<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Government vs. Google</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:19:19 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bruce</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html/comment-page-1#comment-60795</link>
		<dc:creator>Bruce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jan 2006 23:38:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/government-vs-google.html#comment-60795</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a little late to this party, but Dan, it seems to me that there is a significant difference between having your full medical record -- which once had your real name, and has plenty of other individual detail (age, weight, height, medical history) -- being mixed in with only 44 others, and having some short text string you typed into Google being mixed in with millions of others, where the only identifying information in the original record is your IP address.  Is there really a credible threat that your privacy is going to be invaded by someone someday tracking down which IP address was associated with &quot;nude cat dance&quot; or what have you and then subpoenaing the (most likely erased) IP logs from your ISP to figure out who had that IP address?  Or am I missing something?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a little late to this party, but Dan, it seems to me that there is a significant difference between having your full medical record &#8212; which once had your real name, and has plenty of other individual detail (age, weight, height, medical history) &#8212; being mixed in with only 44 others, and having some short text string you typed into Google being mixed in with millions of others, where the only identifying information in the original record is your IP address.  Is there really a credible threat that your privacy is going to be invaded by someone someday tracking down which IP address was associated with &#8220;nude cat dance&#8221; or what have you and then subpoenaing the (most likely erased) IP logs from your ISP to figure out who had that IP address?  Or am I missing something?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dutchy</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html/comment-page-1#comment-60794</link>
		<dc:creator>Dutchy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 09:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/government-vs-google.html#comment-60794</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s it! If this train of thought continues in this country, I&#039;m moving! I thought this was America. How much more un-American can we get?

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s it! If this train of thought continues in this country, I&#8217;m moving! I thought this was America. How much more un-American can we get?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter T Davis's Small Business Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html/comment-page-1#comment-60807</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter T Davis's Small Business Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/government-vs-google.html#comment-60807</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Bush Wants to Violate my Fourth Ammendment Rights?  And Yours too!&lt;/strong&gt;

&quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particul...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Bush Wants to Violate my Fourth Ammendment Rights?  And Yours too!</strong></p>
<p>&#8220;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particul&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter T Davis's Small Business Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html/comment-page-1#comment-60797</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter T Davis's Small Business Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/government-vs-google.html#comment-60797</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Bush Wants to Violate my Fourth Ammendment Rights?  And Yours too!&lt;/strong&gt;

&quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particul...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Bush Wants to Violate my Fourth Ammendment Rights?  And Yours too!</strong></p>
<p>&#8220;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particul&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Concurring Opinions</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html/comment-page-1#comment-60796</link>
		<dc:creator>Concurring Opinions</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/government-vs-google.html#comment-60796</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Do No Evil and Perhaps Do Some Good: Google, Privacy, and Business Records&lt;/strong&gt;

I just blogged about the case where the goverment is seeking search query records from Google. I am very pleased that Google is opposing the goverment&#039;s suboena. According to the AP artice: Google — whose motto when it went public...

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Do No Evil and Perhaps Do Some Good: Google, Privacy, and Business Records</strong></p>
<p>I just blogged about the case where the goverment is seeking search query records from Google. I am very pleased that Google is opposing the goverment&#8217;s suboena. According to the AP artice: Google — whose motto when it went public&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: KipEsquire</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/government_vs_g.html/comment-page-1#comment-60793</link>
		<dc:creator>KipEsquire</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2006 17:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/01/government-vs-google.html#comment-60793</guid>
		<description>If I&#039;m skimming Northwestern Memorial Hospital correctly, the government wanted the records to defend a law that was being challenged, &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;at that time&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;, as unconstitutional. With the Google subpoena, the law in question (COPA) has already been struck down by the Supreme Court, &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;three years ago&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.

So, if anything, the Northwestern-based argument against the Adminsitration should be even more compelling.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If I&#8217;m skimming Northwestern Memorial Hospital correctly, the government wanted the records to defend a law that was being challenged, <b><i>at that time</i></b>, as unconstitutional. With the Google subpoena, the law in question (COPA) has already been struck down by the Supreme Court, <b><i>three years ago</i></b>.</p>
<p>So, if anything, the Northwestern-based argument against the Adminsitration should be even more compelling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
