Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe

AP Via Yahoo ^ | 2006-01-19

[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.

[dinoparty]

Tell that to social conservatives such as Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Washington and Reagan.

[Luke21]

How did we know you would defend Chinese censorship? Good grief, you are a statist.

[dinoparty]

Living document conservatives? You mean those who believe that the First Amendment has somehow evolved to include the prohibition of laws against pornography?

[oceanview]

I can't see how a website hosting legal adult material, can be responsible if a child accesses it. if a child accesses an adult VHS tape because a parent has not secured it, is the maker of the tape or the VCR manufacturer responsible because they have not designed a "child proof" VCR or VHS tape?

parents must install filter software, and place their kids PCs in a family or other public room. I don't see any other effective solution.

[Antoninus]

The day that some genius decided that the First Amendment protected a photo of a guy with a whip up his butt is the day that the First Amendment ceased to have any real meaning at all.

[NJ_gent]

"Wiping all porn off the internet would be a good start."

Pack your bags, we've found the place you've been looking for:

[antiRepublicrat]

However, if the porn is FREE and IS OF NO COST, then you have to concede that no commerce occurs and your ISC clause is moot.

Constitutionally I'd agree, but we're talking about our power-grabbing feds here. Years of SCOTUS precedent culminating with the recent Raich (medical marijuana) case says that it's "commerce" if something that's not sold can be said to have an impact of the overall market of stuff that's sold. IOW, would Jimmy look at free nudie pics instead of pay for them? If so, then it affects actual commerce and is subject to federal regulation.

[flashbunny]

thanks for the insight.

[dinoparty]

That's a non-sequiter. Its like saying:

"Have you ever gone to the bathroom? Rumor has it that the Chinese use the bathroom occasionally too. Godd grief...you are a Chinese Commie!"

[dinoparty]

You sound like a lib.

[Calpernia]

This will sure be muddled with all the data mining searches we do.

[NJ_gent]

"Evidently, they don't teach the Constitution (the actual written one, as opposed to the one pulled out of judges' arses) in law school these days."

Perhaps he was absent the day they taught law at law school. :-)

[flashbunny]

pot. kettle. black.

[dinoparty]

Bye all. Its been real. Time to start billing hours again. Talk about me among yourselves now.

[antiRepublicrat]

Now, conversely...we should prosecute porn purveyors that actively target kids, use misleading URL's or redirects.

I believe that is already illegal.

[Redcloak]

As others have pointed out, this isn't about kiddie porn. It's about children accessing porn.

The slippery slope should be quite evident. The government is seeking records that include searches by adults who have the right to look at porn. In actuality, most of the records they are seeking will be of legal searches by adults. Only a fraction will be searches by children. As to a slippery slope, what's next? How would you feel about a similar dragnet to look for illegal firearms sales? Should the government be able to look at records of anyone who's Googled the word "rifle"?

[fr_freak]

Logic and "social" conservatism are like oil and water.

Wrong. Don't confuse the social conservatives with the statists. They are very different animals. Most social conservatives are horrified by the promotion and special protection that government gives to immorality and indecency these days and simply want to end that practice while returning such power back to local communities, while statists wish to grant the federal government unlimited power to code and enforce an arbitrary code of behavior on every individual. Big difference.