Feds after Google data
 

[quote:32f82]
Feds after Google data
RECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAW
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.

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

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

The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.

``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''

Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy.

``The government can't even claim that it's for national security,'' Everett-Church said. ``They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.''

The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.

However, the Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn.

As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is ``harmful to minors.''

The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.

``The production of those materials would be of significant assistance to the government's preparation of its defense of the constitutionality of this important statute,'' government lawyers wrote, noting that Google is the largest search engine.

Google has the largest share of U.S. Web searches with 46 percent, according to November 2005 figures from Nielsen//NetRatings. Yahoo is second with 23 percent, and MSN third with 11 percent.[/quote:32f82]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercuryn ... 657303.htm


Won't someone think of the children! cry:

Porn is bad for you.


cool:

its about as bad for you as a glass of water

I think a guy at militaryphotos said it best.

This is a prime example of why the control of the Net (ICANN) should not reside on US soil and should rather be international. But thankfully google realises how ludicrous of a request this is so eh.

yeah so you can have multiple countries doing the same thing. the US govt rarely, if ever, does this stuff.

nope. Maybe it would be governed under international law and would benefit the users of the world or to be a free for all type of thing like the web is, but as ICANN is under contractual links to the U.S. Government and the U.S. Department of Commerce so you wont see that happening anytime soon.

Or as the god of the world wide web said 'Every aspect of the Internet should function as a Web, rather than a hierarchy. Notable current exceptions are the Domain Name System and the domain naming rules managed by ICANN.'

I wish I invented Google

fuck that, i wish i owned the majority of google's stock.

Microsoft and Yahoo! handed over the data straight away - gg faggots!


ps: http://www.teambio.org/2006/01/q-why-do ... e-results/

[quote="Mr.Buttocks":529d3]Microsoft and Yahoo! handed over the data straight away - gg faggots!


ps: [url="http://www.teambio.org/2006/01/q-why-does-the-doj-need-a-million-google-results/"]http://www.teambio.org/2006/01/q-why-do ... e-results/[/url][/quote:529d3]

Microsoft hasn't denied or admitted to giving anything to the DOJ. Yahoo said they gave something, can't remember what but it wasn't full access, and Time Warner only gave a small amount too.

That link is pretty funny.

http://blogs.msdn.com/msnsearch/archive ... 15606.aspx

Who cares

not you now, but when the feds come to your house to arrest you for your animal porn collection, then you will care.

nah, only people who have done something wrong care about this

lol, Worst defense ever. "I've done nothing wrong so I have nothing to worry about." Please, government is run by other human beings and human beings are easily corrupted by money and power. Just becuase you've done nothing wrong doesn't mean they still wont come after you.

HE SEARCHED FOR WATER BOMBS ON GOOGLE, HE MUST BE PRETENDING TO LOOK FOR WATER BOMBS, WHEN ACTUALLY HE IS LOOKING TO MAKE NITROGLYCERIN BOMBS, GET THE BASTARD

[img]http://jesusburger.net/upload/STOPFBI3.jpg[/img]
[img]http://jesusburger.net/upload/STOPFBI1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://jesusburger.net/upload/STOPFBI2.jpg[/img]

Google...good work!

lmfao

I bet he would be singing a different tune if it was the Democratic Party.

I dont care if im monitered on the streets, I wish that could happen. Put as many cameras and what not out on the streets, but as soon as they moniter you in your own home, thats a big no no.

I would be angry if they missed terrorists plots because they weren't monitoring . If it were Dems, I wouldn't have a different opinion, honestly, it doesn't bother me because I know I haven't done anything wrong.

PS. There is no constitutional right to privacy.

ignorant view to it as usual.

It's not ignorant. I understand what is going on and made a judgement based on those understandings.

Honestly, how does this negatively affect the average citizen?

i think privacy is a fundamental right and should be constitutionaly protected. i think the topic is the next civil rights-like issue of our day. i dont like being monitored and i dont want someone potentially bringing up the fact that i downloaded 2 TB of pr0n last week 30 years from now when i am married, have kids and a decent living.

does the patriot act touch internet usage at all?

The thing is, google shouldn't have the information in the first place. They should not collect data like this.

Google knows your IP, the search you made, at what date you made it, and where you went after. This is itelf an invasion of privacy.

PS, the government says the want the data to keep porn out of children, they say this has nothing to do with terrorist activities.

This type of thing should be left up to parents to monitor their children, not the government.

By the way, welcome to 1984. The police surveillance state is already here. Have fun kids.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

so don't use google.

That's not the point. oOo:

MSN and Yahoo have already given the information, but this goes far beyond internet searches.

What about if there was a camera on every street corner in every city, like London? What if the government were to issue you a national ID card that you had to present to any police officer and they could ask you at any time for it without probable cause.

Not sure about the states, but I do know that police can not ask you to identify yourself without having a reason to do so in Canada. It IS in our constitution.

The republican party was always based upon less government intervention, but now the US probably has the largest amount of government involvement in people's daily lives in the history of the country.

When governments ask you to give up liberties for security, all you get is tyrrany, not security. More control in the hands of fewer people.

Thanks but no thanks, I like democracy just fine.

"Those who sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserve neither liberty nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

Edit: Ninty, if the US was run by REAL Republicans we wouldn't even be talking about half this shit. Real Republicans don't exists. They lower taxes during war time and call themselves Republicans, that's about it. The only liberty they care about is you're right to carry a gun around.

I don't see how this is restricting my liberty at all. And the modern Republican Party only has things that you consider liberty restricting because they want to focus on another plank of their platform, which is national security.

wasnt America once known as land of the free?

Still is.

anything is free as long as you have the power.


now that i think about it, that's very true. people no longer are proactive and try to take advantage of anything. oOo:

What happens when the next "terrorist attack" happens and the Government declares Martial Law and gives itself extraordinary powers. Will it still be the land of the free?

what if Apocalypse comes and takes over the world like in XMEN?

What ifs...

but terrorist attacks have happened, whilst an "Apocalypse comes and takes over the world like in XMEN?" stupid:


again, another terrible analogy.

That obviously wasn't an analogy, it was sarcasm. It meant that we can say what if....but it doesn't matter if it doesn't happen. I do not think that martial law on the scale that ninty mentions is plausible in the United States.