about:Google

Since the release of Chrome, it has been found that Google’s new browser is sending data on your web habits back to Google regardless of if you actually hit the enter key to go to that website you’ve entered into the address bar/omnibox. It is rather easy to disable but Google themselves didn’t release this information. It took some digging around by some rather top shelf bloggers to find this information. Not to mention, that disabling the “info send” prevents me from using Chrome the way I would otherwise want to.

Google, while I’m not sure if I can trust you with the keeping track of the websites I visit, a lot of other people do and I just hope you don’t “go evil” on us.

The url hashes that help determine illicit from legit websites are not an issue, as I have been using Firefox for a very long time now. I actually find that aspect helpful.

I don’t believe for one moment that keeping ip addresses along with collected data is necessary. You really don’t want the EFF up your craw for too long. You were implicitly trusted for so long. (You have the bulk of my email, what are you doing with all that?)  You have the right to keep track of ip addresses that visit google.com for a google search or two, but I say that you don’t have the right to collect and collate info in your browser of users web traffic that is going elsewhere other then google.com only because we’re using your browser.

I say this is a bad play Google, and while I don’t expect you to change this behavior in Chrome any time soon if ever, I think I’ll just uninstall it and keep it that way

On July 16, 2008…

As of the above date, Federal agents may now take your laptop or other electrical device, without reason or provocation, to an offsite location for data decryption, language translation, or other purposes. Also they will share anything found on any of your “electrical devices” with private 3rd parties for the purposes listedThis edict was handed down to the U.S Customs and Border Agency and U.S Customs and Immigration Enforcement by The U.S Department for Homeland Security.

Micheal Chertoff said in U.S Today that the most dangerous contraband is contained with in laptops or other “electrical device”.

Doesn’t it say in the U.S Constitution that we have a constitutional right AGAINST unlawful search and seizure? The “9th Circus Court of Appeals” (I really can’t stand activist judges) ruled in April that international travelers can have laptops and electrical devices apon entry to the U.S. However, this will eventually apply to U.S international travelers coming here as well. This is based on the premise that the U.S Constitution doesn’t apply to people traveling to the U.S from other nations. It’s about time someone in some court got that right. If a foreigner wants to have constitutional rights that U.S citizens have, then they need to LEGALLY immigrate here.

This isn’t an exact attack on the U.S Constitution, however this is the start of the run down the slippery slope to the exact abridgement of our constitutional rights given to U.S CITIZENS under the 4th amendment.

How anyone can say that the U.S Constitution applies to anyone else from any other country is simply amazing to me. If that were to be true it wouldn’t be called the U.S Constitution now would it?

C0PA ruled unconstitutional again and my thoughts

from an article at ars technica ….

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today upheld a ban on the enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), ruling once again that it was unconstitutional, overbroad, and vague. The American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged COPA on behalf of a coalition of writers, artists and health educators, hailed the ruling as a victory for free speech.

“For years the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, and for years the courts have been finding the attempts unconstitutional,” said Chris Hansen, senior staff attorney with the ACLU First Amendment Working Group. “The government has no more right to censor the Internet than it does books and magazines.”

COPA was originally passed by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton in 1998 and was meant to protect children from “harmful” content on the Internet. Unfortunately for proponents of the law, its wording was very broad and would have required website operators to implement a number of measures to enforce “contemporary community standards.” According to the ACLU blog, it would have even barred adults from seeing material that was not appropriate for a child and would have affected, among other things, the online availability of sexual health information”"

My Thoughts …

I’m so happy that this outmoded and unconstitutional law is continously defeated in U.S courts. It’s been ruled unconstitutional by both conservative and activist judges alike. All it does if it were enforced is to constrain free speech on the internet, where it flourishes the world over.

Should child porn exist, of course not, should the existance of child porn be at the expense of our constitutional rights? I say not. All of our rights are under attack on a daily basis, and we need to be aware of that. Many laws that has been signed into law has an unseen current of pulling our constitutional rights from underneath us. Learn more about the laws that are passed into this nation. File for information on past laws using the FIA (Freedom of Information) act. You’ll most likely get what you request since lawmakers really have forgotten that they’re our slaves not the other way around. They exist for us not in spite of us.

Too many people have forgotten this simple fact.

Dave Winer = Ultimate Fail

Dave, I USED to have the utmost respect for you and your work with RSS along with all your other accomplishments, but I have to ask you something. Why did you think that anyone wouldn’t get the least bit upset at you posting comments like that? I am a Republican, I don’t have a limp dick and I also have a happy wife and 2 kids to show for it.

Yeah I might have lost my cool but you fail to understand one simple thing that I already know. To say to someone that you’re either Democrat or Republican (in my opinion) represents a mindset. I would not ever insult someone’s intelligence or go out of my way to hurt anyone’s feelings or sensebilities over which political party he or she has chosen to affliate with. Oh, and be sure to read my response as well Dave.

Yes Dave, I am offended.

thank you for flying …

We all know everything is getting turned upside down these days. It’s not invisible, it’s not easy to hide from either; it’s right in all our faces and what are we going to do about it? I never just lay down for anything nor anyone. If you’ve spoken with me for any length of time longer then 5 minutes you know at least that much about me. I’m only one person speaking out when and where I can. So I ask the rest of you this. Where are you speaking out on what’s going on and what’s bothering you today? Are you even speaking out at all? . .or are you too busy living out your boring daily lives and being a sheep? Do you really need to be sheparded? Do you really think you can’t take a hard look at things and not get pissed off?

If it’s not the high gas prices, it’s our own state governments stealing children from their parents and families. If it’s not that it’s the fact that while our state and federal governments work for us they don’t seem to think so anymore. If it’s not that it’s the fact that one woman I respect and care for almost more then I do my own family was gang stalked and assaulted by her own police department in San Diego CA.
If it’s not that it’s the fact that while the oil companies are being assaulted by our own federal government for price fixing it’s political forces that have forced the high gas price hand we’re dealing with today. Do I need to really and truthfully need to say more.. .

Live life with passion and stand up for what you love and believe in and while you think this is the cliche of the conspiracy theorists, Stand up before you cut off at the knees.

Thank you for flying JohnB Airlines. .now this is the question, since you have reached your final destination. What would you rather be served? .. the ass or the crotch?

Ron Paul shocker: No more ‘anchor babies’

GOP gadfly’s ‘anti-immigrant’ ad irks supporters

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Ron Paul

A controversial new anti-illegal-immigration ad by GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul has sent his libertarian supporters into high dudgeon, but it’s getting rave reviews from border-security hawks, including some Homeland Security officials.

In a surprise move, the strict constitutionalist has taken aim at the 14th Amendment as part of a proposal to control growing illegal immigration. U.S. Rep. Paul, R-Texas, proposes repealing the provision that gives automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S., even if their parents enter the country illegally.

“Ron Paul wants border security now,” his new campaign ad asserts. “Physically secure the border. No amnesty. No welfare to illegal aliens. End birthright citizenship. No more student visas from terrorist nations.”

The 30-second TV spot was released last week and is now running in New Hampshire.

“This advertisement makes it clear that, as president, Dr. Paul would oppose amnesty, secure the border, end birthright citizenship, end welfare to illegal aliens, and restore the rule of law,” said campaign chairman Kent Snyder from Paul’s headquarters in Arlington, Va.

However, many of Paul’s supporters – who have donated more than $20 million to his campaign over the past three months alone – are not pleased with the ad. And some have expressed shock at his sudden tough stance against immigration.

Justin Raimondo, editor of AntiWar.com, a blog Paul regularly contributes to, called the ad “disgraceful.”

“Rarely has a more ignorant proposal been advanced,” he said. “And it is made even worse by the fact that this is Ron Paul we’re talking about.”

He and other angry fans accused Paul of pandering to the conservative base of the GOP, specifically border-security voters who backed presidential candidate Tom Tancredo before he recently dropped out of the race.

“‘No more student visas from terrorist nations’ stands against his rhetoric of ‘lets talk to people, trade with them, etc.,’ as opposed to ‘bomb them and interfere with them,’” writes a blogger called “Ali” on Reason.com’s blog. “But I think he’s trying to appeal to a certain segment of the Republican base. I do not like it though. Otherwise, it is a good ad that has a Tancredo feel to it – despite the fact that I despise Tancredo.”

For more on this story, use this link.