Posted on 01/19/2006 10:36:33 AM PST by flashbunny
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.
Typing one-handed again, eh, Laz?
No worries. We can always ratchet things up after that, with ever more draconian measures, until we finally succeed in creating the perfect world, where nobody ever gets hurt or offended or upset or insulted or...
LOL.
This is a civil action
No, it isn't -- who, exactly, is the government suing?
This is an attempt to subpoena private information for no purpose other than to advance the government's political agenda, and as such is an outrageous abuse of the system.
Of course it's a civil action. Read the last line of the article -- it's a "lawsuit." The style of the case is ACLU v. Ashcroft, and it's been back down in the federal district court in Pennsylvania after the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order entering a preliminary injunction. Parties to a lawsuit can issue subpoenas to non-parties for a deposition and/or documents as part of a civil lawsuit's discovery process. That's what the government has done here.
No, it cannot be done by one person.
Pornography has nothing to do with political speech, which the first amendment was intended to protect.
Excuse me for butting in dinoparty BUT...Okay, your turn. Where do you get your assertion that Congress can CONSTITUTIONALLY get involved with playing nanny.
- Who says it is not the job of the government?
The U.S. Constitution.
- What support do you have for your assertion?
The U.S. Constitution.
- I agree that it is the job of the parent, but believe they need government's help.
See #1 & $2. The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant Congress the 'right' nor power to help parents play computer nanny.In case you missed the Roberts' and Alito hearings the second most 'hot' topic was the Commerce Clause. Since it sounds boring and not about abortion, the MSM ignored it.
You see, SCOTUS has finally reined in the abuse of it by Congress - after 60 years, and they 'ain't' too pleased. Especially Di-Fi and Durbin. As when you limit Congresses power to cite the Commerce Clause as the foundation for a bill you limit what they can do. If strictly interpreted, Congress would need to meet about six weeks a year
The Commerce Clause is the basis for every Federal gun control law, every 'hate crime' law, and every other stoo-pid Federal law not specifically allowed by the US Constitution. All of which are then patently unconstitutional. Like DiFi's recently struck down 'Gun Free School Zone Law'.
In fact in the recently passed Sexual Orientation Hate Crime Bill in the senate. Section 2 (IIRC) specifically referenced the Commerce Clause as it's legal basis solely in an attempt to make it constitutional - and avoid a SCOTUS smack down.
Ergo, having the gubmint get involved in what can be "viewed" on a computer screen has diddley to do with Commerce and as such they can't so shiite about it.
The Constitution doesn't allow 'feel good'; or 'gee whiz, it'll help parents'; nor 'gosh, but we meant well' laws. And it's about time SCOTUS is doing what they are supposed to.
Regardless, too many American wankers are complicit to ever tolerate a significant crackdown on porn. Even if it were revealed that a majority of internet porn used sex slaves, as is rather likely, the universal wolf would find a rationale to keep scarfing.
ACLU sued the government and asked a federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law and declare it unconstitutional. The government has already been enjoined from enforcing the law -- that was the preliminary injunction issue that went up before the Supremes -- and now the matter is proceeding on the issue of whether the law is constitutional or not.
Note to my fellow libertarians who might despair over Alito changing the balance here on the 5-4 decision that affirmed the preliminary injunction: O'Connor (the Alito vote) was in the minority, as was Rehnquist (the Roberts vote). Justice Kennedy aka "Mr. First Amendment" wrote the opinion for the majority.
This is the kind of response I've been looking for. It is pointing out the real limitaions of such laws, not the contrived and illogical "Constitutional" prohibition of them that others on this forum are espousing..
Hee hee. That is a moving tribute to the nobility of the porn industry. (Wiping away tears...)
Usually, when I am among only libertarians, I AM the only one who gets it.
Big difference: the second amendment protects gun rights, while nothing in the Constitution protects pornography rights.
Such naivety. The E. European sex slave trade provides "consenting" models, too.
Hello? It's called the First Amendment. (And there's a very good reason it's First.) Content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid. The government's burden in the face of such a challenge is to show that there are less restrictive ways of achieving the goal of the law -- such as filtering software, not government overreaching and hamhandedness. Now off with you, my good mullah.
You simply pointed out that the commerce clause has been abused, and now it is getting reigned in. I agree with that. I have agreed with Scalia/Thomas on just about every commerce clause case that I've seen recently. The point is that it IS intended to provide for the regulation of interstate commerce, and commerce over the internet is a prime example. You know that its not just about "staring at a computer screen", its about commerce between two computer screens in separate states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.