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.
Won't work. First, someone has to define what goes into .XXX, and what level of puritan will that be? Someone who bans all nudity, even classic art? Second, the technological hurdles are insurmountable without damaging the Internet. What do we do about the 243 country code top-level domains (.uk, .de, .cc, etc.)? Their content is outside of our jurisdiction. What about a web site with no domain name, simply accessible by IP address?
Actually, it's generally the libertarians (especially the big-L ones) who believe most in personal responsibility. You have the right to do whatever you want that's not directly infringing on the rights of others, but if you do something stupid and get hurt it's your own damn fault.
There was an article here on FR a while ago about a wannabe lawyer who wants to remove Texas' five-try limit on the bar exam because he can't pass it. Texas' view is that you shouldn't be allowed to practice law if you can't pass it in five tries because you obviously lack the competence to be a lawyer.
In that discussion we found that some states allow you to take the exam pretty much an unlimited number of times. Maybe we have here a tenth-try wonder.
You cannot tell me with a straight face that you believe that the founders would have approved and sanctioned the unfettered access by adults of the most vile forms of pornography found today. The commerce clause issue can be argued as a limit on Federal power, but that is simply a debate about WHO controls it (state or feds), not WHETHER ANY government should control it. You seem to be saying that NO government should control it, including states. I believe that pornography does great direct harm to our citizens AND to our nation.
Nope, I passed on the first try, and graduated with honors from a top 20 law school. Not bragging...just refuting your infantile comment.
ROTFL!!!
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
They can make a list of cookie recipes fit the theory if they work hard enough. The problem for them is that those statistics won't hold up against the other side's expert witnesses, although the people will believe them when they put it out in a press release.
Won't happen. Its just a fantasy on your part.
Google search engine will lose 80% of it's business.
Of course government needs to be limited. The question is, to what extent? Libertarian fanatics will tell you that limited government is everything, while I believe that this is a fanatical utopian position, and that there are other factors to consider as well.
Good for you. I'm proud of you. Oh, by the way, do you have an argument to support your view that the original intent is irrelevant?
Good try.
The old "you're just like Hitler" ploy. Grow up. If I'm like Hitler, so are 95% of Americans since our founding.
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.