> While we're all fired up about robodogs, here's an abrupt change of topic.

I'll have to admit that I haven't followed this story as closely as a self-proclaimed Google fan should have, so thanks for the link.

> The headlines are, "Government demands search engines had over information on searches that people do! AOL, Yahoo, MSN, say ok! Google says no!" and the interpretation is that Google is the lone defender of the rights of freedom and privacy that the government would take away.

The article said the government didn't ask for private data. The headlines definitely made me assume that this wasn't the case.

> Anyway, don't skip the postscripts. Postscript #9 is an interesting one.

This quote from #9 was what really hit me, especially the last sentence:

"The data, as I've written, isn't going to help the government at all in what they say it will do. Heck, if they really need that list, they could buy the data from Wordtracker. But by handing it over, the search engine loses the perception of trust with its users. They may not understand that it is not personal. They will understand the government made a wideranging request for information and that the search company didn't push back. That type of trust is worth defending in the face of an ill advised, useless government action."


Gahalyn