Feds seek Google records in porn probe

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I care about is not having to be aware of porn when I am not looking for it, didn't ask for it. I don't want it to ruin the internet to the point of it being for adults only, so messed up that parents can't control it and allow access by their children, assuming the parents choose to care.
 
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.
Click to expand...
OK folks, I'm 100% in Google's camp on this, and I wouldn't put it past the feds to seek a grand database that they could use to link Joe back to his bad habits. However, I don't think the feds would be able to use Google's data that way.

Does Google save the IP address of each searcher, assuming the IP address is not hidden behind a firewall? Is there some other way to use search-engine data to identify particular searchers out of billions of searches?

As best I can tell, the feds are trying to gauge the percentages of certain searches, not who searched what. They're conducting a big -- bogus -- fishing expedition, but not the type being described in this thread.

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, please correct me.

Again, in no way am I defending the feds. I'm simply trying to get to the reality of the situation.
 
cuchulainn said:
OK folks, I'm 100% in Google's camp on this, and I wouldn't put it past the feds to seek a grand database that they could use to link Joe back to his bad habits. However, I don't think the feds would be able to use Google's data that way.

Does Google save the IP address of each searcher, assuming the IP address is not hidden behind a firewall? Is there some other way to use search-engine data to identify particular searchers out of billions of searches?

As best I can tell, the feds are trying to gauge the percentages of certain searches, not who searched what. They're conducting a big -- bogus -- fishing expedition, but not the type being described in this thread.

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, please correct me.

Again, in no way am I defending the feds. I'm simply trying to get to the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

If enabling cookies was required, I believe there would be adequate data to maintain a database of which computer searched for what. If you can be passed a cookie file, the same information can be stored on the other side.
 
None of the .gov's business.
I suggest .gov read the COTUS and BoR if they really want to get to know We The People.

Literature , some of which is now banned in schools, is full of all sorts of things that "offended" folks. Tip: don't meddle and keep your nose out of other folks business.

I don't care what folks do. None of my business. The flip side it nobody's business what I do. Parents are supposed to Parent, it is the Parents responsibility to use filters if need at home, and to be a Parent when a child has a question in regard to something seen on a computer, TV, Movies, books.

Ever taken a Medical Class? For instance I took Anatomy and Physiology. Textbooks were quite explicit in text and color pictures. I had the Textbook open to the Reproductive System and my landlord came to check on some maintanance. You would think a Lady whom gave birth to a couple of kids would know something about this...I bet she never snooped at my textbooks ever again when I was gone.

We used computers and class related websites too. Not porn, educational material to learn. Some classmates had kids, computer filters had to be turned off to access in private homes. Sit the kids down and explain what mom/ dad is taking in school. Helps to teach the birds and bees using technology. Not getting the kids into kiddie porn, just being responsible parents.

At College we are not to access Porn sites, Gambling sites and to observe other Copyright infringemnent matters on College Computers. This is the College and students agree to Terms.

Being in CIS/IT studies, there times a student has a need and I have gone with them to the folks that run our lab. Up front and honest about accessing a Medical Site that may come up as being porn. One student needed information about Protitutes in doing some research for a Sociolgy and Criminal Justice Paper. Folks concerned about being flagged for researching Breast, Ovarian, or Testicular cancers.
College usually sets these permissions up on a block of computers not easily seen by others, or use a room not in use.

.gov has no business flagging folks for what they are accessing - or what .gov thinks folks are accessing, for whatever reason.

We The People, includes Parents, Students, and even Perverts.
That is why the US is a Republic - and not a Police State.
 
TennTucker said:
Last I heard is that it's not illegal.
Click to expand...

It depends on what they're doing. If it is obscene, then yes, it is illegal per the Communications Decency Act to distribute it on the internet or anywhere else. And, since the most socially conservative town in the US presumably has access to the internet, that town's standard of decency applies to the internet. Which apparently means sadomasochism and possibly bondage, among less common bits.

But you're probably okay, it is only illegal to distribute it, not to view it.

And as regard Google, I am assuming they'll probably give up the fight, and have been using and recommending scroogle.org for exactly this reason.
 
Hmmmm.

I wonder if this has something to do with the dissapearance of twogirlsadogandme.com?
 
sm said:
None of the .gov's business....gov has no business flagging folks for what they are accessing...
Click to expand...


I agree to a certain extent; the government should concentrate on putting the porn operators and purveyors of on-line pornography out of business and prohibiting their illegal trade, so you have no need to access... that's the route to go.
 
What I care about is not having to be aware of porn when I am not looking for it, didn't ask for it. I don't want it to ruin the internet to the point of it being for adults only, so messed up that parents can't control it and allow access by their children, assuming the parents choose to care.
Click to expand...

You might want to quit typing in "lesbianfisters.com" or "chixwdix.com" if you're accessing too much porn in your Internet searches, Realgun;) . I kid!
 
Seriously, love it, hate it, or don't care one way or another, but pornography is the downside of a free-market economy combined with a free press. You can try to destroy both of those, destroying our liberty in the process, but even if you are successful, our liberty will be the only casualty. Do gooders have been trying to stamp out prostitution, the world's oldest profession, since time immemorial, but even the worst tyrant in the most Draconian police state has failed to do so. People are people, and people are driven by hormones in spite of the best intentions of the delicate flowers who are easily offended by the baser aspects of humanity. When an institution tries to deny the humanity of its members it creates a pressure cooker that results in the sodomizing of tens of thousands of innocent alter boys. Better to let the pervs engage in their autoerotic activities in the privacy of their own homes.
 
Lobotomy Boy said:
Do gooders have been trying to stamp out prostitution, the world's oldest profession, since time immemorial, but even the worst tyrant in the most Draconian police state has failed to do so. People are people, and people are driven by hormones in spite of the best intentions of the delicate flowers who are easily offended by the baser aspects of humanity.
Click to expand...

What's even more ironic is that it consistently seems that the loudest objecting "moral" voices are the ones who continually keep getting caught after hours soliciting prostitutes, or far, far worse. It seems to be the most loudly "I am more moral than you are" sorts who are into the "um..ew, I didn't even know that WAS a fetish" nastiness, when it's exposed.

And the amusing thing about this sort of violation of privacy is that even the holier-than-thou noisemakers aren't exempt. Someone screaming that all pornographic materials are evil in overcompensation for their own shame doesn't negate the search records that show that they're a rather ardent consumer of it.

Generally, to me, if someone says "Eh, not really into it, fine for other people", I'll believe them. If they foam and froth and scream and give a sermon about how evil it is, with lots of lurid detail, I tend to believe that they've got at least half a dozen paid memberships to seriously wierd sites that they peruse in the wee hours.
 
There is good porn and bad porn. A site that charges for access to the material is a bona fide business. If a kid is old enough to have a credit card and establish an account, willing to be accountable to parents for the charges, I don't see any problem. A site that doesn't charge is either just evil or should be considered for adults only, those with the rights that everyone is so concerned about. If a site with material classified as porn was required to charge for access, I think that's a pretty clever way to restrict access by kids considered too young to view it.
 
RealGun said:
A site that doesn't charge is either just evil or should be considered for adults only, those with the rights that everyone is so concerned about.
Click to expand...

How about parents being parents and NOT letting their kids go out on the web alone? The web isn't a safe nursery, nor should it be. It's a city. Cities have redlight districts. Would you drop a kid off in the the middle of a major city and let them run around? Then why would you let them on the web unaccompanied, either?

Parents using the web for a babysitter instead of something that needs to be OBSERVED while their children are using it are the issue, here. These are the same parents who whine that society should help raise their kids, remember.
 
They did a report on this on FoxNes this morning. According to them the goverment wants info only on those who have typed in keywords relating to child porn, not just porn in general. Makes me wonder just who has their facts messed up.

Edited to add-
If it is for child porn, and child porn only I would side with the feds on this one, child porn is a crime and a sick one at that. And keeping information on who is participating in it is wrong.

Now if it is general records to sift through or records for porn in general I am 100% with Google.

Also according to FoxNews other search engines like Yahoo have complied.
 
Lupinus said:
They did a report on this on FoxNes this morning. According to them they want info only on those who have typed in keyords relating to child porn, not just porn in general. Makes me wonder just who has their facts messed up.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure that works really well. Sort of like how firewalls will slam the PORN filter down and report anyone in an office who tries to look up something like breast cancer resources. Because we all know there's no words in the English language with multiple contexts. :rolleyes:
 
Oh, I'm sure that works really well. Sort of like how firewalls will slam the PORN filter down and report anyone in an office who tries to look up something like breast cancer resources. Because we all know there's no words in the English language with multiple contexts.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But there are a few pretty specific words out there that can't be said here.

Though sadly, porn has gotten good at sticking words in what they submit so that it pops up in searchs with nothing to do with it.
 
I just Googled "Feds" and "records" in order to support my ongoing fetish with tinfoil and was sent to THIS very thread! :)

Okay, not really, but "goat porn" does seem to permeate the airwaves using a variety of search engine tricks...
 
Manedwolf said:
How about parents being parents and NOT letting their kids go out on the web alone? The web isn't a safe nursery, nor should it be. It's a city. Cities have redlight districts. Would you drop a kid off in the the middle of a major city and let them run around? Then why would you let them on the web unaccompanied, either?

Parents using the web for a babysitter instead of something that needs to be OBSERVED while their children are using it are the issue, here. These are the same parents who whine that society should help raise their kids, remember.
Click to expand...

Ever been a parent?
 
I don't see singling out child porn on the internet as workable. What is illegal is taking the pictures and organizing the scene. The internet would just be used as a trace back to the actual crime. Penalizing private interest in viewing child porn is highly questionable.
 
I don't see singling out child porn on the internet as workable. What is illegal is taking the pictures and organizing the scene. The internet would just be used as a trace back to the actual crime. Penalizing private interest in viewing child porn is highly questionable.
Click to expand...
If I'm not mistaken, child porn laws make viewing it illegal too -- on the grounds that by viewing it, you are supporting it (often financially) and thus are a knowing participant in the violation of a child.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
I hope the USSC say, in a lound voice, NO. Today's CATO Daily Dispatch.
Replies
2
Views
460
geekWithA.45
G
J
  • Locked
Google v. The Justice Dept...Humor
Replies
0
Views
293
Jeff White
J
Z
  • Locked
Gmail = Privacy Invasion?
Replies
11
Views
582
Pendragon
P
M
  • Locked
The Supreme Court/Phone Record Privacy
Replies
2
Views
270
Bartholomew Roberts
B
O
  • Locked
SAF petitions SCOTUS for review of Rodriguez case
Replies
5
Views
662
JTHunter
JTHunter
Back
Top