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.

[Antoninus]

Then they call themselves conservatives. HAH! what a laugh! Thier motto is; "Do as we say or else!"

Nice try. Actually, the "liberal-tarians" who call themselves conservatives are the jokes. Both they and the hard-left liberals believe in no-fault freedom, that is--you have the constitutional right to do any stupid thing you want and not suffer any consequences for it, as long as no one gets hurt (according to their definition of "hurt").

The only difference is that liberals believe that when individuals then proceed to self-destruct, it's the government's responsibility to come in and pick up the pieces. Liberal-tarians, on the other hand, view it as nobody's responsibility.

Conservatives say, "There's a better way to live where a lot fewer people self-destruct."

[freepatriot32]

Even classical music has its groupies.....

Ok I dont doubt that for a second but how hot could classical music groupies be?I mean what are they three or four birthdays away from medicare and social security ? :-)

[Antoninus]

Or are you a closet GUN-GRABBER, Tony?

I'm over here. When you're finished beating the h#ll out of that straw man, we can talk.

[rasblue]

bad, bad, bad. This will hurt us with swing voters in 2008

[steve-b]

Yeah, because government has such an excellent track record of reshaping mankind into a better way to live.

[Coronal]

You go ahead, I'm starting to lose count.

[Publius6961]

All these contortions and agonizing when the simple solution has been ignored for years now: create and enforce the domain XXX.
I have no problem with adults viewing whatever they wish.

I have yet to see an even slightly reasonable argument why this has not been adopted.

That way kids would have zero possibility of "accidentally" getting porn.Threaten to ban all providers which allow XXX sites in any other domain and then se how quickly they comply...

[Antoninus]

Yeah, because government has such an excellent track record of reshaping mankind into a better way to live.

The federal government (i.e. the federal courts) have been the instrument of choice for reshaping the nation, against its will, into into a worse way to live. At the very least, we need to prevent them from doing that in the future. When Podunk, Kansas decides that they don't want nude dancing in their town, what right does the federal judiciary have to impose it upon them? When the State of Texas has a law on the books outlawing sodomy, what right does the Supreme Court have to come along and tell them it's suddenly unconstitutional?

As for the case in question--it is very obvious that it falls under the commerce clause and is, thus, a Federal issue. Internet issues cross state boundaries by their very nature.

[Antoninus]

That way kids would have zero possibility of "accidentally" getting porn.Threaten to ban all providers which allow XXX sites in any other domain and then se how quickly they comply...

I agree 100%. The only reason this hasn't happened is because the porn industry is now worth hundreds of billions of dollars and they own many politicians.

[ThinkDifferent]

create and enforce the domain XXX

Doesn't work, because it still comes down to defining what is and isn't porn.

[Publius6961]

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

Considering this a federal function is not just silly, it's absurd.

By the way, disseminating news via radio, TV or the internet is also interstate commerce.
However, it does not follow from that that the federal government has the ability (or even the right ) to regulated it.

[ThinkDifferent]

When Podunk, Kansas decides that they don't want nude dancing in their town, what right does the federal judiciary have to impose it upon them?

If nobody in Podunk wanted nude dancing, there would be no issue. Rather it's that some people don't like it and want to forcibly impose their preferences on those who do. Maybe that's constitutional, but let's be clear on who's doing the "imposing".

[TigersEye]

I also don't see the words: "pictures" "videos" "JPEGS" etc. in the First Amendment. A film of two guys sodomozing each other is not speech.

By the logic of that definition a picture of two guys raising the U.S. flag over the debris of the WTC isn't speech either and can be banned by the fedgov. A Hillary adminstration might like to do just that.

[Redcloak]

Unfortunately, too many conservatives forget that methods used to combat whatever social ills with which they are concerned can be extended into and abused in other areas. Anti-porn laws can form the basis for new laws to curb legitimate political speech. Anti-drug laws can become templates for anti-gun laws. Liberals aren't the only ones who fail to beware of unintended consequences.

[Paul C. Jesup]

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 may have case in that they cannot just subpoenae/demand for information if no law has been broken in the given situation.

[Redcloak]

Are you saying that only hand-cranked printing presses, and not Internet forums, are protected under Freedom of the Press?

[SeaBiscuit]

Slam down the porn but find another way.

[freepatriot32]

When he first came into the big time at 19, violin virtuoso Josh Bell had tons of teenage/early twenties girls hanging out at the stage door. So did Evgeny Kissin when he first hit it big.

Ok I stand corrected.Now how much do you charge for classical music lessons btw lol:-D