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]

"The First Amendment was intended to protect political SPEECH, not pictures of naked crack hos."

So if Jenna talks about US foreign policy initiatives while she's taking on three guys, you're ok with that being protected? :-)

[crz]

Not really

Its your arguement that fails because your telling me that you do not trust your son to do right. That tells me you havent taught him correctly.

I guess you dont use parental controls on your PCs at home now do you? What he does at "friends" homes you dont have much control over..that is unless you have failed to teach him that you expect that he make the right choices earning your trust when he visits them.

Per the library..you do have legal rights there and can simply say that he no longer goes there if he gets into such mischief. Then, it is your responsibility to address that issue with that library.

[fr_freak]

I just believe the First Amendment means what it says.

Period. No guesses as to what Messrs. Jefferson and Madison were thinking about. They were extremely articulate and erudite men. If they meant "political" speech, they would have EXPRESSLY said so.

I think the literal interpretation of laws is the way to go because it would go a long way toward getting rid of all this interpretation nonsense. Having said that, though, I have to disagree with your assertion that Jefferson and Madison would expressly have said political speech if that's what they had meant. At their time, there was no internet, television, or radio and newspapers were very limited, given the technology (not everyone could whip out a newsletter on Word and print 1000 copies). Therefore, there is no way these guys could have forseen that public speech and publicly available publications would ever include pornographic material. Furthermore, given the societal standards at the time, it would not have occurred to them that anyone might try to distribute masses of pornographic material because the non-governmental repercussions would have deterred anyone from considering such a thing, making a governmental addressing of such a problem unnecessary to say the least. Lastly, I'm certain that Jefferson and Madison would have agreed that there were some limitations on freedom of speech, such as crying "fire" in a crowded theater, and once you have established that there are, indeed, limits, then it is merely a matter of determining where those limits are.

[mancogasuki]

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.

Thanks for the definitions. You mean we've got the perfect storm of statists and social conservatives running the gov't now? lol

Crap. I knew I should have stayed in bed today.

[antiRepublicrat]

And, since it is absolutely impossible to determine which searches were made by whom

They could, but it would be one hell of a dragnet. They'd have to get the IP address for each query, find out which service providers own which IP addresses (the easiest part of this all), subpoena those service providers for which customer was using those IPs at those times, check each residence or business to see if children have access to the one or more computers under that IP of that time, then see if the children were actually online at the time (and not confuse Dad who was in the rec room surfing porn while Jimmy was surfing Disney from the livingroom).

[Element187]

Hits a little too close to home, eh?


Not at all. I just think Bush is stepping over the line. If Americans look at porn, it's none of the governments business.

[steve-b]

At their time, there was no internet, television, or radio and newspapers were very limited, given the technology (not everyone could whip out a newsletter on Word and print 1000 copies).

This tired old argument? The gun grabbers ("...in their time, there were no semiautomatic assault weapons...") want it back.

[mancogasuki]

So if Jenna talks about US foreign policy initiatives while she's taking on three guys, you're ok with that being protected? :-)

Got a link so we can see if we're ok with that? ;-)

[Antoninus]

If Americans look at porn, it's none of the governments business.

Can the same be said for kiddie porn? Or do you believe that all porn is protected under the First Amendment?

[justshutupandtakeit]

"Boreders" may be a serious problem but our border problem is not even close to our most serious problem. Although it is an excellent way to produce rants and raves.

[Philistone]

Makes me think the JD officials don't really know what they are looking for.

I could write a program (and in fact have written one) that would ping every single possible IPv4 address on the internet and do a reverse DNS look up on any that had sites operating.

As for all Google searches over a specified period, how is that gonna help with COPA?

Do kids search for porn using different search terms than adults?

[steve-b]

Can the same be said for kiddie porn?

Somebody else who didn't read the original article, I see.

[balch3]

conservatives shouldn't be so paranoid about using the government APPROPRIATELY. Just because government power is bad in some cases doesn't mean it's bad in all cases. Safeguarding morality and decency is a conservative value.

[VictoryGal]

> If you had any understanding of the history of political thought, you would be pretty embarrassed to take the view that the government has no role in raising future citizens correctly.

Oh really? For example?

Just because you want to abdicate your parental responsibilities to the commie nanny state, don't push your un-American laziness on the rest of us.

[flashbunny]

thanks. can you tell me what the temperature was in taipai on march 23, 1953?

[steve-b]

conservatives shouldn't be so paranoid about using the government APPROPRIATELY

This thread is about an inappropriate use of government power. Hence, your statement is irrelevant and off topic.

[dirtboy]

Hits a little too close to home, eh?

What - that the executive feels they can just subpeona private data from an organization not suspected of any wrongdoing?

[steve-b]

If you had any understanding of the history of political thought, you would be pretty embarrassed to take the view that the government has no role in raising future citizens correctly.

Er, Hillary's book does not define "political thought".