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.
Actually, his version of "constitutional" law probably got high marks for its concurrence with the socialist views prevalent at today's "top 20" schools.
Moderation isn't the slippery slope to anything.
Well all, its been fun easily fending off the members of your isolated little cabal one-by-one, but now its time to make some money like a good libertarian.
Then I'm confused.
I don't know, but I just saw it on CNN and they got it completely right.
I have never thought FOX News was much better than any other national television news. It's just MSM-right as opposed to MSM-left. The worst thing about both flavors is what they completely leave out.
However, I don't want the government obtaining records from Google or any other search engine.
Bwa ha haaaa. That sure smacks a fat nail on the head!
There is nothing, not one thing, not a single solitary reference or intention to reference KIDDIE PORN in this article or in what the gooberment is doing here!
In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yahoo Inc., which runs the Internet's second-most used search engine behind Google, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.
So I was aware of the connection prior to this thread. However, I do appreciate your good manners.
http://articles.news.aol.com/business/article.adp?id=20060119120609990032&cid=
Connection to what? You do realize that what you cut-and-pasted has nothing to do with child porn don't you?
Glad I haven’t Googled “porn” in a few years.
2) I'm not sure I can see how knowing a number is pertinent to the process involved in crafting the legislation.
Oy. Have a nice day.
Also, explain how you can claim that internet porn is not interstate commerce.
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.