Thanks for the thoughtful comment. It gives me a lot to consider and reconsider. I don’t have first-hand experience with subpoenas like you, but I’ve heard plenty of stories that give cause to worry.

I just wonder about the specific digs against Google. If the complaint is the sheer amount of data it collects that is potentially available via subpoena, then yes, I think that’s a completely valid argument. But otherwise, I haven’t seen or heard anything that causes me to worry about what they’re privately doing with my data or that they’ll be more eager to respond to a subpoena request than anyone else.

According to the OpenDNS privacy policy, they “generally” remove IP addresses within two days, but make no such guarantees for backup/archive tapes. As a user of OpenDNS for the last several years, that gives me more cause for concern that Google’s privacy policy for Public DNS. But, add that to Gmail, search history, etc., and I think it becomes a much bigger issue.

As for ISPs not recording DNS requests — really? I have no reason to doubt what you said, I just find it surprising that they don’t. Do you think they’ll start collecting that data now that Google apparently finds some value in aggregating it?

Heres how this could work in the real world.

Law enforcement, or DEA, sends Google a preservation order, save all DNS query information on either IP or gmail account name.

Subpoena follows, says give me all information you have saved.

Normal ISP response: We don’t log DNS queries, sorry, this request is not possible to be fulfilled. Law enforcement accepts that, goes away.

Law enforcement to google: We know you have capability to log DNS queries, please log all DNS queries on (person, ip, uid).

Google complies.

This delightful scenario used to be impossible to fulfill, because most ISP have no capacity to log all resolver queries or to preserve the ones they have routinely.

In my line of work, I see law enforcement subpoena. Five years ago, it was unheard of to be asked for DNS logs. Lately, we have started seeing this be asked, maybe in the past year.

Someone’s putting the nifty idea in law enforcements head that DNS logs are retrievable under subpoena. Who is causing that I wonder, it sure isn’t the old style DNS resolver hosting ISP, the ones with no logs.

You can call it FUD and dismiss it all you want, but please be aware, I do this for a living, I regularly see DEA, FBI, NSA and Secret Service subpoena. I would have access to DNS logs if my employer had any to offer. I would in that case routinely make them available to law enforcement were they to ask, because that is the law.

Google subpoena compliance cannot be any different, as far as I’m aware.

So to me the logical assumption is google keeps logs and then recycles them, but law enforcement could (does?) ask them to preserve logs on someone, and they would do so, it would not be a difficult ask, and it would be the same as google handing over your gmail contents, the contents of your searches by uid, any other data they had on you, your profile information, etc.

I would assume they have a whole department that already is doing this, and DNS is just one more data point google assembles on people and therefore has available if law enforcement comes calling.

So thats fine right, as long as you’re innocent you have nothing to hide. Where have I heard that before. I have in my line of work seen mostly subpoena that look completely legit, matters such as fraud, stuff like computer theft, that make total sense to want to have every scrap of evidence you can.

Most subpoena.

Then there’s the ones by the DEA, or the NSA, the ones that until a year ago we weren’t even allowed to mention without penalty of law. NSA / PATRIOT queries are still around, probably an all time high because Law Enforcement has gotten better at its job, and now there’s more information for them to go out and fish through, such as google DNS queries presumably.

Compared to routine subpoena, the spooky subpoena are still a minority, they their use is growing. By Spooky, I mean the ones that don’t have to get signed off on by a judge, the ones that have no case ID, the ones that basically an agency of the federal government says “give me everything you have” and you have no right but to comply. Ten years ago, these were all but non existent. PATRIOT and DHS changed that, and now the DEA has gotten involved too.

So if you want the DEA to have access to your google resolver queries…

keep cheering for google to handle local DNS.

All the pieces are in place, whether they’re being used or not in this manner, all my post is just speculation. But it is speculation by someone that regularly sees federal subpoena, who has access to ISP records, and who does this for a living.

You fanboys do.. whatever it is you do … but if you blindly assume google is not facilitating evil, then you need to go refresh yourselves with the concept of “the banality of evil.” Most evil is not a dark warlord or evil mastermind. Most evil is boring, routine, bureaucratic, and everyone just doing their jobs.

Thats what google’s facilitating. A whole new batch o banal evil.

Unless they specifically have a way to ignore law enforcement, or their lawyers have worked a way for them to circumvent the same laws we have to follow. I guess thats possible. Haven’t seen anything like that though. My assumption from observing google is they would routinely comply with the law, just like any other corporation, once they were handed legal paper that said they had to.

When you assign a target folder in Breakfast, it automatically generates a folder action on it. That folder action will trigger when it detects a new video file (.mkv, .avi, etc.) and will launch Breakfast when needed.

Previously, I had used appletv fooler for TV shows and Hazel + HandbrakeCLI for movies. I also wrote an applescript to add metadata, but it is static (ie, I input the info to the script at the beginning of the season).

Thanks for the article!

The RIM BlackBerry® Tour supports the following Bluetooth profiles: Headset (HSP), Hands–free (HFP), Serial Port (SPP), Dial–up Networking (DUN), Advanced Audio Distribution (A2DP)and Audio/Visual Remote Control Profile (AVRCP). OBEX Profiles: PBAP.

Looking at Verizon’s Bluetooth Functionality Chart (PDF), there are phones that offer all (Samsung Omnia) or almost all (HTC Touch Pro) available Bluetooth profiles. So, it seems to me that it’s RIM — not Verizon — that’s limiting Bluetooth capabilities on its phones (probably for security reasons).

First, A little background. For several years, I struggled with doubt, to the point where I nearly lost my faith and walked away from Christianity — a story for a different time. That process caused me to reevaluate my beliefs and why I believe them. Most importantly, my faith has emerged stronger than ever before, with a deeper understanding of God’s grace and love for us. So, while I appreciate your concern for me, there is no need to worry. And please remember that though we may differ on some issues of theology and philosophy (predestination, free will, etc.), our belief in redemption through Jesus does not.

And now, onto a response to your points.

…Perfect example of a product of the emergent church actually.

I know that you’d like to classify Woodland Hills and Boyd as part of the emergent church so that you can easily dismiss them, but it’s simply not true. Boyd and Paul Eddy, the church’s teaching pastor, address the topic in this video. In addition, Woodland Hills and Bethlehem Baptist Church actually belong to the same church conference, the Baptist General Conference.

…He needs to spend more time in his Bible and less time with his mouth open and definitely less time writing books.

If you want to make arguments Greg Boyd’s ideas, by all means do so. But ad hominem attacks aren’t helping you here. If you listen to his sermons or read his website, you’ll see that his views are extremely Biblical and backed up by scripture. Boyd he taught at Bethel University for 16 years and also happens to be a notable figure in New Testament scholarship (if you want I can lend you my copy of The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition). And if you think Boyd should spend less time writing books, maybe John Piper should too — he has 41 versus Boyd’s 17. I do give John Piper credit for his lifetime of ministry, I simply disagree with him on some issues of theology.

…if a tornado comes out of no where when none was expected, takes off the top of the exact church…

If God was sending a message here because of his anger and disapproval, why didn’t He destroy the church and leave every other building in the area untouched? Wouldn’t that have sent a stronger and clearer message than the breaking of a steeple? And what about the four other tornadoes that touched down that day? What message were they sending?

I think Piper is engaging in confirmation bias in using this example, because while he doesn’t attempt to interpret damage from other weather events, the circumstances surrounding this one fit his particular worldview so is seems obvious to him.

…meeting to allow gays not only into the so called church but to be able to teach in them as well…

First, I happen to disagree with the ELCA’s vote. However, I’m disturbed by many Christians’ obsession with homosexuality, as if it’s somehow a bigger sin than the any of the others mentioned in the Bible. Yes, it fails to meet God’s ideal — as does pride, greed, lust, failing to take care of the needy, adultery, gluttony, lying, envy, gossip, etc. Sin is sin. So, if you’re saying that God cares more about homosexuality than these other sins and decided to make a point about it with a tornado, while ignoring churches rife with other every other sort of transgression, then I can’t go along with that, because it’s not based in scripture.

And I hope I’m misreading your sentence from above, because I think it’s a dangerous place to be in if you believe sinners of any type should be excluded from a church. A church without sinners would be quite empty.

…No wonder the lady lost all passion for God, she clearly didn’t have a clear understanding of who God is to begin with and what He has done.

I think I need clarification on what you mean here, because I’m failing to see how God’s love for us, demonstrated through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross for our sins, fits in with what you’re implying. Are you saying that God took the baby from the woman in the story because of her sin in her life, or because she lacked faith? Because I don’t see how that meshes with our freedom from sin through grace, or the words of Jesus (Luke 11:11–12).

Does he seriously think that God just created this world and doesn’t have a clue whats going on in it (and yes he does, that’s what his churches website says)?

Actually, no — that’s not what the website says. This goes back to a misunderstanding of Open Theism. From Boyd himself:

This is the single most common misconception people have about the open view. Open Theists and Classical Theists disagree about the nature of the future, not about how much God knows about it. Both sides grant that God knows everything. He is omniscient. He knows everything there is to know about all of reality, including the future. The disagreement is that, whereas Classical Theists believe that the future consists entirely of settled realities — and thus hold that God knows it as entirely settled — Open Theists believe that the future is partly comprised of possibilities — and thus hold that God perfectly knows it as partly comprised of possibilities.

While I could go into deep detail about it here, in the interest of time and space, there are plenty of web resources to refer to, plus I’d be happy to get you a book on the topic if you’d like.

I guess you can do that though when “we just don’t know”. It’s easier to plead ignorance then use half a brain on this matter. That’s all there is to be said about it.

I found it interesting that you chose these words, because when I’ve heard them before, they’ve always been used to argue the exact opposite position as you. Quoting Francis Collins (physician, geneticist, former director of the Human Genome Project) from his 2006 book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

A word of caution is needed when inserting specific divine action by God in this or any other area where scientific understanding is currently lacking. From solar eclipses in olden times to the movement of the planets in the Middle Ages, to the origins of life today, this “God of the gaps” approach has all too often done a disservice to religion (and by implication, to God, if that’s possible). Faith that places God in the gaps of current understanding about the natural world may be headed for a crisis if advances in science subsequently filled those gaps. Faced with incomplete understanding of the natural world, believers should be cautious about invoking the divine in areas of current mystery, lest they build an unnecessary theological argument that is doomed to later destruction.

…Not only is it where the weather patterns merge to create the perfect conditions for it (duh), but God punishes those whom He loves when they are doing something WRONG. He doesn’t need to punish the un-Godly. They will get theirs far more then we can imagine.

Almost all of the reward and punishment teaching of the Bible is given by God to Israel, not to humanity in general. The covenant relationship God established with the Hebrews in the Old Testament — and the punishment that went along with it — is no longer in place under the new covenant we have through Jesus. That’s not to say that He doesn’t do it today, but frankly, it doesn’t seem to be a very effective method for bringing about correction. Going back to the mother who lost her baby upon delivery — what lesson, exactly, is she supposed to take away from that experience? Is she being punished, or is God punishing the baby? She’s left to guess at the reason behind that tragedy. In a parent-child relationship, a punishment handed down without a reason why is not only unhelpful, but cruel.

In the context of my original blog post about natural disasters, your comment about God not needing to punish nonbelievers doesn’t fit with reality. Natural disasters, of all things, do not discriminate between Christians and non-Christians. I can give you example after example: the wildfires in California occurring while I write this; Hurricane Katrina in 2005; the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/tsunami; the 2008 Sichuan earthquake. If God is using these events to punish believers, He’s leaving behind a lot of collateral damage — particularly in regions of the world where the number of non-believers dwarf the number of believers.

One side note is that a lot of people seem to mistake discipline for punishment. The two are not interchangeable. The root world, Discipulus, means disciple, or “pupil, student”. The act of discipline is guiding the learner toward positive behavior while learning from their mistakes instead of making them suffer for them beyond the natural consequences. Punishment focuses on the person in authority being responsible for controlling the disciple’s behavior instead of them controlling it themselves.

Their own site claims in fancy words that God is not omniscient (they redefined the word). That He does not know what is going to happen in the future.

Again, not true. Read up on Open Theism. Here’s another quote from Boyd:

So the Bible presents God as interacting with a world that is moving into a partly open future. This doesn’t mean that God could ever be caught off guard or that his overall purposes for the world are ever threatened. Because they believe God is infinitely intelligent, Open Theists affirm that God anticipates each and every possibility from the foundation of the world, as though it were a certainty. Whatever comes to pass, God has a plan in place to respond to it, bringing good out of evil when this is necessary. But, unlike Classical Theists, Open Theists are confident that God is so smart, he can sovereignly rule the world effectively without needing to have everything pre-settled in his will or mind ahead of time.

Not once does it mention the preaching of the Gospel (which is a must have to be part of the Church Body) rather it says preaching God’s love (totally not the same on any level).

Comparing Woodland Hills site with Salem’s and Hope’s (our church), I honestly struggle to find many differences. Your statements could equally apply to your church.

If you’re really questioning the foundational teachings of Woodland Hills, I recommend listening or watching some of their sermons. They’ve been working their way through Luke verse-by-verse for the last 5+ years, with occasional breaks for topical series. June 28th’s message titled Gatekeepers of the Royal Son is a perfect example of what they teach: The raw Gospel message, stripped of religion.

Their entire policy is summed up in “We agree on enough to get the job done.” So many things wrong with that statement alone I will spare you extra paragraphs.

I feel that you’re taking Woodland Hills’ statement about controversial issues and attempting to apply it to the church wholesale. Reading in the same paragraph, this is what they mean by the quote you pulled:

We do not exclude anyone on the basis of a different view on baptism, gifts of the spirit, predestination vs. freewill, or any other matter of honest theological disagreement among members of the Church. The people of Woodland Hills are not connected because we all dot our i’s and cross our ts the same theologically, but because we align ourselves with a common vision and mission as Jesus’ disciples in the city of St. Paul.

You may disagree, but I see absolutely no issue with this statement. I personally can’t stand when churches demand you buy completely into their mono-culture, as there always has and always will be plenty of areas of legitimate disagreement within Christianity.

Not to mention they endorse Rob Bell who is singlehandedly trying to redefine what Christianity is (and not for the better).

I’ll admit that I’m not all that familiar with Rob Bell, but from what I’ve read by him and about him, I haven’t seen anything to make me believe he’s “trying to redefine what Christianity is”. Now, I know you’re a fan of Mark Driscoll, and that he believes Bell to be a heretic, so maybe that’s where you’re coming from — I don’t know.

I feel that I’ve responded to your last paragraph in bits and pieces above, so I’m not going to take up more space down here.

So, wrapping up, it’s obvious that we have some genuine disagreements on theology, philosophy, and even on how we view God. I’m not going to try and tell you that I’ve got it all figured out, because I honestly don’t. I don’t think anybody can (or should) claim that. And I think you’re making a mistake when you come to the conclusion that your particular understanding of Christianity IS Christianity.