I agree. Let's ask my brother what to do.
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.
That should be the headline banner over the Democratic Underground home page, if it isn't already.
Again, I assume you would have no objection to states outlawing porn then?
Also, explain how you can claim that internet porn is not interstate commerce.
"By the way, if internet porn, accessible anywhere, replete with advertisements, etc. isn't interstate commerce, I don't know what is."
That's becoming obvious.
Here is the problem with the specific action. There is no probable cause here to justify this information.
If an investigation reveals probable cause that a person used Google to search for child porn, then a subpeona would be valid for that person and that person only. But using subpeona powers in order to gather statistical information is a serious abuse of power.
If the White House needs statistics on online porn access, they can just dig up the computer files from a few years back. Surely the Clinton Crew didn't erase everything.
Another example of how the guberment wants complete control.
Give em an inch and they'll take a mile.
What the hell? Dont parents want to raise their kids anymore? Do they want big brother to do it for them? Have these parents ever heard of paying attention to what their kids do online? Whats wrong with the parental control functions on their PCs?
You are silly. The federal government does have some functions, and this is one of them.
Someone with your cast of mind could find interstate commerce in the fluctuations of a pulsar.
>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.
Where do you get *that*? Actually, it is regular pornography, they want evidence that children are seeing less porn:
"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."
This is idiocy.
Not particularly. I'm in favor of a quiltwork of laws that Americans can choose from by moving to that state. If you want the word 'gun' banned from usage, and abortion to be mandatory, move to New York. If you want abortion 100% illegal, and guns sold in vending machines at airports and schools, move to Georgia.
Also, explain how you can claim that internet porn is not interstate commerce.
If you charge for it, it can possibly be thought of as interstate commerce. But even then I still cringe at the overuse of that clause.
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.
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? Your argument falls apart upon consideration.
That should be easy. Just look for searches where all the dirty words are spelled incorrectly. That will show who the minors are. :)
You obviously don't understand why the commerce clause was written.
But thanks for demonstrating you believe in the liberal interpretation ofit.
Cite the clause* of the Constitution supporting your assertion.
*Only text that actually appears in the Constitution qualifies for this offer. Emanations and penumbrae are not eligible.
The porn has advertising. Advertising is commerce.
I agree. Let's ask my brother what to do.
Yeah no kidding. Overly broad indeed. First off, the adminstration needs to stop worrying so much about porn. Secondly, and entire WEEK worth of Google searchs? Anyone who uses the internet regularly probably Google something once a week. Why do I deserve to have my searchs looked through? I don't.
Already did...commerce clause.
LOL! Great
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.