Internet – Page 13

Not Open, and Not Left Either

Published on July 10, 2007

Chris Bowers, at the kool kidz new blog, Open Left:

New Establishment Rising? The End Of the Flat Blogosphere

(Actually bumped at 2:31 p.m. – promoted by Chris Bowers)

SummaryOver the past five years, as the audience and political effectiveness of the progressive, political blogosphere has exploded, the “short head” of the progressive, political blogosphere has undergone a transformation from a loose collection of small, independent, solo projects into a sophisticated media and activist structure driving the national political scene. This transformation has the side-effect of significantly increasing the entry costs into the “short head” of the progressive, political, blogosphere for new, independent actors. As a result, what was once a fluid, “outsider” and “open” form of new media is now, quite possibly, crystallizing into a new “establishment” all its own.

No shit, Sherlock!

Bloody hell, how long have we saying that on this blog? We’ve certainly not been alone in saying that ad revenues and reformist sucking up to power has been creating a new blogospheric Democratic party nomenklatura.

So what’s Bowers’ and Stoller’s answer to this exclusionary trend in online politics? Why to make themselves a new establishment of course. The tussle now is over control of that new establishment and access to its ranks:

Introduction

This article was originally scheduled to appear in the first issue of JONI, The Journal of Netroots Ideas, to be published by the organization responsible for the YearklyKos Convention. Instead, it will serve as the first installment in a collaborative project between Open Left and JONI. Articles scheduled for print publication in the journal will first go through a series of directed discussions online, and those discussions will eventually be incorporated into the final JONI project.

[…]

Good grief, these US ‘progressives’ do love their acronynms and job titles, don’t they? (see also Feministe and their ‘thinking bloggers’ award.)

What is it, do American political bloggers feel their ideas have no legitimacy unless uttered by someone with a string of self-awarded titles, prizes and qualifications, or alternatively, someone who’s down with the Kos crew?

How is that ‘left’? How is that ‘open’? All posts are to be vetted by Kos loyalists – while I’m all for new political space being opened up, where’s the democratic accountability when what’s written must be pre-approved by a political cabal?

I don’t disagree entirely with Bowers’ and Stoller’s analysis of the development of the US progressive blogosphere but it is just that: the US political blogosphere, and the US political blogosphere is not the be-all and end-all of politics.

The left is much, much bigger, less insular and more international than a few Kossacks and their friends in the media. Note to Chris and Matt and their US progressive blogmates: it’s not all about you.

It’s the sheer bloody self-importance and arrogance of it all that gets to me. This about sums it up:

“…. has become a near impossibility for a new independent, individual actor to join the elite ranks of the national, progressive political blogosphere.”

That it is an impossibility may be true – but that Bowers sees it as essential that an elite exists to be promoted to says that this effort isn’t about opening up poilitical space for the masses, this is about making the elite even more elite. What’s ironic is that Bowers and Stoller seem to think that this is a good thing, a groundbreaking thing that they’re doing. But then they are are sensible liberals, more noted for reformist policy wonkery and process politics than anti-imperialism.

But no, sorry. It’s meet the new establishment, same as the old.

Rather than acknowledge their own roles – and that of other self-styled public intellectuals up the arse of the Democratic party- in creating the crystallisation of privilege and the exclusion of ‘lesser’ voices from the public discourse which they describe (years after everyone else noticed), they’re seeking to appear populist, whilst in reality being nothing of the sort.

Oh and btw, they’re using Sitemeter, so it means anyone visiting the blog gets infected with the Specificclick dataminer.

How leftist or open is that?

RIP Jim and To Hell With Sensible Liberals

Published on July 6, 2007

Susie Madrak has a terrific post up at the Huffpo (yes, I know, but where better to get to the sensible liberals and smug parlour pinks?

Do I have your attention? Good.

I would like to point out the utter injustice of a Democratic political system that is very, very happy to take the money and volunteers the blogosphere sends its way, and in return, we get… um….

Invitations to appear at places most of us can’t even afford to travel, with no way to pay for a hotel — unless you’re an A-list blogger.

Oh, and awards. Yay!

A small handful of top bloggers gets some help: Fellowships, stipends, consulting gigs. The rest of us? Bubkis.

There is not even a little doubt in my mind that, if The Rittenhouse Review’s Jim Capozzola had remained a Republican, he’d be alive right now. He would have been in a well-paid think tank job, living the high life. (He did, after all, have a masters degree in foreign policy.) Most importantly, he would have had health insurance for the past six years.

And what did his talent and dedication get him on the liberal side of the political noise machine? Some free books. A life that, as intellectually stimulating as it was, reduced him to living on the charity of strangers.

People saying really kind and thoughtful things about how important he was to the cause – after he’s dead. Isn’t that ironic?

Yes. It should make any leftist livid .

As sick as I’ve been the one thing I don’t have to worry about now is that it will cause us a total financial meltdown – our income is lessened, surely, but it’s not disastrous. Because of European socialised health insurance I’m exceedingly lucky – and don’t I know it.

20 years ago in the US multiple emergency admissions for an acute kidney infection and complications cost me a total of $40,000 and that just was my 20% share, despite having had Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance. I dread to think how much it would cost now – and that’s if I could get affordable cover to begin with. Yeah, right.

The bill collectors even then were rapacious. they don’t give a damn if you’re sick. The only way out was Chapter 8; but now even that relief from the crippling weight of medical debt has been taken away from sick people with mounting medical bills.

Many now die rather than incur the cost of treatment because familiy budgets are so precarious and insurance unavailable or unaffordable. Many lives are severely shortened too by the burden of stress that medical debt causes.

I was lucky – if my parents hadn’t come and fetched me back to the much-maligned NHS, I’d’ve been dead in my early twenties. As it was I could never return to the US because I’d never get insurance again. Too risky. But I was lucky enough to be born British. For Americans with no insurance – well, not to be mealymouthed about it, they’re fucked. Health is where inequality really bites.

Because of socialised medicine and welfare system of national insurance and sickness benefit, when I’ve been too ill to work outside the home (and I have whenever possible; everyone should work) I’ve still been able to be politically active and engaged and maintain some degree of independence, . I’ve even managed to stay online, albeit intermittently (Food or phone bill? Food.) and that has kept me in touch with the world.

Not so for American bloggers :

Jim’s death has made me realize that, despite the yes, millions of dollars and untold hours of volunteer support the left blogosphere has thrown the way of the Democratic party, they will never, ever, ever give us anything more than a pat on the back. “Isn’t that cute? They think they’re special.”

I don’t know what it is about liberal groups whose leaders assume you should live on air while you give your life to the cause. Has it even occurred to them how much harder it is to get a “regular” job when you’re publicly and politically active? I guess not. After all, they’re already employed.

Exactly. They are the hereditary political elite: they are entitled to make a living from their minds. Us, the physical defectives – generally not white and not male – with the dangerous anti-elite ideas, not so much. Nothing we have to say could possibly be important. But why should their voices, and the voices acceptable to them, be the only ones to be heard?

One of the reasons disabled people and those with chronic illnesses get involved online is because online you can be judged, not by your physical illness, but by what you actually say. We tend not to advertise our infirmities: who wants to be known as “Oh, so and so, the Huntingtons blogger” for example? Illness is also an intensely personal thing you don’t always want to share – and admitting to struggling with debts too, however necessarily incurred, is shaming in a society where you are your credit rating. But it doesn’t mean we’re not here:

You may not even know that Jim’s case wasn’t unusual. I can name at least a dozen well-known bloggers off the top of my head who are in dire straits financially. I know several with health conditions that could become critical at any moment, and like me, they’re living without health insurance, the Sword of Damocles dangling over their heads.

Even though there have been times when I’ve been desperately poor – sickness benefits were never generous, they’re totally inadequate now, but at least we have them, unlike in the US – nevertheless I’ve known that my absolutely necessary medical care, the long hospital stays, the past and future surgery, the radiotherapy I had, the huge amounts of drugs I still need; they’re all paid for.

The sword of Damocles has been removed from above my head and the relief from that particular worry that that gives is unimaginable.

I often rail about the insular competitiveness that’s been developing with US liberal blogs, but then I have luxury to be able to do it; our livelihood is not entirely dependent on blogging and thus on links and traffic. For America’s bloggers it’s different, and lthere are those whose continuing health (like Jim’s did) depends on blog income, So no wonder, that despite the surface collegiality, that the kool kidz are so jealous of their status as top ad-earners. A glass cieling has developed, either by design or by evolution, it’s hard tell which.

Buit as regular commenter bjaques pointed out recently the internet has a tendency to route around obstacles. Susie Madrak has a plan:

And so I am talking to lawyers about putting together a non-profit to help progressive bloggers. Not, as some groups offer, to help them organize for the Democratic party — to help them personally, with things like electric bills and health insurance. I plan to recruit every blogger I can for the effort. One local blog proprietor is working right now to put together a concert benefit with a big name.

We should at least have our paperwork filed by the end of the summer. And if you, the blog reader, wants to be part of it, great. Hold a bake sale, even — every little bit helps.

I know a lot of us aren’t all that thrilled with the Democrats right now. So, until we get this foundation set up, you can directly support the people who do keep standing up to the Republican regime — bloggers, the ones who aren’t making a living off this insane labor of love. Go hit those donation buttons!

And for those of you who want to help this foundation — if you have a business, and want to donate either money or computers, great. If you’re a musician, and want to volunteer for a benefit, cool. (Anyone who has something to offer can email me at suburbanguerrilla AT comcast.net.)

This is something that every progressive blogger should support. We cannot continue to expect the people we’re figjhting against – the Washington insiders, the sensible Leiberman ‘liberals’, the thinktanks funded with corporate money – to fund progressive blogging. Neither can we expect support from a blogging elite that’s fast becoming, if not another wing of mainstream media, at least a group that follows the news agenda set by the mediia and essentially plays by its rules.

The kind of effort Susie is proposing is where self-organisation begins – weren’t the first embryo modern political parties mutual aid societies? What Susie is proposing is collective action of the most basic kind and something anyone who considers themself a leftist should get behind, provided that it’s open, accountable and democratically run and I have no reason to beleive it won’t be.

Well done, that woman, and RIP Jim Capozzola.

Comment of The Day: Who’s Your GoDaddy?

Published on July 3, 20071 Comment

A letter to the Guardian about the recent UK bombings caught my eye this morning and led me in an unexpected direction: to Bob Parsons, GoDaddy CEO and larger-than-life internet personality. Here’s the letter:

You report on an internet forum – al-Hesbah – which featured a pre-emptive message telling Islamists to “Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed” (The message boards of militant chatter, July 2). The only problem is that the al-Hesbah chat room is registered with a domain-registration company in Scottsdale, Arizona, and it is one that hides the identity of the original registrar. Does anyone besides me find it strange that after tracking back various “terrorist” websites to places like Texas and Virginia, all of a sudden Domains by Proxy starts up to provide “terrorist” websites with anonymity, and despite the hue and cry against anyone who supports terror and the USA Patriot Act, Domains By Proxy isn’t investigated, harassed, raided or for that matter even mentioned in the media as an obvious facilitator of the “terrorist” websites?

MA Vidal
Hermanus, South Africa

I was intrigued: who or what’s Al-Hesbah and why Scottsdale?

Al-Hesbah is an Arabic message board and has been called “one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums. In March 2006, the site was accused by rival Jihadist forum of aiding in the arrest of the well-known cyber-persona of Irhabi 007, a representative of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. This led to the site administrators shutting down the site on March 26, stating that they had discovered the identities of two members of the site who were actual security officers, Muhammad al-Zuhayri and Muhammad Tamallat,

[…]

On June 29, 2007, the site was found to have a warning possibly related to the failed 2007 London car bombs in London, England.

Not content with unsupported assertion, I whoised El Hasbah, and this is their registration entry:

Registry Whois

Domain Name: al-hesbah.org

Status: CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED, CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED, CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED, CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED

Registrar: Wild West Domains, Inc. (R120-LROR)

Expiration Date: 2008-04-15 14:06:18
Creation Date: 2004-04-15 14:06:18
Last Update Date:2007-05-10 09:27:05

Name Servers:
ns1.cpmax.net
ns2.cpmax.net

A quick google for Wild West Domains, Inc tells us it’s an ICANN registrar that tracks back to GoDaddy, who also own ‘domains by proxy’.

Domains by Proxy is an Internet company owned by Go Daddy CEO Bob Parsons, that offers private domain registration to its users. Ordinarily, the domain owner’s contact information is listed in the WHOIS database. Using one of their partner registrars such as Go Daddy or Wild West Domains, Domains by Proxy leaves their information instead, guaranteeing some amount of privacy to the domain owner. This means that it is impossible for spammers to harvest your email address from the WHOIS database. It also means that domain owners have, in theory, a lot more privacy.

On the other hand, it could mean a longer process to trace the activities back to the responsible owner if the domain is used for illegal or unwanted activities, such as spamming.

However, this is not true anonymity. Personal information is collected by these registrars to provide the service. By some accounts, registrars like Domains by Proxy take little persuasion to release so-called ‘private’ information to the world, requiring only a phone request or cease and desist letter.

Actually they’re a little more cagy than that. From the subpoena policy:

Upon the receipt of a valid civil subpoena, Domains by Proxy will promptly notify the customer whose information is sought via e-mail or U.S. mail. If the circumstances do not amount to an emergency, Domains by Proxy will not immediately produce the customer information sought by the subpoena and will provide the customer an opportunity to move to quash the subpoena in court.

[…]

Domains by Proxy will not produce the content of e-mail, as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2701 et seq., prohibits an electronic communications service provider from producing the contents of electronic communications, even pursuant to subpoena or court order, except in limited circumstances. Domains by Proxy ‘s e-mail servers do not retain deleted or sent e-mail. However, deleted e-mail may be recoverable from back-up servers for a period of up to thirty (30) days.

Domains by Proxy reserves the right to request a copy of the complaint and any supporting documentation that demonstrates how the Domains by Proxy e-mail address is related to the pending litigation and the underlying subpoena.

If British police are trying to track back the registrant they’re not going to have an easy job of it – which is rather the point.

Who is Bob Parsons? Bob Parsons is a man with a big presence online who has strong opinions about privacy and the internet: it would be safe to say he’s a strong libertarian and free-marketeer: you could even describe him as neoliberal. He likes to think of hinself of something of a maverick and an internet watchdog; his blog is very popular and he has a radio show too, in which he presents himself as ‘the voice of internet freedom.

[…] he uses his blog and his radio show, which airs live on Wednesday nights on Sirius (Charts) and XM Radio (Charts), as his soapbox. He rants about issues that he argues are critical to the Internet overall but obviously are of huge importance to his company.

This is what he says about private registrations:

Registrants who purchase private registrations have no problem with accountability.

In contract, those who seek privacy are fine receiving it with accountability. Law abiding citizens have no problem being held accountable for their actions. This is because, well, they are law abiding. So when people pay for private domain registrations they typically send three messages. The first message is that they are law abiding citizens; the second message is that they are willing to be held accountable for their actions; and the third and most important message, is that the registration information they are providing is valid.

Law abiding Americans are entitled to privacy.

[My emphasis]

Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he, since he’s presumably making money from successful private registration companies?

But anonymity, sorry, privacy, isn’t only useful for the ‘good guys’ and money’s money, online or off. It’s an industry that’s made Parsons has very well-off and well-connected; Bob Parsons has clout in US government circles. or or if not clout exactly, certainly an entree:

I flew to Washington D.C. late Monday evening to meet Tuesday with newly-appointed assistant Secretary of Commerce John Kneur who is also the Director of The National Telecommunications Administration (“NTIA”). The NTIA is the branch of the U.S. Government that oversees ICANN. And since ICANN is primarily responsible for the domain name system, when the possibility presented itself for me to meet with Assistant Secretary Kneuer, I jumped at the opportunity.

The purpose was to meet Secretary Kneuer and to discuss face-to-face his general plans for ICANN and the Internet. Since there has been quite a lot of talk and fear about the governance of the Internet moving to the United Nations, I was quite interested to talk to Secretary Kneuer.

Sounds like he and the Bush appoiintee are pretty sympatico:

I am happy to report that Secretary Kneur firmly supports ICANN and is committed to private sector management of the Internet. He confirmed that the NTIA will firmly support the complete transition of ICANN from DOC control to private sector control, a move that the International Community has been supporting for quite some time. He, like me and most other people I know, does not wish to see control over the Internet fall into the hands of the U.N. or the ITU. But, we were both happy to hear the ITU announce a few days ago that they have no intention of taking on the Internet as one more issue on their already full plate. So, I was seriously encouraged by that news.

Isn’t that nice.The person who gives, for a price, terrorist organisations the means to communicate anonymously, hugger-mugget with the US assistant secretary of commerce responsible for the regulation of those very digital communications. How very cosy.

Secretary Kineuer is a former telcoms industry lobbyist for the big phone companies, and is of a distinctly libertarian slant too:

Kneuer is a member of the camp of neo-cons who categorically refuse to “even *think* about regulation to promote competition,” writes Harold Feld of Media Access Project.

To prop up their ideology they enthuse over the wonders of the free market, conveniently overlooking reams of data that show a balance of sound public policy and market forces to be the engine driving the Web’s real successes.

Kneuer and his industry comrades try to drown out evidence of market failure with pseudo-libertarian talking points about deregulation, free markets and competition. By mouthing this propaganda they provide cover for the phone companies that Web guru Cory Doctorow calls “corporate welfare bums” — creatures of government regulations that base their businesses on “government-granted extraordinary privileges.”

Which brings us back to Bob Parsons again. I do find it odd that that his private registration companies aren’t under some kind of investigation if they’re hosting alleged jihadist sites. If they’re not, why not? It’s not exactly difficult to find out to find out which registrants are hosting sites like El-Hasbah and others like it. If I can do it, anyone can. But that in itself is suspicious, like the trail’s been put there on purpose. It’s been alleged that El-Hasbah is a false flag operation could there be more like it, hosted by private registration companies? Exactly how sympatico is proud Vietnam vet Parsons with the Bush administration and federal security agencies? Well he was fully behind Guantanamo Bay which got him a lot of negative reaction; suddenly he started coming over all cloak and dagger:

The soapbox crusades make him a hero to some; to others they are just more of the grandstanding that has made Parsons a sometimes polarizing figure. His ads generate hate mail accusing him of promoting pornography. He knows full well that the safari to Zimbabwe he went on in October, in which he killed an elephant, will cause some outcry. But does he really need bodyguards?

When Parsons attended a conference called the Domain Roundtable in May 2005, he showed up with two beefy guys. They even came a week in advance to case the joint. “They were looking for where to rush the man if anything went wrong,” says Jay Westerdal, who runs research firm Name Intelligence and puts on the Seattle conference.

What does all this mean? Who knows?

There are circular connections to be made between virtually any US corporate CEO and members of the Bush administration – so this may be nothing at all. It probably isn’t anything at all. There may be a story there, there may not – but whatever else, it’s always interesting to observe the little junctions where ibertarian wingnuttia, freemarketeering, Bushco and the spooks collide.

Ah What the Hell, Let’s Have A Go At Microsoft Too

Published on June 26, 2007

Might as well get the full house and offend every IT conglomerate going, eh? Here’s MS’ video ad for its new tabletop computer – revoiced to give the real story.

http://view.break.com/317742 – Watch more free videos

Via Thank Gilligan It’s Safe For Work

I’ve got a question about the accessibility of this new IT platform: : how are they going to make this accessible to people with hand problems like rheumatism or arthritis, or heaven forbid, prosthetic hands? Why does Microsoft hate the injured troops?

The Great Gazoogle Robbery

Published on June 26, 20071 Comment

Picture shamelessly filched from Sadly, No

One of the many and various things I constantly and futilely rail against is data intrusion; these days there is nothing about us, no tiny smidgen of information, however ephemeral, that is not owned.

Just not by us.

The ultimate expression of capitalist society has to be when the individual doesn’t own or control the means of production of their own bodily tissue, because some corporation has claimed the intellectual property rights to their genes.

We have lost the means of production of the most basic things about us, intrinsic to our identities as humans: who we are, what we do, where we go, who our friends and family are, what we think – even what we are, when you add DNA and biometrics data.Our very identity is not our own. But where did it go, and who took it? Did we just lose it? Were we just careless and it fell out of a pocket hole? Or was it stolen? I’d say the latter: if information is currency then we’re being robbed blind every moment of the day.

One of the biggest information thieves of all is Google. Beneath that carefully cultivated image of louche, hip, beneficent consumerism is a despot. If I may borrow a little archaic terminology from those smug boomers who’re making big money from Google’s quiet march towards total information domination – you can dress a greedhead as a hipster, but underneath there’s still a greedhead. Google is the ubergreedhead in information terms – so greedy it seems it’ill never be satisfied until it owns or controls not only all the data but all the ways of getting it. Next stop Microsoft?

This is not just a paranoid geeky lawyer thing: the tech industry itself is becoming increasingly concerned at Googles datamining breadth and reach. In her a recent Eweek article Is It OK that Google Owns Us? Lisa Vass points out the sheer intrusiveness of the data that Google collects and holds about us :

Make no mistake, Google owns you. The ways in which it owns you are laid out in a complaint filed by EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center) and other privacy groups with the Federal Trade Commission over Google’s proposed merger with targeted advertising company DoubleClick. Here’s the list of data that Google collects and retains and the technologies through which the company gets it, from the complaint:

Google search: any search term a user enters into Google;

Google Desktop: an index of the user’s computer files, e-mails, music, photos, and chat and Web browser history;

Google Talk: instant-message chats between users;

Google Maps: address information requested, often including the user’s home address for use in obtaining directions;

Google Mail (Gmail): a user’s e-mail history, with default settings set to retain emails “forever”;

Google Calendar: a user’s schedule as inputted by the user;

Google Orkut: social networking tool storing personal information such as name, location, relationship status, etc.;

Google Reader: which ATOM/RSS feeds a user reads;

Google Video/YouTube: videos watched by user;

Google Checkout: credit card/payment information for use on other sites.

Not to mention pictures when you thought you were unobserved:

Not only that, they keep the picture forever.

Google account holders that regularly use even a few of Google’s services must accept that the company retains a large quantity of information about that user, often for an unstated or indefinite length of time, without clear limitation on subsequent use or disclosure, and without an opportunity to delete or withdraw personal data even if the user wishes to terminate the service.

Google maintains records of all search strings and the associated IP addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months (although Google recently announced that it would only retain data for 18 months) and does not provide users with an expungement option. While it is true that many U.S.- based companies have not yet established a time frame for retention, there is a prevailing view among privacy experts that 18 to 24 months is unacceptable and possibly unlawful in many parts of the world.

Whatever your political leanings imagine what someone opposed to your politics could do with that information. Hell, just think of the leverage that kind of informational scope potentially gives Google against individuals, should it choose to use it. or should they choose or be compelled to let someone else use it.

It’s all reminiscent of the aims of the Total Infomation Awaremess Programme, which was allegedly kicked into the long grass by Congress in 2005, but which in reality is still being developed under different guises.

The FBI is seeking $12 million for the [National Security Branch Analysis Center] in FY2008, which will include 90,000 square feet of office space and a total of 59 staff, including 23 contractors and five FBI agents. Documents predict the NSAC will include six billion records by FY2012. This amounts to 20 separate “records” for each man, woman and child in the United States. The “universe of subjects will expand exponentially” with the expanded role of the NSAC, the Justice Department documents assert.

Some of this data will come from open public records, but these are intelligence files – the FBI plans an intelligence file on every single US resident containing at least 20 items of information.Where are they planning on getting this data from, exactly, and how?

The use of National Security Letters by the federal government to secretly obtain information about individuals, without a warrant and without due process, has been one of the ongoing scandals of Bushco’s Homeland Security apparatus. These figures are from 2005: how many have been issued since then, and what’s been done with the data?

The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters — one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people — are extending the bureau’s reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.

Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot.

The burgeoning use of national security letters coincides with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks — and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for “state, local and tribal” governments and for “appropriate private sector entities,” which are not defined

In autumn 2006, Google started making overtures to the Republicans, even hiring two former GOP pols as lobbyists:

Under fire on Capitol Hill, Google Inc. has boosted its political muscle by creating its first political action committee while taking steps to reach out to Republicans.

The Mountain View search-engine company joins a sizable club of corporate titans that have established major political operations in Washington in hopes of influencing legislation and votes.

“Google probably learned that to be successful, you have to make campaign contributions,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles and an expert on money in politics. “I’m sure they’ve been told time and time again by everyone in Washington that ‘If you want to play, you play by our rules.’ ”

Google filed paperwork Thursday to register its political action committee, Google NetPAC, with the Federal Election Commission. The company intends to use the committee “to support candidates who promote an open and free Internet for our users,” according to Alan Davidson, Google’s Washington policy counsel.

In addition, Google bolstered its clout by hiring former Republican Sens. Dan Coats of Indiana and Connie Mack of Florida as outside lobbyists. The political veterans may go a long way in building Google’s ties with Republicans, a group widely considered to be the opposition based on the overwhelming preference by Google employees to make campaign contributions to Democrats.

Like I said, their image says one thing, their actions another.

What does all this mean? In my opinion what it boils down to is that Google cannot be trusted, the US government cannot be trusted, and because of ‘national security’ there is no way to know if they are working in concert.

Google disagree: they’re all like, “Duh, we turned down a government subpoena, we’re the good guys here”:

For a demonstration of Google’s trustworthiness, the Google faithful point to the search company’s having refused to comply with a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice demanding log entries on its searches—a demand that Google competitors AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo obeyed as the government investigated how often children might stumble upon pornography while using search engines.

But now they’re in bed with the Republicans, how long can Google cruise on the reputation of that one decision to oppose government intrusion? In any case, the reason the opposed wasn’t principled: it was about protecting commercial property.

For all we know they’re handing over info already. National Security letters don’t require a subpoena, and you ca’t say whether you had one or not – it’s secret.

For me this is about the ownership of our essential selves, which are being stolen from us in an unholy alliance beteen corporate information-processors and an intrusive and repressive state. On the other hand all of this may not bother you in the slightest: you may feel your life is an open book and you have nothing to be ashamed of. No worries then.