How about a little fiction. A short story. ---------------- "In our fight against International Terrorism, and to protect our children's future in this great Democratic Republic, we are forced to take temporary steps, some of them seemingly reprehensible.
"To that end, every citizen of this country is ordered to bring in, or mail, keys to your front and back doors to your nearest city government. You have two weeks to comply. We are sorry to make this demand, but it is necessary in order to protect your children."
I received the notice in my mail box one morning.
Being a good citizen, I complied by mailing copies of my keys to the address specified. Why not? I figured. I wasn't doing anything wrong.
Last Thursday, about three am, I woke to three police officers coming in my back door. They headed directly for my bedroom dresser and started going through the drawers.
"Go back to bed, Sir," one of them told me, "We're searching the bedroom dressers of everyone in the county. It's for the good of the children."
A few days ago, others came in and went through my kitchen, confiscating all my knives.
"Sorry Sir, a child in Nebraska cut wrists with a kitchen knife. You wouldn't want to take any chance with the children, would you, Sir."
Now I see a police car stopping outside, and they're coming in again.
***
I think you would be a little incensed if that happened. Well, it's the same thing in this case. Once you give them that key, you can bet they'll come in eventually, to save the children or fight terrorists of course.
One day you'd wake up to find they had taken over your house.
What the government is doing with this request for information is exactly the same thing. It's the key to open your back door, letting them in any time they want for any reason, as long as they say its to save the children or fight terrorists.
What you do in your own home should be your business, not that of the government. Our elected representatives should be fighting this sort of thing, not joining in the act.
Here we are, some of us, writing our Congressmen for help in maintaining our privacy on the Internet. While we write one branch of government to keep our privacy, another is grasping that same privacy and squeezing it to shreds.
Today, it's porno. Who know what they want tomorrow?
Here is the wrench though, its not your back door or you giving the keys away. Someone else in your community that you visit frequently is giving away the keys. While I am all for keeping a level of privacy there is something to remember, if MS, Yahoo, and Google did not store the information then it would not be available. If it was not available the DOJ could not ask for it. If you have a $1000 in your pocket you are in charge of who knows about, how much your going to spend, etc. The minute you had that money over to someone else, you cannot say what they should do with it. I do not like the situation, but its the price of putting your faith in the hands of someone else.
From what I'm reading in articles about the situation, at the heart of the debate is the most effective manner of filtering "damaging material", and at what level it should be done. The ACLU contends that filtering should occur on the computer the search is conducted from via software filtering (key words, URL, etc...) and the Bush Administration/DOJ believing that search engines should filter content for us.
An argument such as this tells me that the Bush Administration, and MOST (not all) supporters of the administration firmly believe in shirking parental responsibility and passing it on to anyone besides the parent. Google operates BECAUSE of the first amendment, not in spite of it. I am not supporting the scum of the earth that make child porn available, who I am defending are the companies that are providing a window into worlds of information, and allowing me to determine what is appropriate for me and my family.
Too many people expect the government to swoop in and make it all better. For the government to begin asking for a list of URLs and IPs that are accessable through their engine is just the begining. All the information available has far loosely defined (at best) the offending material as "damaging to children". In whos eyes, and who defines damaging? Milllions of pieces of great literature and works of art have been completely lost, destroyed and gone forever by people that rewrote the definition immoral to include that they destroyed. Some never had the option of deciding that for themselves.
This information being handed over is the beginning of just that; the so called "moral majority" protecting me and mine from that which I have every ability to protect me and mine from. In a country that wants d**n near everything, including parenting, cheaper easier and faster and the Government is more than happy to step right in and get even more control than the Constitution and Bill of Rights EVER intended for them to have.
Did we forget that the original government of this country was supposed to be formed of the people in DEFENSE of the rights? Has the goverment become its own beast, or are we still in control? Are we going allow the most basic decisions and resposibilities be taken away from us? I'll take my chances with filtering software, and playing the role of a responsible parent rather than let someone else determine whats right and wrong for me, in my own home.
Those points were all decided with the Civil War, subborning State's rights to those of the Federal Government. Common people, meaning those without specific influence, have more influence within their State. The Federal Goverment does whatever they want.
It astounds me that people believe that bull about "Save the Child" used on every cause. It's like the US, What is it, 300 million people, declaring "War" on maybe 10,000 terrorists, world wide. I think this is only a feeler, to see if they can get away with it.
Just like in the dark ages... Oh yeah, we are again in the "dark ages"! They piled up the books and burned them... Just a few years ago they offered up the wisdom of the world, now they want to take it back and put Pandora back in the box...
How you feel is up to you but I don't need a faceless government official deciding that I should not be able to read something, or to view something. Limits? Yes there should be limits. Thats why we have already passed laws to provide limits. Would it be appropriate to have pictures of someone fondling my young daughters? Absolutly not! Nor your sons or daughters either. We have already decided that and passed laws against such. But, who has the right to decide that you cannot access the Bible because it has sensual passages in it? (By the way it really has... Ever read Song of Solomon?) Let ME decide for myself... Let ME guide my family so that when they are grown they KNOW HOW to make good decisions for... Who? THEMSELVES!!! (sorry for shouting just a little upset over all this! ;-) I still feel that this is America, the land of freedom (shrinking) and opportunity. If we love it and want to keep it we better be doing something fast or it will be gone like the Greeks and Romans... Get out and VOTE FOR FREEDOM!
The government has shown it has no problem pushing with major corperations around.
What happens when they start pushing YOU around for information? How about a survay on how many meals you eat together as a family? How many times you ordered take out? It's for the children right? Gotta make sure they're properly nurished right?
I would like to applaud Google's decision to resist the request that the administration made. I do not think anything is wrong with COPA (Child Online Protection Act). Just the contrary, but instead of fixing the problems the US has in its justice system that lets most of these offenders back out on the street, they go after corporations who in no way are responsible with upholding the law and protecting the citizens of this country. They do have the responsibility to make their services safe and secure for the consumer, which I find Google does very well.
The next thing that we are going to see happen is Congress making changes to the Constitution so it fits Mr. Bush's and his lackeys needs.
If the Bush administration would like to do something to improve life and lower the impact that pornography has on our youth, they should spend more money on education and less on war. The other thing they SHOULD do, but DO NOT, is enforce some sort of effective rating system for television and movies. Take "objectionable" content off TV. When I was young, PG13 meant there might be a word in a movie or TV show that means excrement. Nowadays PG13 means a graphic sex scene, murder, or extreme violence. Children grow up too fast and miss their childhood days and their childhood crushes. Therefore, when they are 30-35 + years old, sometimes younger, they relapse, go, and find a cute 10-year-old girl to flirt with.
The government should wake up. Stop lining their pockets with handouts from television networks and do something that would actually help the country and the rest of the world.
Why must the government insist on being BIGBROTHER! Allot of us already have one. Not to mention our parents. It is not the responsibility of the government to stop minors from porn. It is the parents and guardians! END OF STORY and case closed!
I hope google tells the government to go lay an egg! OH, they say we are not looking for identities; but if you look through my window and don't know my name, isn't that still spying??? They now want to spy on everyone!
I think the whole "childhood innocence" idea, when taken to extremes is a myth. It's not like the 15-17 year old "child" who actively searches out porn on google or downloads pictures from kazaa is an innocent victim being preyed upon.
At least when it comes to people 12 and over, I don't think seeing a naked image will traumatize them for life.
Take teenagers for example (I'm 19), their bodies are designed by evolution to be sexual. In the cave man era, people would probably marry and have children as early as 14. So no matter whether you view this as moral or not, it's just common sense that doing something sexual or seeing sexual images isn't going to somehow inherently harm them. My conclusion is that a 16 year old boy viewing porn is more of a problem because the parents don't want to deal with the fact that their kid is sexually, if not emotionally, an adult rather than actual psychological harm being inflicted.
Of course, child abuse is always wrong. That's why it would be completely immoral to make, say, a website targeting little kids (like on Barney) and then have porn pop out of nowhere. However, that doesn't happen and I don't think you would come upon porn unless you were deliberately searching for it.
I'm not saying older kids and teens should automatically be allowed to view anything they wish, but it should be dealt with by parents and not the state.
They should deny this request with as much energy as they can muster. The law being looked at could put Google at risk for violation. This law is both not in their best interest and providing this data could lead prosecutors to charge the company with a crime under this law.
The requested information is also non-conclusive in the case and will be miss-used to prove something the data does not prove. It will be used to prove that minors can "accidentally" stumble across porn when using services such as Google. The search terms used will most definitely include terms from adults seeking the material this law intends to keep away from children. The sites indexed by Google and others include adult oriented materials.
Google does a fairly good job with it's filtering system and adults have to modify the Google page to allow adult sites in the search results.
The biggest potential target in this situation is the search companies themselves. I am surprised the others involved in this request didn't realize that when handing over their livelihood.
Every few hours, fire up your favourite search engines and search for "bio weapon", "anthrax", "uranium", "how can i make a dirty bomb", "how to kill people", "porn", "blowing things up", "local terrorist targets", "my local terror cell",...
Be creative, try to find some terror friendly googlewhacks and see if you and your friends and family can skew the search stats in February.
The information they're requesting is from the middle of last year... Not a bad idea if they were asking for current information, but quite the contrary. I think the DOJ realized if they asked for the most recent data, it would quickly get skewed by the Sparticus like efforts of the general public trying to spite them.
and mention you were just trying to skew the search statistics. I'm sure "carnivore" or whatever the goverment is calling their internet spy program these days will flag you for further investigation. "If you have nothing to hide..... otherwise you must be guilty of something."
I agree wholeheartedly with those who are supporting google and the assertion that it *is* a slipperly slope indeed. If we don't stand firm against this, who is to say where such invasions of personal privacy will end? And as has been mentioned here, the issue is *not* child porn. That is merely the administration's filmsy excuse to gain personal information.
I would like to challenge everyone who supports google and their actions to consider taking some -- if not all -- of the following actions:
1. Write google and let them know that you appreciate their stand. The more of us who show our support, the more they will likely feel reinforced to continue their strong stand.
2. Get a g-mail account, and dump those providers who have complied with the federal request if possible. Let those providers know exactly *why* you are stopping your service. Again, this goes back to the premise "strength in numbers." While it certainly won't reverse the actions of those providers who have complied, it will let them know that the public *is* watching and we are prepared to take action when we feel our rights are being compromised.
3. Inform your friends! It's imperative that we let others know about this! Silence is deadly.
4. Write to elected officials in your area informing them of your outrage and unwillingness to tolerate such fascist actions.
Above all, remember, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed over good is for good men to do nothing." Adolf Hitler. Need I say more?
The law the Federal government is trying to defend in an APPEALS process is not about child pornography. It is actually about the ability for children to see "objectionable material" online. The problem is the law was too broadly written, even more so than the DMCA, and was found to be unconstitutional in the Third District Federal Court. Why? Because there was no good method for defining what could be perceived as objectionable. Porn, obviously, but what about historical documents, paintings or even medical diagrams? Any over zealous attorney could identify these as innappropriate for children and then move the court to find the publishing website guilty of CRIMINAL acts.
I, for one, am tired of seeing more and more legislation dictating the moral and spiritual choices of parents stripped away. I personally do not want my children to see pornography, but that is ME. What others feel is appropriate, and here I think more along the medical and anatomical texts available online, as well as historical references, is their business. I often find myself at odds with other parents about material I consider scientific, educational or artistic, while some things, including certain children shows, I consider to be low brow or inane.
Point is, this country was founded on choice and freedom. Some of that has to be sacrificed in the name of defense of this country. I support Bush's actions on the war, both on terrorism and Iraq, but I can not condone activities which unreasonably strip me of my rights as a US citizen, ones that I have fought for and others have died for. Otherwise what's the point.
GOOGLE has my wholehearted support, both for it's right to defend trade secrets and for the actual and POTENTIAL privacy rights that could be violated with such sweeping government requests. GO GOOGLE!
To quote COPA... (Title 47 of the U.S. code, Section 231)
"Whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, by means of the World Wide Web, knowingly makes any communication for commercial purposes that includes any material that is harmful to minors without restricting access to such material by minors pursuant to subsection(c) should be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."
Hmmm "harmful to minors..." It's a wee bit broad and open to interpretation. No wonder it was struck down by the lower courts as unconstitutional.
As a psychologist, I know of no definitive evidence that pornography viewed on the internet is problematic for children (or adults). Surely, viewing violence, sexual or otherwise, might well be detrimental to children. But the law--or at least the argument in which it is couched--is most definitely concerned with pornography.
Until we know more, this is pandering to the religious right. I'm certainly for morality. But I think that in the US, we're supposed to refrain from imposing our own sense of morailty on others, especially when our views have close ties to our chosen religion.
I think much of the rest of world is good, real-world evidence that exposure to sexuality is not in and of itself detrimental to children. (There certainly is no hard data supporting a negative effect.)
Let's be awake when our executive and legislative branches try to legislate morality. I thought the idea was to abide by the constitution. Perhaps that's only the case when religious values are not on the table.
To quote COPA... (Title 47 of the U.S. code, Section 231)
"Whoever, in interstate or foreign commerce, by means of the World Wide Web, knowingly makes any communication for commercial purposes that includes any material that is harmful to minors without restricting access to such material by minors pursuant to subsection(c) should be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."
Hmmm "harmful to minors..." It's a wee bit broad and open to interpretation. No wonder it was struck down by the lower court as unconstitutional.
As a psychologist, I know of no definitive evidence that pornography viewed on the internet is problematic for children (or adults). Surely, viewing violence, sexual or otherwise, might well be detrimental to children. But the law--or at least the argument in which it is couched--is most definitely concerned with pornography. So restrict what we can convincingly argue might be damaging (violence), not what we simply want to say is damaging (sex).
Until we know more, this is pandering to the religious right. I'm certainly for morality. But I think that in the US, we're supposed to refrain from imposing our own sense of morailty on others, especially when our views have close ties to our chosen religion.
I think much of the rest of world is good, real-world evidence that exposure to sexuality is not in and of itself detrimental to children. (There certainly is no hard data supporting a negative effect.)
Let's be awake when our executive and legislative branches try to legislate morality. I thought the idea was to abide by the constitution. Perhaps that's only the case when religious values are not on the table.
This is just another lie coming from this backrupt Bush regime. They are not really interested in child porn; this is just an extension of the regime's spying activities on American citizens--an activity that is against the law and the constitution. They want to know what/who you are searching for... Bin Lan, Al Qiada, etc.
I mostly agree with your comment. However, this controversy is not about "child porn"; it's about plain old pornography. The issue is the government's purported attempt to "protect" children from pornography and therein lies the problem.
Assuming that you agree about the serious free speech flaws in the COPA, we're on the same page about the "regime's" attempt to control the citizens.
The current US administration has risen well above the constitution with its demands. If I had a search company, I would not keep track of what is searched for, that way the government couldn't ask for anything and my client's privacy would be very protected. From the article, it is obvious that the information the government wants is personally identifiable. What are they going to do? Go to people's houses and ask whether or not they have underage sons and put them under arrest for watching porn? Sounds ridiculious. Note that I don't defend pornography and am against it. But that is not really the principle here. If the privacy of users is violated to search for porn addicts, it is only a matter of time before they also use search records to search for people with "questionable liasons". Honestly, the government is trying to prove that innocent people are guilty. The "innocent until proven guilty" principle no longer applies. Now it is "guilty until proven innocent".
What I don't see is how your search terms can be used in that court case.
Let's say that I type "Child Porn" into google, and they save that search term. That they can even find out my address and ISP.
How will they know my age, much less whether I used one of those kiddy programs? I don't think even Google will know. Hell, a kid could be visiting and sneak on my computer for all they know.
No. I think kiddy porn is just an excuse to get a foot in the door, making more specialized searches easier in the future.
...so that it's out of US jurisdiction. Otherwise, sooner or later, an Indian company will start a new search engine and the Indian government will promise not to interfere with user privacy. I don't know about you, but if such a thing happens, I will never ever use a US-based search engine again in my life. The erosion of trust that such government actions create is a tremendous opportunity for countries like India to get a big slice out of the US Internet industry. I am sure that our "enlightened" administration hasn't thought of this scenario (the same way they didn't think there would be an insurgency in Iraq).
Try reading the article first. This is about atatistical analysis the government wants to do to prove to the court that COPA is the only way to block minors from seeing "objectionable" material. Actually the way to accomplish that goal is to heve their parents actually parent.
For all the BOZOs, this has NOTHING to do with "child-porn"...
First, the reality is that the FEDS are NOT actually talking about "child-porn". They are trying to prop-up, and even expand, an UNCONSTITUTIONAL-LAW. "COPA", which has NOTHING to do with "child-porn", HAS been repeatedly thrown out by the courts as being "ILLEGAL" on Constitutional grounds.
And, ...you know, ...attacking the U.S. Constitution, especially if you have sworn to uphold it, ...is still, TREASON.
Second, the current administration is also attempting to use their current, ...Yes TRAITOROUS, ...assault on basic "Constitutional rights", defending the "illegal act" of "COPA", to even further erode basic American-freedoms of, and protections from, unreasonable Government-interference in the free exercise of basic-rights, ...with this "fishing expedition" of unconnected "information demands".
Third, again, neither "COPA", nor the governments pathetic, underhanded, and un-American defense of these UnConstitutional-actions, against the American-public, has ANYTHING to do with "child-porn", what-so-ever. And, more importantly, the "Google" issue is in no way involved with either the actual "COPA" case, or "child-porn, at all.
But, once again, a narrow, EXTREMIST-MINORITY, is desperately trying to confuse the issue, ...once their actual intentions, and actions, against the rights of the American-People, have been brought out into the public-awareness.
And finally, the saddest FACT of all is that "COPA" never actually was about "protecting children". Its about exploiting children and mis-using Governmental-authority to "stamp out", what one group considers to be "...an unacceptable expression of free speech", ...period.
My question is, which part of "Constitutionally Protected Free Expression", and "UnConstitutional Attack on Free Speech" are these, clearly anti-American, FASCISTS, having so much trouble with..?
While child porn is a horrible thing... if we stand up and say OK Google, who's been searching for the child porn... we will only begin to accept the fact that our search results are open for government inspection. Where would we draw the line on what the government should and shouldn't be allowed to look at?
Not that I search for anything I don't want the government to know about... it's just I don't really think the government needs to know.
I don't like the idea of Google being the government's little search spy.
If the government wants to track down child porn via google, then they should do what all the people searching for it are doing... SEARCH FOR IT.
check out this FAQ: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+the+Google+subpoena+mean/2100-1029_3-6029042.html?tag=nefd.pop" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+the+Google+subpoena+mean/2100-1029_3-6029042.html?tag=nefd.pop</a>
This is completely unconstitutional to think this way, and for the federal government to act this way, the internet is a public place, it breaks down the borders of our world...it is a free place, and the united states constitution protects the freedoms of citizens, one protection in which allows the freedom of speech and press. Why shouldn't people be alowed to have sites related to pornography, when they are protected by a document written by men 100000 times more wise and intelligent then president bush and his administration?
if you are so worried about your child looking at pornography or all children looking at it, then do something to tell parents about how to protect thier children, themselves...the federal government doesnt have to regulate businesses and citizens, to protect children...that should be parent's job, to protect thier own children.
This is not about the purported target of the search. It's ABOUT THE SEARCH ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!
If it's ok for the government to perform illegal searches "in the name of the children" at Google, then it's ok for them to do AT YOUR HOUSE!
We're not sure whether or not you have any illegal adult content in your home but we're going to come in and look just to make sure our laws are being effective in curtailing this crime.
It's not about children. It's all about protecting our freedoms. If you don't get that it makes me really sad. I assure you they don't need to subpoena Google to go after adult content sites that don't restrict access based on age.
Do you really want the government regulating what Google can and can't index for searches?
What Google and 83% of responders are against is turning over complete lists of users and the searches done. This is in violation of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution. They need a warrant naming the person they want to investigate. What the Bush administration wants has NOTHING to do with Child Pornography(which we are ALL against) instead they want to search out their political enemies and identify us. The law gives them all the tools necessary, but they don't want to use the tools. Bush feels he is above the law, he feels he IS the law and can do anything he wants and the law and the Constitution be damned. Remember he called the Constitution, "...a ******* piece of paper."
I, like anyone else is shocked when child pornography raises its head and believe that it needs to be combatted. But I am of the beliefe that agreeing to the surrender of information to govornments now would act as a precedence for future requests of information. What will be the noble cause next time? will 'they' be looking for islamic search terms? what looks innocent and noble right now could end up coming back as freedoms are eroded. Just as those that stood against Bush when he decided to go to war in Iraq were labelled as 'un american' - when they were exercising their constitutional right to express their opinion. What will it be next that you believe in that has been deemed a social evil? Alcohol? a particular religion? I thought that the constitution was born to protect against that kind of judgement. Many issues that are debated today are a matter of opinion and each and every person is entitled to their own opinion. It is not for a few to dictate what is to be believed. Of course when beliefs lead to the harming of others, some things need to be done, but are we going to have to ask permission to use kitchen knives and prove that they are necessary to prepare the meal we are eating. In addition, if the US government is allowed access to this information, what other governments would also want the same?
Your opinion that porn should be censored is just that, an opinion. For your information, what you call 'porn' is the largest moneymaker on the internet (gosh, somebody must like it!) and has caused the net to improve its function and performance in many ways. A lot of the technology in use on many websites today was developed and funded by the adult industry. Regardless, as an adult I have the absolute right to visit sexually oriented sites should that be my choice. That is what this fight is about, CHOICE! The government is unilaterally fighting a cause determined 'evil' by the "Born Again" far right, led by Dubya at the moment. The more rights we surrender, the more will be demanded. Knee jerk reactions such as many of those espoused on this board are much more harmful than pornography.
Good Going Google, Thank Google for standing up tall. If the government wants to go fishing let them design their own trolling rig. Too bad Yahoo et al knuckled under. I am sure Gator would be glad to lisence their technology to the DOJ for a price! No responsible person supports Child pornography but the DOJ request is too broad and tramples on numerous Constitutional Rights. If they sincerely want to protect children they have more than adequate resources to do so already. DWC in Gawja
We have hundreds, thousands, in need of a desent place to live, food, medechine for their kids and themselves. But instead of tending to the needy in this country, the government spends it's time and money on seeing what people are searching for on the Net. This makes sense to me, and all this time I thought the government did not care about us.
Why is pornography such an issue? Now I understand and agree with the issues of banning child pornograpy, as in the child itself is in the picture. But trying to keep teenagers away from it seems rather pointless. If a kid really wants to look at porn, they will find a way. It is important as a parent to talk about porn with your child and tell them the negative aspects, along with your own views, but unless you are sitting with them every moment of every day, it is possible that they will get it. And secondly, isn't there worse things a 14 year old can be doing on a Saturday night than sitting at home with a Playboy? I mean, really. This seems more like a bunch of adults still freaked out by sex than a legitamite argument.
I can't believe so many people are entirely missing the point. Do any of you even know what the fourth amendment says? Let me paraphrase:
THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT PERFORM SEARCHES OR SIEZURES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE!
They've presented no evidence that this law is being violated. In fact, they've clearly stated that the reason for the search is to determine whether or not the law is being violated!
The government doesn't get to violate the constitution. Not in the name of national security. Not in the name of God. Not even in the name of the children.
problem: oh is'nt this nice.. this ******* society with it's rules building up on sex and violence, and any emotions.. just like primitive animals.. you thing theres a diffrence between the stiff arabs and the smooth americans.. but there's actually no diffrence.. all humans are alike.. just keep getting high on emotion, youre walking a path of no return..
solution: a global system that sees everything.. even reads your mind.. and analises potential problem within there deepest context.
punishments would then be applied only if requested by the victim.. the only automated law would be if the victim cant request it anymore!
you see, it's about this psichological process of motivation.. like that move "Secretary". Some victims want to be abused, then again.. theres the level of selfconciesness eg: children where every individual has a mental age diffrent from its phisical age, or mentally instable humans, but that is another issue.
conclusion: 1. humans need to be more transparent! 2. motivation through fear has to stop!
sad truth: computers will take over one way or the other!
Manage updates with the Download App
Now locking them in prison, on the other hand, I find to be an excellent idea.
----------------
"In our fight against International Terrorism, and to protect our children's future in this great Democratic Republic, we are forced to take temporary steps, some of them seemingly reprehensible.
"To that end, every citizen of this country is ordered to bring in, or mail, keys to your front and back doors to your nearest city government. You have two weeks to comply. We are sorry to make this demand, but it is necessary in order to protect your children."
I received the notice in my mail box one morning.
Being a good citizen, I complied by mailing copies of my keys to the address specified. Why not? I figured. I wasn't doing anything wrong.
Last Thursday, about three am, I woke to three police officers coming in my back door. They headed directly for my bedroom dresser and started going through the drawers.
"Go back to bed, Sir," one of them told me, "We're searching the bedroom dressers of everyone in the county. It's for the good of the children."
A few days ago, others came in and went through my kitchen, confiscating all my knives.
"Sorry Sir, a child in Nebraska cut wrists with a kitchen knife. You wouldn't want to take any chance with the children, would you, Sir."
Now I see a police car stopping outside, and they're coming in again.
***
I think you would be a little incensed if that happened. Well, it's the same thing in this case. Once you give them that key, you can bet they'll come in eventually, to save the children or fight terrorists of course.
One day you'd wake up to find they had taken over your house.
What the government is doing with this request for information is exactly the same thing. It's the key to open your back door, letting them in any time they want for any reason, as long as they say its to save the children or fight terrorists.
What you do in your own home should be your business, not that of the government. Our elected representatives should be fighting this sort of thing, not joining in the act.
Here we are, some of us, writing our Congressmen for help in maintaining our privacy on the Internet. While we write one branch of government to keep our privacy, another is grasping that same privacy and squeezing it to shreds.
Today, it's porno. Who know what they want tomorrow?
Oscar Rat
An argument such as this tells me that the Bush Administration, and MOST (not all) supporters of the administration firmly believe in shirking parental responsibility and passing it on to anyone besides the parent. Google operates BECAUSE of the first amendment, not in spite of it. I am not supporting the scum of the earth that make child porn available, who I am defending are the companies that are providing a window into worlds of information, and allowing me to determine what is appropriate for me and my family.
Too many people expect the government to swoop in and make it all better. For the government to begin asking for a list of URLs and IPs that are accessable through their engine is just the begining. All the information available has far loosely defined (at best) the offending material as "damaging to children". In whos eyes, and who defines damaging? Milllions of pieces of great literature and works of art have been completely lost, destroyed and gone forever by people that rewrote the definition immoral to include that they destroyed. Some never had the option of deciding that for themselves.
This information being handed over is the beginning of just that; the so called "moral majority" protecting me and mine from that which I have every ability to protect me and mine from. In a country that wants d**n near everything, including parenting, cheaper easier and faster and the Government is more than happy to step right in and get even more control than the Constitution and Bill of Rights EVER intended for them to have.
Did we forget that the original government of this country was supposed to be formed of the people in DEFENSE of the rights? Has the goverment become its own beast, or are we still in control? Are we going allow the most basic decisions and resposibilities be taken away from us? I'll take my chances with filtering software, and playing the role of a responsible parent rather than let someone else determine whats right and wrong for me, in my own home.
It astounds me that people believe that bull about "Save the Child" used on every cause. It's like the US, What is it, 300 million people, declaring "War" on maybe 10,000 terrorists, world wide. I think this is only a feeler, to see if they can get away with it.
Well, this rodent isn't biting,
Oscar Rat
How you feel is up to you but I don't need a faceless government official deciding that I should not be able to read something, or to view something. Limits? Yes there should be limits. Thats why we have already passed laws to provide limits. Would it be appropriate to have pictures of someone fondling my young daughters? Absolutly not! Nor your sons or daughters either. We have already decided that and passed laws against such. But, who has the right to decide that you cannot access the Bible because it has sensual passages in it? (By the way it really has... Ever read Song of Solomon?) Let ME decide for myself... Let ME guide my family so that when they are grown they KNOW HOW to make good decisions for... Who? THEMSELVES!!! (sorry for shouting just a little upset over all this! ;-)
I still feel that this is America, the land of freedom (shrinking) and opportunity. If we love it and want to keep it we better be doing something fast or it will be gone like the Greeks and Romans... Get out and VOTE FOR FREEDOM!
What happens when they start pushing YOU around for information? How about a survay on how many meals you eat together as a family? How many times you ordered take out? It's for the children right? Gotta make sure they're properly nurished right?
The next thing that we are going to see happen is Congress making changes to the Constitution so it fits Mr. Bush's and his lackeys needs.
If the Bush administration would like to do something to improve life and lower the impact that pornography has on our youth, they should spend more money on education and less on war. The other thing they SHOULD do, but DO NOT, is enforce some sort of effective rating system for television and movies. Take "objectionable" content off TV. When I was young, PG13 meant there might be a word in a movie or TV show that means excrement. Nowadays PG13 means a graphic sex scene, murder, or extreme violence. Children grow up too fast and miss their childhood days and their childhood crushes. Therefore, when they are 30-35 + years old, sometimes younger, they relapse, go, and find a cute 10-year-old girl to flirt with.
The government should wake up. Stop lining their pockets with handouts from television networks and do something that would actually help the country and the rest of the world.
I hope google tells the government to go lay an egg! OH, they say we are not looking for identities; but if you look through my window and don't know my name, isn't that still spying??? They now want to spy on everyone!
~ anarchist ~
At least when it comes to people 12 and over, I don't think seeing a naked image will traumatize them for life.
Take teenagers for example (I'm 19), their bodies are designed by evolution to be sexual. In the cave man era, people would probably marry and have children as early as 14. So no matter whether you view this as moral or not, it's just common sense that doing something sexual or seeing sexual images isn't going to somehow inherently harm them.
My conclusion is that a 16 year old boy viewing porn is more of a problem because the parents don't want to deal with the fact that their kid is sexually, if not emotionally, an adult rather than actual psychological harm being inflicted.
Of course, child abuse is always wrong. That's why it would be completely immoral to make, say, a website targeting little kids (like on Barney) and then have porn pop out of nowhere. However, that doesn't happen and I don't think you would come upon porn unless you were deliberately searching for it.
I'm not saying older kids and teens should automatically be allowed to view anything they wish, but it should be dealt with by parents and not the state.
The requested information is also non-conclusive in the case and will be miss-used to prove something the data does not prove. It will be used to prove that minors can "accidentally" stumble across porn when using services such as Google. The search terms used will most definitely include terms from adults seeking the material this law intends to keep away from children. The sites indexed by Google and others include adult oriented materials.
Google does a fairly good job with it's filtering system and adults have to modify the Google page to allow adult sites in the search results.
The biggest potential target in this situation is the search companies themselves. I am surprised the others involved in this request didn't realize that when handing over their livelihood.
Every few hours, fire up your favourite search engines and search for "bio weapon", "anthrax", "uranium", "how can i make a dirty bomb", "how to kill people", "porn", "blowing things up", "local terrorist targets", "my local terror cell",...
Be creative, try to find some terror friendly googlewhacks and see if you and your friends and family can skew the search stats in February.
I would like to challenge everyone who supports google and their actions to consider taking some -- if not all -- of the following actions:
1. Write google and let them know that you appreciate their stand. The more of us who show our support, the more they will likely feel reinforced to continue their strong stand.
2. Get a g-mail account, and dump those providers who have complied with the federal request if possible. Let those providers know exactly *why* you are stopping your service. Again, this goes back to the premise "strength in numbers." While it certainly won't reverse the actions of those providers who have complied, it will let them know that the public *is* watching and we are prepared to take action when we feel our rights are being compromised.
3. Inform your friends! It's imperative that we let others know about this! Silence is deadly.
4. Write to elected officials in your area informing them of your outrage and unwillingness to tolerate such fascist actions.
Above all, remember, "All that is necessary for evil to succeed over good is for good men to do nothing." Adolf Hitler. Need I say more?
Stand strong and go google!
Leigh Ann Wilson
The link below will take you to a page where you can contact all the State and Federal representatives.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml" target="_newWindow">http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml</a>
I, for one, am tired of seeing more and more legislation dictating the moral and spiritual choices of parents stripped away. I personally do not want my children to see pornography, but that is ME. What others feel is appropriate, and here I think more along the medical and anatomical texts available online, as well as historical references, is their business. I often find myself at odds with other parents about material I consider scientific, educational or artistic, while some things, including certain children shows, I consider to be low brow or inane.
Point is, this country was founded on choice and freedom. Some of that has to be sacrificed in the name of defense of this country. I support Bush's actions on the war, both on terrorism and Iraq, but I can not condone activities which unreasonably strip me of my rights as a US citizen, ones that I have fought for and others have died for. Otherwise what's the point.
GOOGLE has my wholehearted support, both for it's right to defend trade secrets and for the actual and POTENTIAL privacy rights that could be violated with such sweeping government requests. GO GOOGLE!
World Wide Web, knowingly makes any communication for
commercial purposes that includes any material that is harmful
to minors without restricting access to such material by minors
pursuant to subsection(c) should be fined not more than
$50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."
Hmmm "harmful to minors..." It's a wee bit broad and open to
interpretation. No wonder it was struck down by the lower courts
as unconstitutional.
As a psychologist, I know of no definitive evidence that
pornography viewed on the internet is problematic for children
(or adults). Surely, viewing violence, sexual or otherwise, might
well be detrimental to children. But the law--or at least the
argument in which it is couched--is most definitely concerned
with pornography.
Until we know more, this is pandering to the religious right. I'm
certainly for morality. But I think that in the US, we're supposed
to refrain from imposing our own sense of morailty on others,
especially when our views have close ties to our chosen religion.
I think much of the rest of world is good, real-world evidence
that exposure to sexuality is not in and of itself detrimental to
children. (There certainly is no hard data supporting a negative
effect.)
Let's be awake when our executive and legislative branches try
to legislate morality. I thought the idea was to abide by the
constitution. Perhaps that's only the case when religious values
are not on the table.
World Wide Web, knowingly makes any communication for
commercial purposes that includes any material that is harmful
to minors without restricting access to such material by minors
pursuant to subsection(c) should be fined not more than
$50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both."
Hmmm "harmful to minors..." It's a wee bit broad and open to
interpretation. No wonder it was struck down by the lower court
as unconstitutional.
As a psychologist, I know of no definitive evidence that
pornography viewed on the internet is problematic for children
(or adults). Surely, viewing violence, sexual or otherwise, might
well be detrimental to children. But the law--or at least the
argument in which it is couched--is most definitely concerned
with pornography. So restrict what we can convincingly argue
might be damaging (violence), not what we simply want to say is
damaging (sex).
Until we know more, this is pandering to the religious right. I'm
certainly for morality. But I think that in the US, we're supposed
to refrain from imposing our own sense of morailty on others,
especially when our views have close ties to our chosen religion.
I think much of the rest of world is good, real-world evidence
that exposure to sexuality is not in and of itself detrimental to
children. (There certainly is no hard data supporting a negative
effect.)
Let's be awake when our executive and legislative branches try
to legislate morality. I thought the idea was to abide by the
constitution. Perhaps that's only the case when religious values
are not on the table.
They are not really interested in child porn; this is just an extension
of the regime's spying activities on American citizens--an activity
that is against the law and the constitution. They want to know
what/who you are searching for... Bin Lan, Al Qiada, etc.
I mostly agree with your comment. However, this controversy is not about "child porn"; it's about plain old pornography. The issue is the government's purported attempt to "protect" children from pornography and therein lies the problem.
Assuming that you agree about the serious free speech flaws in the COPA, we're on the same page about the "regime's" attempt to control the citizens.
Let's say that I type "Child Porn" into google, and they save that search term. That they can even find out my address and ISP.
How will they know my age, much less whether I used one of those kiddy programs? I don't think even Google will know. Hell, a kid could be visiting and sneak on my computer for all they know.
No. I think kiddy porn is just an excuse to get a foot in the door, making more specialized searches easier in the future.
Charlie
This time I'm on the Feds side. Google should be too. Everyone for that matter.
And, ...you know, ...attacking the U.S. Constitution, especially if you have sworn to uphold it, ...is still, TREASON.
Second, the current administration is also attempting to use their current, ...Yes TRAITOROUS, ...assault on basic "Constitutional rights", defending the "illegal act" of "COPA", to even further erode basic American-freedoms of, and protections from, unreasonable Government-interference in the free exercise of basic-rights, ...with this "fishing expedition" of unconnected "information demands".
Third, again, neither "COPA", nor the governments pathetic, underhanded, and un-American defense of these UnConstitutional-actions, against the American-public, has ANYTHING to do with "child-porn", what-so-ever. And, more importantly, the "Google" issue is in no way involved with either the actual "COPA" case, or "child-porn, at all.
But, once again, a narrow, EXTREMIST-MINORITY, is desperately trying to confuse the issue, ...once their actual intentions, and actions, against the rights of the American-People, have been brought out into the public-awareness.
And finally, the saddest FACT of all is that "COPA" never actually was about "protecting children". Its about exploiting children and mis-using Governmental-authority to "stamp out", what one group considers to be "...an unacceptable expression of free speech", ...period.
My question is, which part of "Constitutionally Protected Free Expression", and "UnConstitutional Attack on Free Speech" are these, clearly anti-American, FASCISTS, having so much trouble with..?
Not that I search for anything I don't want the government to know about... it's just I don't really think the government needs to know.
I don't like the idea of Google being the government's little search spy.
If the government wants to track down child porn via google, then they should do what all the people searching for it are doing... SEARCH FOR IT.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+the+Google+subpoena+mean/2100-1029_3-6029042.html?tag=nefd.pop" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+the+Google+subpoena+mean/2100-1029_3-6029042.html?tag=nefd.pop</a>
if you are so worried about your child looking at pornography or all children looking at it, then do something to tell parents about how to protect thier children, themselves...the federal government doesnt have to regulate businesses and citizens, to protect children...that should be parent's job, to protect thier own children.
If it's ok for the government to perform illegal searches "in the name of the children" at Google, then it's ok for them to do AT YOUR HOUSE!
We're not sure whether or not you have any illegal adult content in your home but we're going to come in and look just to make sure our laws are being effective in curtailing this crime.
It's not about children. It's all about protecting our freedoms. If you don't get that it makes me really sad. I assure you they don't need to subpoena Google to go after adult content sites that don't restrict access based on age.
Do you really want the government regulating what Google can and can't index for searches?
head and believe that it needs to be combatted.
But I am of the beliefe that agreeing to the surrender of
information to govornments now would act as a precedence for
future requests of information. What will be the noble cause
next time? will 'they' be looking for islamic search terms? what
looks innocent and noble right now could end up coming back
as freedoms are eroded.
Just as those that stood against Bush when he decided to go to
war in Iraq were labelled as 'un american' - when they were
exercising their constitutional right to express their opinion.
What will it be next that you believe in that has been deemed a
social evil? Alcohol? a particular religion?
I thought that the constitution was born to protect against that
kind of judgement.
Many issues that are debated today are a matter of opinion and
each and every person is entitled to their own opinion. It is not
for a few to dictate what is to be believed.
Of course when beliefs lead to the harming of others, some
things need to be done, but are we going to have to ask
permission to use kitchen knives and prove that they are
necessary to prepare the meal we are eating.
In addition, if the US government is allowed access to this
information, what other governments would also want the same?
But google should sure as heck not give anything to to govenment.
The more rights we surrender, the more will be demanded. Knee jerk reactions such as many of those espoused on this board are much more harmful than pornography.
DWC in Gawja
THE GOVERNMENT SHALL NOT PERFORM SEARCHES OR SIEZURES WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE!
They've presented no evidence that this law is being violated. In fact, they've clearly stated that the reason for the search is to determine whether or not the law is being violated!
The government doesn't get to violate the constitution. Not in the name of national security. Not in the name of God. Not even in the name of the children.
oh is'nt this nice.. this ******* society with it's rules building up on sex and violence, and any emotions.. just like primitive animals.. you thing theres a diffrence between the stiff arabs and the smooth americans.. but there's actually no diffrence.. all humans are alike..
just keep getting high on emotion, youre walking a path of no return..
solution:
a global system that sees everything.. even reads your mind.. and analises potential problem within there deepest context.
punishments would then be applied only if requested by the victim.. the only automated law would be if the victim cant request it anymore!
you see, it's about this psichological process of motivation.. like that move "Secretary". Some victims want to be abused, then again.. theres the level of selfconciesness eg: children where every individual has a mental age diffrent from its phisical age, or mentally instable humans, but that is another issue.
conclusion:
1. humans need to be more transparent!
2. motivation through fear has to stop!
sad truth:
computers will take over one way or the other!