So now Bush's Justice Department is invading our privacy in an attempt to resurrect a law that's already been overturned by the Supreme Court. With that kind of flimsy justification and given the number of laws that the Supreme Court has overturned, this administration could come up with virtually any rationale you could possibly imagine to invade our privacy. (Certainly "abortion" searches come to mind!) This is especially disturbing since Google apparently keeps records of every search in a way that can be traceable to individuals, Google's "cookies" don't expire until 2038 and heaven only knows how long they keep all of this information in their databases. (Google's cookie places a unique ID number on your hard disk. Anytime you land on a Google page, you get a Google cookie unless you already have one. That's how they read and record your unique ID number!) One would have to think that ALL of the other search engines (Yahoo, MSN, Ask Jeeves, etc.) may very well do exactly the same thing. It seems to me there's two issues here.

(1) Privacy statements and disclosures notwithstanding, do these search engine companies have the right to gather and maintain this kind of information and what, if anything, would prompt or cause them to divulge it. (If one can believe NPR, they said this morning that Yahoo has already complied with the DOJ's subpoena for a week's worth of their search engine records so I guess we know what Yahoo's criteria is.); and

(2) Does any government agency (Federal, state or local) have the right to access that information? If so, under what circumstances? Would they require a subpoena? a warrant? a nicely worded polite request?

Internet Explorer and Firefox both provide fairly simple and flexible ways to block cookies from all sites or just selected sites. (Opera's privacy options are not nearly as robust.) I think everyone would be wise to take advantage of whatever privacy measures your browser of choice offers! (And if it doesn't offer enough, start using another browser.) I, for one, have configured all 3 of the browsers I use to block all search engine-related cookies ... one of these fine days, when I'm in a really good mood, I'm going to delete every one of my cookies (or maybe just rename the directory!), configure Firefox to block ALL sites and then see just how tolerable or intolerable my browsing (and shopping) becomes. Of course, with the prospect of 3 more years of King George, maybe I'll just wrap my PC in duct tape ... I'm sure that'll keep all the bad stuff away.

I totally agree with Klaus' observations. What's more, the Democrats also need to keep reminding people that Bush has always been quick to declare that anyone who protests the war in Iraq is aiding the enemy and anyone who talks about the scope of these wiretaps is aiding the enemy. In short, anyone who disagrees with George Bush about just about anything is aiding the enemy ... who's to say that THAT wouldn't be ample justification for a warrantless wiretap, just as it was for Nixon. And don't forget to point out that FISA was enacted precisely because of Richard Nixon's self-proclaimed wartime powers, which included spying on Americans who were protesting the war in Viet Nam. Time and time again George Bush has betrayed the trust placed in him by the people who voted for him ... George Bush cannot be trusted with powers that were never intended for one man to have. This isn't a partisan issue - this isn't a national security issue - this is a trust issue.

Let's face it, George Bush's poll numbers haven't slipped all that much when the questions relate to national security but lately he doesn't poll well at all when the questions relate to trust and believability. As Klaus suggests, that's where the Democrats need to concentrate (and concentrate they must because Rove and Bush have come out swinging with their usual strategy of "the best defense is a good offense" ).

God help me, but I've become such a cynic in the last 5 years that I'm sitting here thinking that Bush is probably hoping for another terrorist attack on American soil ... military enlistment levels would undoubtedly go way up, just as they did after 9/11, and his commander-in-chiefdom would be bigger and better than ever. (And, of course, he'd place the blame for the attack squarely on the Democrats and all the people who keep leaking his dirty little secrets to the press.) In the meantime I'm just going to enjoy imagining how royally peeved King George must get every time another negative report that he undoubtedly would have suppressed manages to gets publicized.

Gee, wouldn't a good reporter have "dug a little deeper" BEFORE the interview?