Replies

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...

Wow...

Surreal...

Terrifying.

Sometimes I despise being t.

Fox News just had their "Legal Consultant" Craig Mitnick on, live, explaining the Google situation.

He calmly, rationally, soooooooooothingly, explained how the Internet is like a global roadway, and, just like on the road, you should need a license, and everywhere you go, your license is on display, you should likewise be required to be "tagged" to be on the Internet "roadway", so that the "police" can see where you are, and who you are.

He explained how it was only reasonable to require the travels of everyone to be tracked, logged, stored, so that if they are found in a bad location, the police can pull them over and ask what they're doing.

(I paraphrase, but that's the gist of it.)

So, his alternative to the Gonzales Vs. Google problem is to imprint everyone, record everything... in short, do online to people what the Brits have just begun instituting with vehicles.

Is anyone else old enough to recall the major outrage over Intel's "electronic serial number" burned into the die of each Pentium III? People were livid, because it could be used to track them while online.

Intel took a huge beating over that one, and hastily retreated from the "You're marked!" agenda.

Now, smooth-talking, silken-tongued lawyers get on the tube, and calmly explain to us morons how we not only need the Total Surveillance State, but should want it -- because it will help make us safe.

The "Screw 'liberty', give me 'security'!" program is running full tilt pedal to the metal.

The world is changing at a neck-snapping rate. It's beyond surreal.

You can't make up crap like this. But apparently he sure can! (Or, at least he can read off his daily sheet like a real trouper.)

I tell ya -- his patter was sooooooooo smooth, sooooooooo readly proffered, that I got the distinct impression that he was doing "talking-points spindoc" duty.

Would Our Leaders go so far as to send out the spindocs, to "massage" the masses into yupyupping the program?

You bet they would!

I swear, this was so creepy that I feel like I need to take a shower after watching it.

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!")

No doubt - once various gun-grabbing lefties get their hands on this data and they see people searched for information on firearms, they will say "WE MUST KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE FIREARM SEARCHES OCCURRED IN OUR JURISDICTION".

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.

It would be difficult to find the thread now (although I guess I could go to google and do a site search and see, lol), I remember FR and some other sites including military sites (.mil domains) being blocked because they are "harmful" to minors.

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)

So, expect it. Expect a second subpoena, demanding "identifying information."

I expect it, and it won't be about porn or protecting children, the second time around. A lot of localities have expressed a serious interest in trampling on their subjects' rights. Chicago, Maryland, and San Francisco are just the most visible.

For those not familiar with the nose analogy:

One day a Bedouin and his camel were crossing the desert. Night came and the temperature became colder. The man put up his tent, tied the camel to it, and went to sleep.

The temperature became slightly colder and the camel asked the Bedouin if he could just put his nose in the tent to warm up. The man agreed that the camel could just put his nose in, because the tent was small and there was no room for both. So the camel's nose became warm and after a while the temperature went down even more.

The camel asked the man if he could put his front legs in because they were very cold. The Bedouin reluctantly agreed that the camel could put his front legs in. So the camel moved in his front legs and they became warm. After sometime the camel asked the man to allow him to put in his hind legs or else he won't be able to make the journey the next morning with frozen legs. The man agreed and once the camel moved his hind legs in, there was no room for the Bedouin in his own tent.

Very apt analogy for how the government can act at times.