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.
Tell me how I'm wrong in my interpretation. (...fully expexting the "I'm not wasting my time with you" non-answer.)
So if the porn has no advertising, and is totally free -- and there is plenty -- you are forced to drop your ISC clause objection.
Suddenly, you must become a porn advocate -- unless, of course, your ISC clause objection to it was really an anti-porn ploy. ;^)
damn, you obviously don't understand what the commerce clause is about.
Perhaps you should do some research.
I think all the President would have to do is find all the computer folks who have gone blind quickly.
Niple. Brest. Nakid wimmins. Secx.
Hmmm, some comeback. OK, tell me what IS interstate commerce, then, if not commerce among people in different states. I'll await your answer.
The commerce clause was meant to give the federal government to act as sort of a mediator between the states - in order to keep one state from erecting barriers of trade with another state.
For example, to keep Iowa from enacting an 'import tax' on corn grown in wisconsin.
It was NEVER meant to give the federal power to control EVERYTHING and ANYTHING it wants to merely because it happens interstate.
That is what you are advocating. It is contrary to the vision of the founding fathers. And it is in accordance with what every liberal believes the commerce clause is about.
So do you enjoy siding with them over the people that founded this country?
I conceded all of his erroneous points, and STILL won. :^D
So tell me, Smarty, what is it all about?
Or you could raise him to be mature and responsible. Then you wouldn't have to ride shotgun on him all day long, or rely on the nanny state to do it for you.
Hey, it's just crazy enough to work...
Won what? The irrelevant insult competition? Get a life.
see post 48.
And then do some damn research before you tell everyone what the commerce clause is about.
Oh please, have you ever lived in the real world? Parenting cannot eliminate all biological impulses that 13-year old children might have.
Don't take it personal. You were soundly bested, inasmuch as you had to drop the ISC clause objection to porn once I pointed out to you that there was free porn with no advertisements readily available. In fact, you conspicuously avoided answering that post.
If you get offended by that, no problem. I've met many people over my lifetime who cannot handle being shown they are wrong. ;^)
> Um, I guess I can't allow my son to have friends, because their friends do not have a control on their PCs.
Um, why don't you know your son's friends' parents? And why don't you talk to THEM about it?
> 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?
If the kid gets his rocks off in a public place, it means he can handle people looking over his shoulder while he looks at porn. Not exactly a comfortable situation.
Honestly, could you try to parent your kid a little more before you start making the government my mommy? Because I already have a mom, and the govt. ain't it.
Actually, I have three children. And I'm not asking you to raise them for me, so quit asking me to raise yours.
Incorrect. Steel-cage parenting with children locked in the basements alleviates all the problems with hormonal children.
Barriers on trade...which is EXACTLY what we would have if some states outlawed produced out-of-state and intended to be imported via the internet. The idea of the commerce clause is to facilitate trade between states by allowing uniform rules among the trading states (i.e. the nation). Use some logic next time.
Voice of experience? ;)
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.