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.
I think someone should tell alberto gonzales that illegal aliens are smuggling porn over our open borders. Maybe that would get them to actually do something.
They really hadn't oughta use "porn" and "probe" in the same sentence.
The Bush Admin is getting out of control on this stuff. I was at first willing to accept electronic survelliance without a warrant against anyone with a clear connection to al Qaeda for national security reasons.
But this isn't about terrorism or national security. There is no crime here that I can see that justifies a subpeona. This is a Justice Department that, IMO, no longer feels that the 5th applies to them - and they will lose my support over more important issues if they keep this kind of nonsense up - because then I will start to wonder, what other kind of stuff do they have the NSA looking at if they can rationalize this kind of abuse of power?
Big brother going after big brother...
1) It doesn't sound to me like they're looking for identities, just a tally number of pertinent searches, and
2) I'm not sure I can see how knowing a number is pertinent to the process involved in crafting the legislation.
Notice that this AP article repeatedly refers to "pornography," so you have to read it very closely to see that the administration is only concerned about CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.
Most people would agree that child pornography is not a good thing. Unfortunately, the liberal justices on the Supreme Court disagreed, and struck down the law.
I can see why people would worry about a slippery slope here, but it seems fairly clear that the concern is limited to child pornography. Or at least it would be clear if AP didn't deliberately distort their article.
The phrase "overly broad" comes to mind.
"Notice that this AP article repeatedly refers to "pornography," so you have to read it very closely to see that the administration is only concerned about CHILD PORNOGRAPHY."
Maybe you should read it again.
It's not about child pornography. It's about COPA, which was meant to 'protect children' from seeing online porn - which is the job of the parent, not government.
I agree that it is the job of the parent, but believe they need government's help. Who says it is not the job of the government? What support do you have for your assertion?
You are not correct. The law that was struck down concerns minors accessing regular pornography.
I admit that point is obscure in this article, but that's what the administration is trying to justify.
> The Bush Admin is getting out of control on this stuff. I was at first willing to accept electronic survelliance without a warrant against anyone with a clear connection to al Qaeda for national security reasons.
I agree with you. I hope Google sticks to its guns and doesn't supply this.
please point me to the section of the constitution that gives the federal government the authority to do this.
Maybe you have a different version that I do.
Precisely. If a Rat mole came up with this foolishness for the precise purpose of undermining the Administration's case, he couldn't have done a better job.
Is there a horrible stuck-keyboard-key problem in America or something???!?
The more this administration acts, the more I don't care who's in the White House next.
The Tenth Amendment.
What support do you have for your assertion?
The Tenth Amendment.
Most people would agree that returning stolen goods to their owners is a good thing. By your ridiculous argument, if the government did dragnet strip searches to look for stolen property and the Court told them it was illegal, the Court would be expressing support for theft.
So you would have no objection to a state censoring internet porn?
By the way, if internet porn, accessible anywhere, replete with advertisements, etc. isn't interstate commerce, I don't know what is.
I stand corrected. I was thinking of the child pornography law that was struck down, but this is indeed a separate issue, children accessing pornography, also evidently struck down.
damn constitution citing freak!
Somewhere there are lazy / incompetent parents who don't keep their kids from looking at porn! The Bill of rights doesn't matter as long as that's happening! The all-knowing state must act!!!
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.