Feds want Google search records (part of effort to revive an Internet child protection law)

Mercury News ^ | 1/18/06 | Howard Mintz

[NormsRevenge]

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 inaccessible 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 one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The Mountain View-based search engine 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 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.

[af_vet_rr]

As much as I disagree with the politics of the founders of Google, this is pretty scary. The search records could be used for any type of snooping. I hope Google stands firm, and I hope the courts do, too.

I was worried that I'd see a thread full of people defending the government, but I'm glad that's not the case - you and the others understand how important and scary this could be.

[af_vet_rr]

Not to sound too alarmist, but what the hell is happening to this country?

Don't you know, we are at war or trying to protect children, and so therefore must shift our politics to the left/big government.

Sarcasm aside, that's the way some people act like, and when you combine that group with the group of people who don't think for themselves ("the government gave a good reason, so I'm going to trust them"), and with the group of people who are too scared to speak up, for fear of drawing attention to themselves, or being labeled as unpatriotic or being in favor of crime/terrorism/etc., you have the makings of a government getting out of hand rather quickly.

[steve-b]

Does the government have nothing better to do?

I hear vague rumors of a kerfluffle involving some guy called "Al Kada". The Feds want to wiretap him and his homies, and swear up and down that they aren't going to abuse the privilege... but of course nobody with three working neurons will believe the latter part after this.

[steve-b]

according to the article, the feds just want the data in order to help them argue a point of law

Specifically, the Bush Administration wants to grab the data in order to argue that a law signed by the creature who desecrated the Oval Office in 1998 is superior to the free-market solution to parental concerns.

Is it time to give up on the pretense that these guys are any different from the Rats?

[Mr. Jeeves]

The Feds want to wiretap him and his homies, and swear up and down that they aren't going to abuse the privilege... but of course nobody with three working neurons will believe the latter part after this.

Yes, this story is very damaging to the Administration's wiretap arguments.

[af_vet_rr]

Is it time to give up on the pretense that these guys are any different from the Rats?

It's past time - this is all about data mining - I didn't catch this the first time around, but look carefully at the following:

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 one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

They didn't ask for all Google searches for certain terms during a one-week period, they asked for all Google searches, period.

If they pulled this off, you could see Chicago, San Francisco, etc., wanting to get access to this data to see if there is anything they can use in their assault against the Second Ammendment.

[I Like Lincoln]

What the hell is going on with this administration? Don't we have other things to worry about besides who's looking for naughty pictures?

Good grief.

[Doe Eyes]

There is only one way to make this content inaccessible to minors and that is to not have it, period.

Couldn't these sites be block by the ISP?

We could require homes with children to use ISP that automatically block porn sites.

[af_vet_rr]

Couldn't these sites be block by the ISP?

The ISP's costs would go through the roof, and it wouldn't catch everything, and it's an unfair burden on them - putting them in the position of carrying out duties that they shouldn't have to. It's not their job to police the internet simply because the government tells them to.

We could require homes with children to use ISP that automatically block porn sites.

Or we could just make parents responsible for what their kids do on the internet. Things like stop letting the internect function as a babysitter, putting the computer in the living room in plain sight, installing monitoring/blocking software on the computer, etc.

The ironic thing is, this is a problem that goes back decades before the internet was around - children are naturally curious - when I was a child, it was a magazine that a friend's cousin's friend stole from his dad, now it's the internet, only these days too many parents would rather rely on the government to raise their children - the ones that see the internet as something that will keep Jr. out of their hair for a few hours, etc.

These are the same parents that get upset when their kid ends up with an adult video game, and when you dig into it, you find out the parents gave them the money or even bought it for them without thinking about it.

[Doe Eyes]

The ISP's costs would go through the roof, and it wouldn't catch everything, and it's an unfair burden on them - putting them in the position of carrying out duties that they shouldn't have to. It's not their job to police the internet simply because the government tells them to.

Only those with wanting to protect their children would have to use these "select" Providers. Those without children wouldn't need them and would be spared the additional expense.

[Blzbba]

"Are they completely impaired?"


They are Government so yes, they are.

[af_vet_rr]

Only those with wanting to protect their children would have to use these "select" Providers. Those without children wouldn't need them and would be spared the additional expense.

There's a couple of problems with this scenario though.

1)Tier 2 ISPs are not going to want this - they could afford to have filtered/censored access by spreading the costs between their customers, but their costs would still be substantial, and they risk losing a large number of customers. Tier 3 ISPs, most of which are actually leasing bandwidth from Tier 2 ISPs (Tier 1 ISPs don't bother with individual customers - they handle large companies, or lease out to Tier 2 ISPs) are in the best shape to do this, since they are small enough to specialize in this kind of access - i.e. have a targeted audience (in theory somebody could sell them a packaged managed setup for filtering/censoring), but their costs are still going to be through the roof, and they don't have a large enough user-base to spread it out.

2)Is it going to be mandatory that if you have children, you must use only government-approved filtered/censored ISPs?

3)If it's optional whether or not to use government-approved filtered/censored ISPs, how would you convince a parent to spend 3x (or more) the cost of a normal, unfiltered/uncensored ISP account for filtered/censored content.

4)If it is mandatory, how are you going to enforce it? Is the federal government going to track everybody with a child to insure they are only using government-approved, filtered/censored ISPs?

5)If somebody with children can't afford the government-approved filtered/censored ISPs (going from $10-20 a month to $60 a month could hurt a lot of people financially), and they go with the regular ISP, are they going to be fined, thrown in jail, etc.

6)How do you deal with the fact that many people would rather save the $40 or more a month and go with a regular ISP and just watch their kids' access? If you say "well the government can subsidize it" in order to keep costs lower, you would still be passing on the costs to those without children, not to mention we would have yet more government spending.

7)Finally, if it was mandatory, as a Conservative, how would you feel with granting the government more power over our personal lives, and how do you deal with First Amendment issues, and how would you prevent the government from expanding this in the future to things such as firearms or political organizations (such as FR)?

We wouldn't be having this discussion if parents were more responsible for their kids.

I would love to see ISPs voluntarily target parents with filtered/censored content but most won't be able to afford it and so won't.

Having the government involved at this level scares the hell out of me, because once you give them that power, they are just one step behind China's views and power over the internet.

[af_vet_rr]

Only those with wanting to protect their children would have to use these "select" Providers. Those without children wouldn't need them and would be spared the additional expense.

Forget what I just said - rather than involving the government, why can't parents just go buy a $30 piece of software - it would be about as effective as ISPs trying to filter/censor internet content (and could be even more effective in some instances).

[steve-b]

If somebody with children can't afford the government-approved filtered/censored ISPs (going from $10-20 a month to $60 a month could hurt a lot of people financially), and they go with the regular ISP, are they going to be fined, thrown in jail, etc.

No, silly. You're going to pay the extra $40-$50 in higher taxes.

[quack]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the "supposed" claim that,before Sept 11,multiple web domains were registered such as, worldtradecenter929.com,horrorinamerica.com, horrorinnewyork.com, nycterroriststrike.com, pearlharborinmanhattan.com, terrorattack2001.com, towerofhorror.com, tradetowerstrike.com,etc.,,?????

Perhaps child porn is just a cover.

[winston2]

17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or[a] the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Revelation 13:17 (New King James Version)
???????????????????????????????????????????????