Something to consider - any "evidence" gathered will show up in the public record - you really have to wonder about the legal resources of Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft. I didn't realize this, but a friend just pointed it out.
Basically the DOJ could be causing large financial damage to these companies, even though they have nothing to do with the legality of the COPA act. I expect that under a liberal administration, but under a supposedly Conservative/pro-Capitalism administration....
Anyways, if you would like to read the motion to compel, you can read the PDF: motion to compel (i.i.com). Page 4 is interesting: (these are taken from the document)
First, the subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file contain, "[a]ll URL's that are available to be located on your companys' search engine as of July 31, 2005.
After lengthy negotiations, the Government has narrowed this request to seek the production of "multi- stage random sample of one million URLS" from Google's database ie, a random selection of the various databases in which those URL's are stored, and a random sample of the URL's held in those selected databases.
Second, the subpoena also asks Google to produce an electronic file containing "[a]ll queries entered into the Google engine between July 1 and July 31 inclusive".
Again, after lengthy negotiations, the Government has narrowed this request to seek the production of an electronic file containing "the text of any search string entered into Google's search engine for a one week period (absent any personal information identifying the person who entered the query)".
Inasmuch as it is inevitable that there will be a nonzero quantity of queries whose URLs contain "personal information identifying the person who entered the query", it will be interesting to see how any engine-wrangler manages to comply with the "absent any personal information identifying the person who entered the query" proviso.
Especially once said information enters the public record.
I have no way of knowing if I (random user I am familiar with :) entered, oh, let's say my real name, addess, unlisted phone number, SSN, or other "personal information identifying" me during the target month. Nor do I know if the "luck of the draw" will drop any such queries into the Lucky Million Random URL Lotto.
But most of all, I have zero idea of how they will manage to parse those billions of URLs for such "personal information identifying the person who entered the query" before the universe cools down to Absolute Zero. (Nor, for that matter, have I any clue at all as to how they will ascertain whether any "personal information" in any URL is "identifying the person who entered the query", rather than "identifying some other person.")
My suspicion (nay, belief!) is that they won't parse out the aforementioned "personal information identifying the person who entered the query", inasmuch as it is essentially impossible for any entity other than "the person" who actually entered the information to even recognize it!)
This ain't about "pornography". This ain't about "the children". And it certainly ain't about "privacy" (other than in "the rape of" context).
What it is about is giving "the camel" a good noseload of inside-the-tent air.
It's what the lefties love to call "A good first step" every time they tighten the noose on the Constitution. It's a nice precedent. "Nice", if you're "The State", looking to... looking to look.
I guarantee you that after examining those billions of URLs, we will be informed that they simply must be given the IP and cookie info, because otherwise, we won't be "safe". ("We found some... questionable material! And it may have been seen by... children! So, we must have the IP data, so that we can find out for certain whether or not a child was exposed to this questionable material!")
Too, recall that the Eeevul Stuff in focus is not "pornography" per se, but rather, "protecting minors from exposure to harmful materials on the Internet."
Then, recall that filter vendors (arguably the establishers of context for this debate) have frequently defined all sorts of sites as "harmful to minors". And by "all sorts", I'm talking about soup to nuts -- everything from outdoor sports (hunting/target shooting) to political sites. I can vaguely recall reading of even this site being blocked by some filters.
Imagine an Internet "safe for minors" -- cleansed of all references to "offensive" materials "unsuitable" for their tender young minds. Welcome to the "Rated G" Internet, folks. No discussions of politics. No (*gasp*) discussions of guns (Oh, the humanity!) No discussion of movies! (other than "G-Rated", of course)
That "for the children" stuff sure is a handy way to neuter the "samizdat" (that's Rooskie for "pajamas") press.
So, expect it. Expect a second subpoena, demanding "identifying information."
And I guarantee you that our meathead populace will bobblehead their "yupyupyup-shoregorightahead!" After all, isn't safety and security worth giving up some liberty for?
Pinch me, I'm having a really bad nightmare...