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.
Maybe if they typed in Spanish?
Or Farsi?
Or maybe they could Google up all the info on our porous open Border, and all the info the Mexican Gub'Mint gives to those that they help to ILLEGALLY cross the Border.
Hey, La Hacienda Blanco...here's something you might want to Google...
Try MS-13!
The clowns at La Hacienda Blanco and Congress are going to be responsible for all the Americans that their OBL-crap are going to kill! And I will be all for Impeachment when the next Terrorist incident happens, and we trace the perps to crossing in from Mexico!
I hate Child-porn, and would gladly "Vlad the Impaler" each and every perp and buyer...but I think La Hacienda Blanco and el Jefe' Gonzalez have blinders on when it comes to our Borders, both Norte and South! And right now, the Boreders are the most serious issue we face today!
Illegal fishing expedition.
Troll. ;-)
If you think the government can excise all porn from every avenue a 13-year-old might get ahold of on the internet better than you as a parent can, I have a bridge to sell you. Unless you'd like to see all porn wiped off the internet, in which case you should look into Chinese citizenship.
Finally getting serious about controlling porn.
Dopey AP. The Supreme Court has not yet struck down the law, it just affirmed the preliminary injunction entered against enforcement of the law on the basis that it likely violated the First Amendment. Meanwhile, as the article does correctly indicate, the actual case goes on in the district court.
The judge said I don't have to answer that any more.
Heh heh heh heh....
With your illogic, I shouldn't be paying to protect your children via the national defense budget, either. Yes, in the real world, government has a place.
Maybe we should have a law that says the government can come into our homes without a warrant because they are simply looking for child pornography.
Is there anything left in the Constitution the government would like to leave intact?
The purported purpose of the subpoena is to protect children from seeing pornography, not to prevent child pornography.
Two different things.
As Miss Emily Litella would say: "Never mind."
Wiping all porn off the internet would be a good start.
Good luck trying to control supply and demand. Many have tried. All have failed.
oh dear lord you are beyond hope.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and you make it more and more obvious with every post.
They kinda like that part about the taxes.
I see that I've touched the utopian nerves of a few libertarians. Always fun.
It is now understood that state lines are fractal space-filling curves, and can be found between any two points (e.g. between a farmhouse and the adjoining field, between a comptuer monitor and the user, et cetera).
> Wiping all porn off the internet would be a good start.
China does this very effectively. Have a nice flight.
it's not even about child pornography.
It's about CHILDREN LOOKING AT PORNOGRAPHY!
This would be like the government going into every house with kids to see if your child has looked at porn online.
Thank you assclowno gonzales.
ding ding...I knew it would come down to the "you are without hope" type response. It is a last resort when logic fails. I will call that a victory for me.
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.