Google has stood up against the United states justice Department in its attempts to gain access to its users search histories. The US Justice department claims it is for a study on eliminating internet crime with Child pornography as its main target. It is a no brainer by the average American to wish child pornography to be eliminated. But should it be done without no oversight to government as is done now with the battle against terrorism. The other major search engines including MSN and yahoo already complied. Google alone has denied them access on grounds of the privacy of its users and trademark infringement. Granted as a SEO, I would love to get under the hood of the algorithms at Google to get higher SERP results. But I support their stance on privacy.

Already in previous cases against P2Ps, like Napster, have blocked access to the Justice departments wish of placing real names to IP addresses (an address internet providers like comcast assign to your computer on open accounts.) This ruling could be a back door to those cases. So be careful downloading those Britany pics and songs! But be careful in libraries, for under the Patriot act your web searches and Library check outs are public knowledge to the Justice department and the various intelligence agencies of our government. In fact it is treason for a librarian to warn you that you are being monitored. So be careful with your searches for religious difference, opinions, and politics. Not a good time to study the differences between the two Semitic groups and their differences on religion.

This basically boils down to the basic equation of comfort/security to freedom.

With certain perceived stressors our body reacts with a fight or flight reaction. This is brought on by adrenaline releasing reserve sugars from the liver and the promotion of other stress hormones. Without the real threat that our ancestors once had of lions, tigers, or bears; we are left in a hovering position. Our bodies have not evolved to a new situation of perceived threats from abstract ideas like specters of bogeymen and the fear of loss of job or home. Under these situation we revert back to more primitive thinking survival. Our comfort and security thresholds over that of our personal freedoms.

Until a homestatis of these two primal concerns, we will look towards group protection. Here we will give up personal identity in fear we would be removed from the wagon train circle and thrown headlong into the wild charge of Indians. If we show any opposition to the alpha decisions that the group is following.

If this perceived stress could be sustained, our more modern sense of freedom that arose from agricultural surplus creating specialization in trades, crafts, and arts can be suspended indefinitely. Which many of us will be accustomed to as we backed down years ago in response to real or potential fear of our fathers or mothers removal of comfort and security. Raise your hands, how many of you gave up basket weaving to become Lawyers?

Leading to such things as the removal of habeas corpus in the north during the Civil War by Lincoln, the interment of Japanese citizens in WWII, blackballing during the red scare, and the removal of American soldiers from international law the day before September 11 2001.

Jefferson warned with the creation of the first standing federal army under Adams that once you ask for more protection from a federal body to expect limitations to personal freedoms of its citizens in accordance to.

But is not our personal freedoms necessary for our survival as well. If it was not we would not have intraspecies conflicts. Or politics for that matter?