Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Feds seek Google records in porn probe

Discussion in 'Legal' started by rick_reno, Jan 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    It's for the children.

    http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/19/google.recrods.ap/index.html

    SAN JOSE, California (AP) -- 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.

    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.
     
  2. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    Yikes. I'd better delete my MILFs cookies...
     
  3. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    Um....well...I'm sure that mature/latex/lesbian porn is legal. Right?

    Anyone?:uhoh:

    Biker
     
  4. davec

    davec Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Bayonne, NJ
    once they can see what porn you look at, what do they look at next?
     
  5. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    I think they might have crossed a line when they brought in the donkeys. They were brought across the border from Mexico illegally and I'm pretty sure they were underaged burros.

    Seriously, though, if anyone thought that the Bush administration wasn't making a concerted effort to systematically dismantle the bill of rights, that they were just trying to protect us from "the terrorists," then what the hell is this all about?
     
  6. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    Oh, you're just being all upset and melodramatic LB. Here, a nice cold glass of Kool-Aid will make you feel MUCH better. :rolleyes:

    Its about control. Control of the flow of information, to make sure that only Government Approved facts are seen and read by the populace.

    Goebbels would have been proud.
     
  7. Mr.V.

    Mr.V. Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    364
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    DAMN!

    Vote for Republicans and you get to keep your guns but end up prosecuted if you love a girl who may have gone wild.
    Vote for Democrats and they hand out subscriptions to creampie.com but not until you register your pellet gun.

    It's time for a 3rd party that's not quite as crazy as the libertarians...
     
  8. BostonGeorge

    BostonGeorge Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Salem, NH
    Or a less crazy libertarian candidate.
     
  9. Optical Serenity

    Optical Serenity Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    +1 This is a great post! Haha :D :D :D
     
  10. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Los Angeles County, CA
    One would assume that the administration would have more important things to concern themselves with in this day and age, than porn.

    Apparently, one would be wrong...

    Let's see how much more they will manage to discredit themselves by this year's elections.
     
  11. torpid

    torpid Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,945
    Location:
    CA coast
    "From my cold, dead, calloused hand..."

    (sorry) :p
     
  12. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    Everytime you abuse yourself while surfing donkey porn, you support terrorism.
     
  13. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Jorge Bush has time to go on a crusade against porn while the nation's borders stand unwatched unguarded?

    I think we, the people need to reorganize the action items list for the federal trough feeders, starting by voting a lot of them out of office.
     
  14. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,105
    Location:
    Idaho
    Ya got me...
    :evil:
    Biker
     
  15. Malone LaVeigh

    Malone LaVeigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,136
    Location:
    Washed out of Four-dollar Bayou. Now I'm... somewh
    Porn, shmorn. My latest google search (~5 min ago) was "HK 91".

    I don't particularly like the gestapo knowing that.
     
  16. pete f

    pete f Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,793
    smoke screens all smoke and mirrors
     
  17. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    8,575
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    Been following this on DU. Google is the only search engine so far to refuse to hand over it's records, which is why it's in the news. The government already has the records from Yahoo and MSN, supposedly.

    I wonder if this is legit (seems so irrational as to be almost unbelievable). I wonder if it's for real, or it's a cover for fishing expeditions into other search categories. I have no idea.

    My opinion of Google went up considerably as a result of this, FWIW.

    I can't imagine what legal justification the FBI is using to try to sieze these records, though--how could they get a warrant, since NO CRIMES ARE BEING COMMITTED, because the law they want to use tax dollars to lobby for was struck down by SCOTUS?

    Strange...
     
  18. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    Imagine that the FBI or NSA uses this information to search for anyone who has searched for key words that might indicate terroism, like "weapons," "firearm," "Constitutional," "Amendment," "civil rights," "militia," "Al Qaeda," "Osama Bin Laden," "assault weapon," "battle rifle," "gun," etc. A major argument put forth by Bush apologists for supporting the administration's increasing infringement on Constitutional rights is: "If you're not a terrorist, what do you have to worry about?" If things progress in the direction they're going, we all may end up in Gitmo or some black facility in a third-world country.
     
  19. Herself

    Herself member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    676
    Ahh, the Feds. Tormented by the thought that some creepy nebbish who could never, ever get a date, not even with me when I was single, might be happy.

    Yeah, gotta nip that in the bud. Babies are found under cabbage leaves and hugging and kissing are slightly...shameful.

    Bah!

    Plenty of the things you men like to look kinda gross me out. (Now there was a drawback to working in radio: DJs seem to be major customers of the Adult industry...) That's why I don't look at 'em. What could be simpler?

    It's feeelthy peekchures today. Tomorrow it will be searches for eeeevilll guns!

    After that, I dunno. Maybe Uncle Sam can round up the Unitarians and agnostics, they're pretty easy targets.

    --H
     
  20. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    When Google was first formed, their corporate motto placed in the lobby was "Don't be evil." Gotta admire that from a company...
     
  21. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Well I have absolutely no problem with the Feds knowing what websites I visited, as long as you aren't a terrorist* or a perv* you have nothing to fear.

    * as defined by the Department of Justice independent from judicial or legislative branch input. Definitions may change without warning.
     
  22. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    When I posted this I put "It's for the children" at the head of the post. Sorry - my mistake. It should have read "It's for the children terrorists".
     
  23. odysseus

    odysseus Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    946
    Location:
    US Citizen

    Awesome. Yes.

    At the risk of sounding obtuse, it takes 2 to tango! :eek: :D
     
  24. Can'thavenuthingood

    Can'thavenuthingood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Messages:
    704
    Location:
    California
    We're approaching this from the wrong perspective.

    They have a lonnnnnnnnnng list of names and are going to plug them into the past Searches and find out what an enemy of the state/administration is doing and then discredit, pile on and harass into bankruptcy. There problem taken care of.

    Instead of FBI files to find a nugget of information for extortion or to make one adhere to the plan, we have Internet searches.

    Also must devise a plan to attach some sort of software gizmo to get fees, taxes, surcharges and donations.

    It's late.

    Vick
     
  25. PCGS65

    PCGS65 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    765
    Well the government already listens to all phone communications in the name of security and taxes all phones.
    They are just dying to find a way to control/tax the internet in the name of law enforcement.
    They already bait internet users into acts of crime! But that's not enough anymore.
    I think we are going to see a whole set of internet laws. But first they must find a way to watch what you say/search before implementing such laws.
    Just one more arm of the police state trying to imprison people.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page