitter. America is dying.
Wrong, as always
The 1% has been murdering the myths of America since the mid-1970s.
http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...forcement.htmlIn the wake of the David Petraeus scandal, in which the FBI gained back-end access to the gmail accounts of the CIA director's paramour, I ran across Google's semi-annual transparency statement, in which we learn that in the first six months of 2012, Google granted all or part of 90% of information requests from US law enforcement agencies, handing out information on 16,281 users in response to 7,969 requests.
Comparing requests by country (Google provides only top-line national data, so we can't see how many were in Texas v. California, etc.), the United States was far and away the source of the most law enforcement requests to Google for information and, even more interesting, far and away had the smallest proportion of requests denied. Google responded with user account information to 90% of US law enforcement requests in the first half of 2012, which was actually down from the previous reporting periods. According to the transparency report, "We review each request to make sure that it complies with both the spirit and the letter of the law, and we may refuse to produce information or try to narrow the request in some cases." Fair enough.
Here's what I don't understand. Take a look at the approval rates for various governments that requested user account information from Google:
- United States: 90%
- Japan: 86%
- Brazil: 76%
- Switzerland: 68%
- United Kingdom: 64%
- India: 64%
- Australia: 64%
- Taiwan: 63%
- Israel: 60%
- Spain: 52%
- France: 42%
- Germany: 39%
- Italy: 34%
- South Korea: 35%
- Canada: 24%
- Russia: 0%
- Turkey: 0%
How is it that Google turns down German law enforcement 61% of the time, turns down Canadians 76% of the time, but American law enforcement's requests are approved at a 90% clip? Why does Google grant such a greater proportion of law enforcement requests in the United States compared to other countries, including other western democracies? Is it that US laws are more favorable to law enforcement and less conducive to personal privacy? Or does Google give US government agencies special treatment compared to other national governments? (To be fair, the rate at which Google approved US law enforcement requests has declined slightly from 94% in the second half of 2010.) Are there certain agencies responsible for the lions's share of requests or is it spread out? Do requests mostly come from federal agencies or from state and local en ies? Regrettably, Google's transparency report answers none of these questions
Not only is the rate of law enforcement requests granted by Google especially high in the United States, US agencies ask for information far more frequently than in any other country, and the number of requests is growing dramatically. Here's a chart Grits compiled from Google transparency reports:
So requests more than doubled in the last two years with little sign of the trend relenting. On one hand, if Google is going to approve such requests at a 90+% clip, I certainly understand why law enforcement agencies in the United States would ask for the data more frequently. OTOH, that begs the question, why doesn't Google resist such requests as often in America as they do throughout the rest of the world? Does their relative leniency toward US law enforcement encourage the volume of requests, or vice versa? Is it US law or Google's relative level of sycophancy that explains the difference?
The flip side of that debate, of course, is that Google provides more transparency on these questions than companies like Facebook or US cell phone providers, so one hesitates to criticize them too harshly simply because they divulge (a little) more information than other tech companies who share user information with law enforcement. But with the government accessing Google user account information at such a rapidly increasing pace, Google cannot escape accountability for their own role in the erosion of online privacy, and the Petraeus scandal has momentarily brought that role to the forefront.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In conspiracy land, there are no coincidences.
Congratulations. You have earned your conspira merit badge. Now go stand in the corner with Cosmored.
Let's keep building our theory on coincidences. Because they don't happen.
Of course, don't stop there.
Once you cast aside the pretense that there are no coincidences a whole new world (order) opens up for you.
It can be seductive, I'm sure.
Better to wait for say, actual evidence, before being certain of some secret conspiracy.
The idealized version of America you are mourning for never existed outside of your imagination. Change happens for good or ill.
You should deal with reality as it is, not as you wish it to be.
There is more to a conspiracy than that. If you wish to have it mean things so simple, then how many of your posting would be considered a conspiracy?
Do you have evidence that his resignation/scandal was anything other than a coincidence?
Yes or no will do.
OK Mouse.
Are you saying if I cannot prove it wasn't other than coincidence, that it is a conspiracy?
You're being asked to provide evidence supporting your conspiracy theory.
Truthers answer those questions with questions too.
I am not making any positive claim. You are. Your claim, Cosmored, your burden of proof.
You said that the timing of the sex scandal was somehow linked to the Benghazi incident.
Saying "the timing of the revelation was no accident" meant that the scandal came to light other than when it would have otherwise.
This means that someone either accelerated it, or kept it from coming out.
This would require proof of either.
Do you have evidence to support this statement?I'm only saying the timing of the hammer falling is no accident.
Yes or no will do.
My mention of timing is that it is after the election. Not before. Like I said, politics as normal.
So, the answer is no, you don't have any proof.
Yet you believe it anyway.
Do you not see this as a problem?
There are other things related. I just don't remember enough details. Keep pounding away if you like, I don't have the desire to take the time it would take to satisfy your ankle-biting need to bark at me. I have better things to do with the time it would take.
lol the ol' "won't waste my time" gambit.
I demand others accept my conspiracy without question!
You can call it a conspiracy all you want. It isn't a conspiracy. You calling it so, doesn't make it fact.
What to want to call it, WC?
Your puppy?
HAHAHAHA!!!!
Mouse couldn't have said it better.
Lay down the innuendo and run the away from it.
WTG.
Uh huh.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
