Sue war profiteers, or sue Google to turn over their search records?

I have a knack for noticing things I probably shouldn't, but hey – life would be boring if I didn't stop to smell the sewer. The other thing I notice is, many story “dots” are left unconnected to other stories that have been reported. Alone, they are about as interesting as watching the grass grow, but combined with other stories, the “powers that be” hope you don't recognize the pattern. It's like scattering fertilizer on your lawn – you use a little hand held or pushing wheel machine to spread the good stuff around. Unlike the positive benefits of fertilizer, when the media helps the government to spread “stuff” around, it's usually done to control the stench of hypocrisy. It's a lot harder getting all the scandalous details if they've been distributed over a wide area and over some length of time.

So when I ran across a little bit of an old story about Google having been the subject of a lawsuit to force the search engine company to cough up their search records , I thought, “why didn't I hear about this before?” As the story goes, Google stood up (initially) and said, “No can do, Uncle Sammy.” In the end, Google gave up a week's worth of searchable information plus one million websites .

I'm not one bit the Department of Justice went after search records from MSN, Yahoo, and Netscape – and were given them without the batting of an eyelash. Netscape's Jim Barksdale is on Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board after having raised $100,000 for the Republicans, so it was a no-brainer when I read Netscape couldn't hand over their search data fast enough.

The search came about as a result of the DOJ trying to scour the internet based on a Clinton-era law that was deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court . So why did these search companies cower and blow over like a house of cards? I'm not sure, but I'm suspecting there's a lot more to this story than has been reported. Equally more befuddling is why a federal judge felt it was necessary to legally compel Google to give up the data based on an unconstitutional law – that's poor legal grounds, and if Google were smart, they would've challenged it all the way to the US Supreme Court. In essence, “Sparky” rolled over and capitulated with minimal fuss and without reward.

So what do these three old stories have to do with the price of tea in China ? They're notable due to the timing of the European Union [ 2 ], Michael Chertoff , and Donald Rumsfeld making the internet their newest target all in the same week. This sadly comes on the heels of the two-tiered (“fast lane/slow lane”) internet system that is acting as a toll gate to content material . The other interesting story that flew under the radar or was conveniently buried by the mainstream media is the announcement the FBI is demanding Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to track the web surfing activities of their users .

If one the dots between these stories, then it becomes worthwhile to sit up and take notice of the destination we're all heading for, whether we like it or not.

Where am I going with all of this? The Internet is being attacked and slowly shut down as a place of free thought and creativity, all in the name of catching terrorists. The dissident, protesting voice that used to be guaranteed under the Constitution is being silenced in the real world, and now subject to big brother tactics in the blogosphere. It's hard not to look at those in power and smell their paranoid fear – and the pathetic thing is, these are the people who once protested against authority in the 1960's. Look and see how they've become what they despised. Methinks there were some souls for sale.

I'm good at noticing hypocritical thinking, and linking stories together is usually an effective means of illustrating the point. Consider this a “food for thought” side observation. In regards to the contracting fraud associated with Iraq and Afghanistan , Jim Moorman, President of Taxpayers Against Fraud, a nonprofit watchdog focused on False Claims Act cases, had this comment about the Custer Battles verdict:

“There have been a number of press reports of war profiteers running wild in Iraq, yet as far as I am aware, there is no Department of Justice task force devoted to this fraud. I hope this Administration is not in denial about the fraud, but that may be the case.”

The DOJ has little or no budget in which to recoup taxpayer funds plus fines (the Custer Battles judgment totaled $10 million), but they have the budget to go after Google, which is a law-abiding company that doesn't owe them a dime? Remember, this is the DOJ that couldn't stand to have an exposed breast on a statue and spent $8,000 to cover it by day, while the power brokers are busy groping it at night.

So they're good at spending taxpayer money, but exceptionally inadequate in recovering it, even when the lawsuit was started and won by whistleblowers? If someone won the suit for you and you didn't have to do any of the work or pay any of the expenses, would you find a way to turn around and have the judgment vacated? Yet this is exactly what happened

Could it have something to do with the Washington power brokers all being filthy in contractor cash contributions? I am reminded of Lady MacBeth: “…Out! Out! Damned spot!”

Other quazen.com articles by this writer can be found here , relijournal.com articles here , and picable.com images here . If you enjoyed this article, consider digging it with others.