Are search results fair game in porn fight?
Federal prosecutors made a request for millions of search records from four major search engines in its defense of a controversial Internet pornography law. The investigation is part of the Bush administration's appeal regarding the Child Online Protection Act. As part of the probe, federal investigators asked for search records from Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and America Online. So far, Google has refused to comply with the government's requests, but Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft have all reportedly complied. Privacy advocates are up in arms over the idea that search results are subject to government perusal. But Yahoo and AOL both insist that, while they complied fully with the feds' request, none of the information handed over was personally identifiable. How much privacy are you willing to give up in the fight to protect children from online pornography? Is there a way to keep porn sites out of children's reach without infringing on the rights of adults?
Tug-of-war between privacy and child protection
FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
CNET News.com
Privacy experts condemn Google subpoena
Reuters
How to foil search engine snoops
Wired
The day after: Points in the search trust sweepstakes
Search Engine Watch
Senators threaten new Net porn crackdown
CNET News.com
Uncle Sam wants your Google searches (and already got results from others)
Techdirt
Editorial | The allure of Google's data
San Francisco Chronicle
Feds take porn fight to Google
CNET News.com
Yahoo admits it let White House access its databases
Times Online
Editorial | Search "privacy"
Detroit Free Press
Moving past Google privacy fears and toward an industry solution
Search Engine Watch
Related audio:
Listen up
News.com reporter Elinor Mills talks with Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation about privacy and the government's Google request.
This sort of damage done to the US morale as a whole is far greater than the benefit of unlimited access to our data and the criminalization of parties who refuse to participate in this culling.
Every breath for liberty must echo a dissent against this sort of carte blanche absorption of private, corporate and personal data.
The government doesn't have the right to absorb every detail of its citizen's lives to single out a few. That is a dangerous road to begin.
"Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft have all reportedly complied. ... Yahoo and AOL both insist that, while they complied fully with the feds' request, none of the information handed over was personally identifiable."
That means Microsoft is the ONLY one that complied and turned over personally identifiable information.
I can remember when Microsoft had guts.
It has also been reported that nobody provided the DoJ with their original request for information. They all negotiated it down substantially.
Secondly, Google collects massive amount of data on users searches', and is always looking for ways to utilize that data. That data is only a legal paper away. If Google hadn't collected so much data about users, it won't be in this trouble now.
Google has had a nightmarish privacy record, and this thing could bring the company down. Fighting efforts to fight child porn ?...shame on you Google.
J. Edgar Hoover SAID he was fighting communism, but what he was really doing was trying to ruin Martin Luther King with carefully sifted information he was able to gather only because he had too much power.
Giving the government any information they think they want without any checks or accountability is a recipie for robbing all of us of whatever freedom we have left.
It's happened before.
This is about minors using Google to find pornography. And it's not even porn, it is "anything that might be objectionable" so medical sites would also be a problem, or sites covering Intelligent Design (a theory the Bush Administration would oppose and find objectionable). The scope of this law is not specific enough, and violates many of our rights and liberties without breaking any current law.
with any naughty or vaguely suggestive domain
name and you'll find your porn site. Once you
have one, it will have ads for hundreds of
others.
Not that Google won't work, but it's as
unnecessary to involve Google for finding
pornography as it is to call the forest service
to locate a tree.
The DOJ doesn't care about the sites, they want
the search strings and the IP addresses
associated with those strings. So we can say
things like "there's a 80% correlation between
those searching for information about donut hole
treats and those looking for naked dwarf
wrestling".
They don't even need Google, they got a
statistically valid sample from AOL (the
perverts' Internet) and MSN (the dolts'
Internet).
The DOJ's problem is that they have a law that's
been adjudicated overreaching because it would
permit non-porn censorship of the Internet. Are
anti-war sites giving comfort to the enemy?
Let's block 'em!
From Google's point of view, they have to do
work to provide the information, and it sets a
precedent that all of a sudden they are required
to provide the government any information they
want in any form they want because they are
recognized as a provider of information. They
are expected to provide it without cost, without
concern for their customers, and to do so
expressly to support political agendas and to
push through law that might adversely affect
them or their customers.
Let us not forget that COPA ostensibly was meant
to protect children from offensive material, but
it was acknowledged that things like "PETA",
anti-war sites, and pro-Democrat sites could be
examples of offensive material that the current
administration might find offensive and
requiring censorship.
You might not agree with any of those people,
but presumably Americans value their right to
speak their mind, regardless the message. Then
again, maybe the DOJ is right, maybe the
Internet is no place for Americans to exercise
their free-speech rights [sic]. THINK OF THE
CHILDREN!
We have proof now that these other search engines can't be trusted to stand up for the rights of their users. Who buy the way foots their bills and makes their stock worth what it is.
Damn the Bush Admistration for trying to Christianize things they have no business getting in to. With the Bush Adminstration spying on American's plus the lies he told to go to war it is clear that anything these people say can't be taken at face value. The search data requests will be used in any fashion they wish. Bush and his group of rejects already feels they can do whatever the want, regardless of the law. Then America told him it was alright when the idiots gave him a second term.
Now it is time to rape the rewards for all of the idiots that voted for him. America the free my as*.
Robert
I bet Cheney is the one that came up with this plan. Bush is too stupid to come up with this scheme
A liar. (Bush)
A liar who couldn't decide which side of the lie he was on everytime he lied. (Kerry)
At least the liar stood by his choice in his lie.
Bill Gates and other executives at Microsoft have had all of their email captured by legal teams for various law suits at one time or another. Bill Gates once said "We live the observed life". Translation...assume that everything you say, write, or do will be reviewed by a team of lawyers...with the worst of intentions.
I wrote a blog on the subject of privacy, the limits of presidential power, and how judge Alito's supreme court nomination might effect decisions on this subject. You can read the whole thing here <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/01/living_the_obse.html" target="_newWindow">http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/01/living_the_obse.html</a>
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 ~
Google is not trying to hide child pornographers. Nobody has broken a law, and the DOJ seeks to utilize the Google assets for free to process a case brought against the US Government over a law that is unconstitutional.
What the US Government would do with this law is prevent you, and everyone else (child or otherwise) from accessing anything "objectionable" to minors. That could include some news articles, medical libraries.
The law would give US Government the ability to shut down any site that provided "objectionable" information such as birth control, intelligent design or Harry Potter. If you don't think Harry is objectionable I know a small church in North Carolina that would burn you at the stake if you showed their children a Harry Potter movie.
That's already illegal and, frankly, it's
uninteresting.
They are ostensibly concerned about children
(and child-like adults) exposure to pornography.
The DOJ would like to prove that casual exposure
to Internet exposes large numbers of children to
pornographic images and "offensive" materials
that do them certain cognitive harm. Based on
that, they are asking for the ability to
classify certain materials as "inappropriate"
for the Internet and be allow the government to
censor them or fine those that post
objectionable content. Part of the reason the
law didn't stick is because "objectionable"
wasn't limited to sexually explicit material,
and it didn't recognize that users of the
Internet may not be children (i.e., their plan
would prevent access to the material, rather
than restricting minor's access).
People are more concerned about the censorship
because the current administration has been
caught several times attempting to censor
critics, and plant propaganda (such as false new
stories). While some people find it acceptable
in a time of war, other people find it
disturbing.
Secondly, this is just another case of the Bush Administration violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with its illegal spying activities. Think about it - how in the hell does all of this data tell them the effectiveness of porn filters? That's like saying we had to attack Iraq because they could have used all of those WMDs that they had. Yeah, right!
This is just another case of how King Bush and his Administration are trying to circumvent our privacy laws to maintain their political power. We are now entering an age of tyranny in this country. We better wake up and stand up against it now, otherwise we shouldn't bother to preserve the Constitution since it will be meaningless.
Any investor that looks lightly at Yahoo, AOL and MSN turning over their asset for free is missing it as well.
The law would not protect children, it would allow censorship of ANY content online. This violates the first amendment rights and would prevent everyone from having access to the information.
This law really makes me think we might all be better off moving to China where their censorship is more relaxed...
Remember when 'whitehouse.com' was a porn site? How many people went there when they really wanted 'whitehouse.gov'?
Looking at search results (and keywords) is a reach.
The gov. wants to tighten access to web porn, make it access possible by age verification, exclusively. Kind of a tall order, considering all of the overseas sites. If they pulled it off though, it would be easier for the gov. to then track the end user. This is the real privacy issue, not a random sampling.
If Google didn't keep all of this information, they wouldn't have a problem today with the government. And the thought of Google keeping all of this information on individuals is hardly more reassuring than the government desiring to view this information. I've heard of people "googling"
people's names, pumping for information on people that they know, trying to dig up dirt and cause trouble. I think it's a violation of privacy, clear and simple, and I think that Google ought to be hauled into court and handed a hefty fine for being so nosy, and for encouraging nosiness. As for government agencies, Big Brother seems to be always watching someone. They also need to learn to mind their own business.
It has a lot of surprising new features. I most like the browsing in 2 tiled windows for message boards and the creating of reference pages. Since it doesnt take a full line Im using it in addition to my yahoo toolbar without any problem.
You can try it from download.com or from their website.
Are there any other toolbars like this one I can try?
Does Firefox has similar features?
The DoJ is employed by the Whitehouse to prosecute or defend cases of it's own interest. These happen to be called "national interest" and they are owned by the federal government, not it's people.
Google makes money off the information that the DoJ is requesting. They also commit their own resources to collect it and it is their resource collectively worth billions. Were Microsoft to ask Google for the exact same information, Google would charge them millions of dollars to have it.
The US Government can not force anyone to provide any service or goods for free. There for if they want this data for their own uses, they should have to pay the millions it's worth to obtain it legally. They have no arbitrary legal right to the data.
The other main reason Google (and the others who didn't) need to resist this is that the use for the data is already obvious. The DoJ seeks to criminalize it. That could put Google, MSN and Yahoo at risk for violating the law the DoJ is trying to defend. The DoJ will have plenty of evidence provided by these companies to go directly after them following the courts upholding this law.
This is not a case where someone broke the law and this evidence is needed to convict a possibly guilty party. This is a case where the DoJ needs valuable data to proceed with a case of the government's own interest. No technology company should want to see that law pass through the courts upheld.
I do not agree with the fact the DoJ can have access to search information without strict guidelines on what the information is going to be used for. Also if I have told a company that I do not wish to have my information released, shouldn't that include the DoJ as well? It just goes to show you that there is a law to circumvent every other law.
This has nothing to do with Child porn and everything to do with the unofficial war on porn from the 1980's. My advice to Americans who believe in free speech and personal liberty is to make a list of the law makers who support this type of dreck and vote them out of office this coming November