Comments on: Feds take porn fight to Google
Bush administration subpoenas records of all searches over one week as it defends disputed antiporn law.
Document: Google subpoenaed over pornography
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Quark Promote lets novices make promo materials
December 28, 2009 1:39 PM PST
- Consumer groups urge block of Google-AdMob deal
December 28, 2009 12:45 PM PST
- App store downloads shine on Christmas
December 28, 2009 12:29 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
I realize that they are trying to take a white hat approach, and that their motto is something like 'Do no harm to anyone', which is all laudable.
I also realize that they are collecting that data for one reason: they want to make money from it.
IMO, this would best serve as a wakeup to them that the only way they can be sure not to cause harm to someone by their actions in information collection, is to collect NOTHING that can be identified to any specific individual or location.
Perhaps this would cost them some ability to make money down the road, and sometimes the only way to do the right thing is in a way that costs something.
Sooner or later, a way can and possibly will be found to legally extract what they have collected.
Realizing that law is essentially the agreement of the majority, and that sometimes the majority is wrong, most people would agree that sometimes laws are wrong.
A lot of the people in this country agreed to that idea when England was making our laws, and a lot of them fought and died because they thought that to be so.
Some of the arguments I have read in here seem to assume that since there is a law about something, there is an automatic rightness implied in its enforcement, simply because it is a law.
That seems to be a pretty blind assumption to me.
There are too many things happening lately that seem to extend outside the law, too many loopholes being used in the service of 'defending' us, too much questionable activity happening for a reasonable person not to question it.
When someone is always right, there is something wrong.
So why are they resisting? For YOU. For the rights of privacy in the US.
What does the government want with this data? They want to use it to test their filtering programs, and they're just too lazy to get their own search engine data so they figure they can just be the biggest kid on the playground and go take it from the major search companies.
What have Yahoo, MSN, and AOL done for you? Well, they just sold you out because they're too worried about their pocket books and too scared to stand up for their and your rights.
more than the government getting a copy of the statistics Google
and other search engine operators should already be keeping for
their own needs.
Privacy is not an issue, nor is free speech, nor any other
Constitutional question.
The thing is that Google put themselves in a tight spot because of the amountt of data they store about user preferences and actions. Now ever time an organization needs information about user search engine usage, guess who is going to be number on the list, Google. No one can ask for information you do not have. I would not be surprised if the NSA has not already tapped them for information that DOES identify people.
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.
http://www.firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
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.
- Innocent or guilty
- by Sentinel January 22, 2006 5:40 AM PST
- 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".
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (204 Comments)