Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 1/19/2006 9:30:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 1:09:54 PM EDT by Peak_Oil]
link

-------------------

I feel so much safer, now that the War on Terror has been won, and illegal immigration has been halted, and our nuclear power plants have been built, that we have intelligence assets left over to examine what a million people have been searching for on Google.

------------------

SAN JOSE, Calif. - The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.
ADVERTISEMENT
Adblock

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.

Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously."

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.

----------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE

Federal prosecutors preparing to defend a controversial Internet pornography law in court have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to hand over millions of search records--a request that Google is adamantly denying.

In court documents filed Wednesday, the Bush administration asked a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., to force Google to comply with a subpoena for the information, which would reveal the search terms of a broad swath of the search engine's visitors.

Prosecutors are requesting a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through Google's popular search engine, and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted to Google over a one-week period.

Google said in a statement sent to CNET News.com on Thursday that it will resist the request "vigorously."

The Bush administration's request is part of its attempts to defend the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which is being challenged in court in Philadelphia by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU says Web sites cannot realistically comply with COPA and that the law violates the right to freedom of speech mandated by the First Amendment.

The search engine companies are not parties to the suit.

An attorney for the ACLU said Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL received identical subpoenas and chose to comply with them rather than fight the request in court.

Yahoo acknowledged on Thursday that it complied with the Justice Department's request but said no personally identifiable information was handed over. "We are vigorous defenders of our users' privacy," said Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako. "We did not provide any personal information in response to the Justice Department's subpoena. In our opinion this is not a privacy issue."

Osako declined to provide details, but court documents in the Google case show that the government has been demanding "the text of each search string entered" by users over a time period of between one week and two months, plus a listing of Web sites taken from the search engine's index.

"Our understanding is that MSN and AOL have complied with the government's request, that Yahoo has provided some information in response, but that information wasn't completely satisfactory (according to) the government," ACLU staff attorney Aden Fine said.

--------------------------------------------

Thank you very much, AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo. I heard on the radio that this subpoena was issued A YEAR AGO and this is the first we hear of it.

Bullshit!!!!!
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:33:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:33:24 AM EDT
ah, alberto gonzales, assclown extraordinaire.

Try securing the border, alberto.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:35:55 AM EDT

Good for Google; putting principle and privacy and upholding the Constitution (think about it).

People should be responsible for themselves and parents responsible for their own children
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:36:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
ah, alberto gonzales, assclown extraordinaire.

Try securing the border, alberto.



no shit.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:36:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:
ah, alberto gonzales, assclown extraordinaire.

Try securing the border, alberto.



he's still trying to sneak his extended family across.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:39:08 AM EDT
You're either with us or against us.



Get with the program.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:40:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By bastiat:
ah, alberto gonzales, assclown extraordinaire.

Try securing the border, alberto.



he's still trying to sneak his extended family across.




I said our officials should have a personal interest in the border and things like that, but I didn't mean that way...
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:41:05 AM EDT
While I don't have a problem with other law enforcement activities taking place even when the laundry list of things you consider more important have not yet been solved, I don't see where the government gets off demanding that a private business provide them reports and research material with details of customers so they can defend thier law. You wrote it, you research it your damn self.

I'm really sick of this den-mother crap in regaurds to the internet though. Supervise your child and be aware of what they are viewing and insist that the institutions you entrust them to during the day do the same. It's not a childs playground. If that's what we want, then build a net for them and police what gets put in it.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:41:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/19/2006 9:43:10 AM EDT by Airwolf]
Fuck this shit.

It's a fishing expedition, pure and simple. More "We've got to save the children at all costs" horseshit.

I think Google will stand its ground on this one and fight. Their reputation and mind-share alone are worth billions. They are not going to do something stupid to fuck with that.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:41:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
You're either with us or against us.

www.americanrhetoric.com/images/911wtcreutersitaly.jpg

Get with the program.



and that has what to do with child porn and goverment fishing trips?


Get with the program.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:42:58 AM EDT

Lets see, I'm sure it probably went like this...

Porn, Porn, Porn, Gimps, Midiget porn, ect.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:44:46 AM EDT
Kids should not be viewing porn period.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:45:00 AM EDT
I'm with Google on this one.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:45:05 AM EDT
God damn, but Bush is making me almost wish I had voted fror Kerry instead.

I already wish I had voted Libertarian.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:46:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GeorgiaBII:

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
You're either with us or against us.

www.americanrhetoric.com/images/911wtcreutersitaly.jpg

Get with the program.



and that has what to do with child porn and goverment fishing trips?


Get with the program.




dude, it was christmas and you missed it.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:47:06 AM EDT
Truly bullshit. Hey .gov, I've been searching "Barbara and Jenna Bush naked." How about that!?!?!
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:47:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Kids should not be viewing porn period.




So, don't let yours view porn. Period.

Simple enough.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:49:40 AM EDT
Not that simple.

Porn should be restricted to 18 and over soley.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:50:40 AM EDT
Okay.....this is what I "Googled" for ......

"George Bush, assclown, incompetent, out of touch" and Google brought back 1.38 million matches.

I suppose this is the data you want to suppress as you fight the terrorist (and the Mexicans)?
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:51:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Not that simple.

Porn should be restricted to 18 and over soley.




thank you big brother.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:52:21 AM EDT
Hey I don't approve of them seizing Google's records but I do believe in the law that was struck down.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:52:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Not that simple.
Porn should be restricted to 18 and over soley.



How would you do that without inconveniencing anyone over 18 and without violating anyone's First Amendment rights?
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:53:49 AM EDT
1st Amendment rights can be violated.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:54:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Waldo:
Lets see, I'm sure it probably went like this...

Porn, Porn, Porn, Gimps, Midiget porn, ect.



Yup.

"Sometimes I'm in the mood for nasty close-ups, sometimes I like them arty and air-brushed. Sometimes it's a spread brown-eye kind of night, sometimes it's girl-on-girl time. Sometimes a steamy letter will do it, sometimes - not often, but sometimes - I like the idea of a chick with a horse." - Banky Edwards
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:54:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Kids should not be viewing porn period.




OK, so keep your kids from viewing porn.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:55:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
God damn, but Bush is making me almost wish I had voted fror Kerry instead.

I already wish I had voted Libertarian.



I voted for Badnarik
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:55:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Hey I don't approve of them seizing Google's records but I do believe in the law that was struck down.




Ah, so you think it's ok to piss on the constitution as long as it's a good enough idea?

Welcome to the world of rationalization. Now you know how diane feinstein justifies her position on guns.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:55:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Not that simple.

Porn should be restricted to 18 and over soley.





When I was younger, 10 maybe. Me and My friends had a magazine that we had hid out in the woods in an old building foundation. I dont see any harm in it. The fact that we werent supposed to have it made it even more fun go look at. Im sure it somehow shaped the person I am, but in a way Im not aware of. Whos to say.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:55:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Red_Beard:
You're either with us or against us.

www.americanrhetoric.com/images/911wtcreutersitaly.jpg

Get with the program.



It's for the CHILDREN damnit...



Goose step with the program.
~Dg84
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:57:13 AM EDT
You shouldn't care if you have nothing to hide <rolls eyes>

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:57:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Hey I don't approve of them seizing Google's records but I do believe in the law that was struck down.




Ah, so you think it's ok to piss on the constitution as long as it's a good enough idea?

Welcome to the world of rationalization. Now you know how diane feinstein justifies her position on guns.



So you think it's okay to have porn on public library computers for kids to view?

I'm not talking about personal computers but public computers
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:58:03 AM EDT
Damn... now they're gonna know I googled all those BOTD photos!!
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:59:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Not that simple.

Porn should be restricted to 18 and over soley.




It is fairly simple. Those who claim it "can't be done" are doing nothing more than punting their responcibility to everyone else in society to monitor their kids. I don't want my daughter to view it either, but it isn't my ISPs job to filter our web access for her.

In principle I agree with you, but in practice these laws place a pretty high burden on all servers and services that publish user content. Usenet, free ftp sites, web houses, message boards, etc. Putting them on the hook for controling what a user posts is not such a grand idea.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:59:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 9:59:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Hey I don't approve of them seizing Google's records but I do believe in the law that was struck down.




Ah, so you think it's ok to piss on the constitution as long as it's a good enough idea?

Welcome to the world of rationalization. Now you know how diane feinstein justifies her position on guns.



So you think it's okay to have porn on public library computers for kids to view?

I'm not talking about personal computers but public computers



If you can't teach your children self-control or manners, then maybe the government should be in charge of that for all of us.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:00:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By Admiral_Crunch:
God damn, but Bush is making me almost wish I had voted fror Kerry instead.

I already wish I had voted Libertarian.



Yeah....at least under Clinton and Kerry's plan.....we'd all be elligible for
more government handouts and sympathy for all other ..."God knows what ails yah"!
Because it takes a village to raise a democrat!

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:00:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By bastiat:

Originally Posted By CRC:
Hey I don't approve of them seizing Google's records but I do believe in the law that was struck down.




Ah, so you think it's ok to piss on the constitution as long as it's a good enough idea?

Welcome to the world of rationalization. Now you know how diane feinstein justifies her position on guns.



So you think it's okay to have porn on public library computers for kids to view?

I'm not talking about personal computers but public computers



If their parents so allow.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:00:21 AM EDT
As far as I'm concerned, young kids have no business on the internet anyway. Don't give 10 year olds internet access and they won't see porn there.

Fuck, why would little kids need the internet? There's a lot more than porn there that is potentially dangereous to young kids like chat rooms full of molesters and what not.

Young kids should be outside playing or something, not on the fucking internet.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:01:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

God forbid the government should seek to keep kiddies from accessing porn.



God forbid parents actually fucking parent.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:02:13 AM EDT
Takes me back to the day when I was, well, less than 18, and looking for the "artistic imagery" to satisfy my "growing" curiosity (translation, Naked Chicks to whack it to). People are so damn obsessed with children seeing nudity, yet think unfettered violence is OK. Although I moniter my children's media intake, I for one would rather have them see naked boobies than someone taking a head shot, R rating vs PG 13.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:02:20 AM EDT
Good point but tell me how porn is good for kids?

Some parents do not care what their kids views online and so yes I think in respect to PUBLIC computers the govt should restrict it.

JMHO
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:02:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
God forbid the government should seek to keep kiddies from accessing porn.



God forbid parents should actually be responsible for their children and monitor what they do.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:03:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By go3:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

God forbid the government should seek to keep kiddies from accessing porn.



God forbid parents actually fucking parent.



Again....this is why we need the VILLAGE!


Yours truly,

Hillary (the cunt) Clinton
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:03:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Hey I don't approve of them seizing Google's records but I do believe in the law that was struck down.





And where did you see seize? I saw subpoena. Big difference.


Man the Bush haters are lining up........right behind the oil boy who loves to cry wolf.




Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:03:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 89grand:
As far as I'm concerned, young kids have no business on the internet anyway. Don't give 10 year olds internet access and they won't see porn there.

Fuck, why would little kids need the internet? There's a lot more than porn there that is potentially dangereous to young kids like chat rooms full of molesters and what not.

Young kids should be outside playing or something, not on the fucking internet.



Another good point in some respects. I do think there are valid reasons for kids to access the web.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:03:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
For those with a knee-jerk reaction--but no time to actually read the article--here is the important part--

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.




God forbid the government should seek to keep kiddies from accessing porn.



1. It's not their job

2. It's not in their power.

3. There is no "fishing expedition for a good cause" clause in the bill of rights.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:04:21 AM EDT
I'm not even sure if this is feasible. I doubt Google has a record of every search ever performed and who did it.

Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:05:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
Good point but tell me how porn is good for kids?

Some parents do not care what their kids views online and so yes I think in respect to PUBLIC computers the govt should restrict it.

JMHO



and this has ZERO to do with public libraries.

Either argue the topic on hand or abandon ship. Don't try to cloud the issue with silly "public library porn" claptrap.
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:06:14 AM EDT
That was covered in the struck down law
Link Posted: 1/19/2006 10:07:14 AM EDT
The liberals on the Supreme Court are such fuckheads. They have no problem circumscribing political speech (which is the essence of what the 1st amendment is for) in the name of campaign finance reform, but make ridiculous rulings saying that internet pron is free speech that must be protected
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top