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.

[NJ_gent]

"Um, I guess I can't allow my son to have friends, because their friends do not have a control on their PCs. And I guess I have to keep an eye on him all day, to make sure he doesn't head into the public library or an internet cafe either?"

"It takes a village to raise a child..."

[mancogasuki]

You are silly. The federal government does have some functions, and this is one of them.

You are absolutely correct. I can't wait for this to be precedented by the courts so when a Democrat takes office and asks Google for records of searches on "guns" they get them. {end sarcasm}

When is enough enough? At what point do we actually remember that we stand for small government?

[antiRepublicrat]

Big difference: the second amendment protects gun rights, while nothing in the Constitution protects pornography rights.

It's just a matter of redefinition. Want to eliminate "obscenity"? Just define that as non-covered free speech. Don't want people to have "assault weapons" and pistols with 15-round clips? Just redefine those as not protected under the Constitution.

[Antoninus]

thanks for the insight.

You're welcome. How about this one:

Excerpted from The Current Communist Goals as read into the Congressional Record by Cong. A. S. Herlong, Jr., Democrat of Florida in 1963:

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

[Dosa26]

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.

A thouroghly dispicable ruling IMO. Thomas's disent really cut to the heart of the matter...paraphrasing: Such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause would allow the federal government to regulate anything from sewing circles to bake sales.

[steve-b]

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.

And, since it is absolutely impossible to determine which searches were made by whom, the only way the government could possibly "use" this data for their stated purpose is to fraudulently claim that they have identified cases of children searching for porn.

The more you examine this story, the worse the Administration looks.

[Antoninus]

I just believe the First Amendment means what it says.

Me too. As far as I know, there's very little actual *speaking* on porn websites.

[Gaffer]

I'm queazy about this not because I use Google for such endeavors, but from a privacy issue. Mainly because if this sort of inquiry/investigation, blind as it seems, gets out of hand, they will be looking for people who google guns, cigarettes, wine retailers, what have you.

I don't think I mind them using 'statistical' data that doesn't single out specific individuals, but to do a blanket query is not what I'd call 'shoe leather' police work. It's basically lazy and akin to fishing with dynamite.

[NJ_gent]

"the second amendment protects gun rights, while nothing in the Constitution protects pornography rights."

The first and tenth Amendments both do that. The US Constitution does not place specific limitations on the Federal government, except in a small number of cases. Instead, it enumerates the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government, then broadly enjoins it from interfering in anything not specifically mentioned.

[longshadow]

"Manifestly, it is impossible to put any such trust in a Puritan. With the best intentions in the world he cannot rid himself of the delusion that it is his duty to save us from our sins..." -- H. L. Mencken

[Redcloak]

Just look for searches where all the dirty words are spelled incorrectly. That will show who the minors are.

Nah... That approach would snare too many DUers.

[steve-b]

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.

Unfortunately, there is a tendency for the latter type to become the public voice of social conservatism (for the obvious reason that leadership positions attract people with a kink for exercising power).

[linda_22003]

Sadly, it would snare Freepers, too (or, I should say, "to", as that's popular here). I've also seen quite a preponderance of "who's" when people mean "whose". Online, people are typing and not proofreading - assuming they would spot the mistakes at all. :(

[Element187]

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?


I couldnt agree more. I support Bush on many things.. But this makes me doubt the man real fast.

[Antoninus]

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.

Guys like some of the porn-hounds on this thread are unwilling or incapable of seeing the difference. It serves their purpose to call all of those who want to be able to have anti-obscenity laws in their local communities in with the Taliban.

[NJ_gent]

"You know that its not just about "staring at a computer screen", its about commerce between two computer screens in separate states."

No commerce takes place unless I pay for something. If I pay for something, I have to provide payment information. Ergo, this law is inherently used against non-commercial situations.

[TheBigB]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5430343841227974645

(no nudity) ;)

[Antoninus]

I couldnt agree more. I support Bush on many things.. But this makes me doubt the man real fast.

Hits a little too close to home, eh?