January 20, 2006 4:00 AM PST

FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?

Preparing to defend a controversial Internet pornography law in court, the Justice Department has demanded search logs from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online.

The department asked the search giants to hand over millions of records involving what search terms people have used on the sites and what Web sites are accessible via the search engines.

On one level, the situation involves a straightforward question of whether the department's demands are too onerous and therefore not permitted under federal law. On another, the dispute raises novel questions about search engines' privacy protections and the relationship that four tech giants have with the federal government.

What does it all mean, and what happens next? Read on.

Q: What is the Justice Department demanding from search engines?
A: Federal prosecutors have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to turn over two types of data: logs showing search terms used by people, and a list of Web sites indexed by the companies' search engines.

News.com Poll

Should Google and other search engines be required to give the government details about what people are searching for?

Yes
No
Maybe, depending on the circumstances



View results

Q: Which companies have complied?
The Justice Department isn't talking, at least not yet. Google has opposed the request. Yahoo and AOL have acknowledged complying, saying that they went along with the government's request but did not turn over personally identifiable information. At the time this was written, Microsoft was refusing to say anything, but the ACLU has confirmed that the company did comply.

Q: What information was turned over?
We don't know. The Justice Department initially demanded that the four companies divulge "all URLs that are available to be located through a query on your company's search engine as of July 31, 2005." The subpoena also asked for "all queries that have been entered on your company's search engine between June 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005, inclusive."

But at least when trying to negotiate with Google, the Justice Department eventually narrowed that request to a "random sample of 1 million URLs" and "copies of the text of each search string entered onto Google's search engine over a 1-week period."

Q: So we don't know whether Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL went along with the initial request, or whether they negotiated a better deal?
Exactly. We just don't know, at least not yet, and they're not providing details.

AOL came the closest, saying it turned over a list of "aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly 1-day period." But it refused to elaborate.

Q: Is there any law preventing a company from talking to the press?
Nope. If they chose, they could disclose all the negotiations that took place, release the correspondence they exchanged with prosecutors and so on. It's a little odd that they're being so tight-lipped.

Or they could have done what Google did and fought the Justice Department in court.

Q: I used those search engines in June and July. Should I be worried about my privacy?
It depends. If you typed in search terms that you consider to be private or confidential, you should be concerned. Such terms might include personal information about you, such as your name or street address.

But what's important to note is that the Justice Department has not been asking for any information that would link those search terms to your identity. It hasn't requested Internet Protocol addresses.

So if you typed in search terms indicating that you, say, have a healthy interest in marijuana cultivation, the data turned over won't implicate you.

Q: The subpoena came from the Justice Department's civil division. Will the attorneys there share the data with their colleagues at the department's criminal division or the FBI?
No law would appear to prohibit them from doing so. A protective order does say that only Justice Department attorneys "who have a need" for the information may receive it.

If the disclosed search logs show evidence of criminal activity, that language may be vague enough to let prosecutors return with a second subpoena to demand the identification of one or more Internet addresses linked with those search terms. Terror-related searches are another likely area of information-sharing--President Bush likes to talk about how "law enforcement officers should not be denied vital information their own colleagues already have."

There has, however, been no evidence that the Justice Department has or has not done this to date.

118 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Use another country's Google...
Story doesn't say but is this just for Google.com...if you are so inclined to use Google's engine for searches, could you not just use thier UK or CA site, for example?
Posted by KsprayDad (375 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not such thing as "other country Google"
There's only one Google. "Other country Google"s are just different interfaces to the same thing (dofferent URL, different language, same infrastructure and same search index, though some parameters used in compiling search results might be a bit different to provide search results more suitable for different audiences)
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Link Flag
But there is a country based search engine, it is AnooX.
You are right, there is no country based Google, they are all the same just with different interfaces. So all your searches from around the world when you search at Google.x are available to US government.

However there is a search engine that actually is available on a country basis. It is called AnooX.

To be exact they are offering their search engine for Free & under an Open Source type of license to anyone around the world who wants to be an AnooX Search Engine provider in their country. So this way then all the
searches you do will stay in your own country based AnooX. You can find the details here:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp" target="_newWindow">http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp</a>
Posted by Cyrus_K (60 comments )
Link Flag
Use another country's Google...
Story doesn't say but is this just for Google.com...if you are so inclined to use Google's engine for searches, could you not just use thier UK or CA site, for example?
Posted by KsprayDad (375 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Not such thing as "other country Google"
There's only one Google. "Other country Google"s are just different interfaces to the same thing (dofferent URL, different language, same infrastructure and same search index, though some parameters used in compiling search results might be a bit different to provide search results more suitable for different audiences)
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Link Flag
But there is a country based search engine, it is AnooX.
You are right, there is no country based Google, they are all the same just with different interfaces. So all your searches from around the world when you search at Google.x are available to US government.

However there is a search engine that actually is available on a country basis. It is called AnooX.

To be exact they are offering their search engine for Free &#38; under an Open Source type of license to anyone around the world who wants to be an AnooX Search Engine provider in their country. So this way then all the
searches you do will stay in your own country based AnooX. You can find the details here:

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp" target="_newWindow">http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp</a>
Posted by Cyrus_K (60 comments )
Link Flag
Complete lists if URLs are an invasion to privacy
Google indexes lot of blogs, talkbacks, forums etc., and providing comlete lists of these URLs together with search terms that lead to them are a big breach of privacy and should be a concern of any individual involved.

This was not discussed in the article.
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Complete lists if URLs are an invasion to privacy
Google indexes lot of blogs, talkbacks, forums etc., and providing comlete lists of these URLs together with search terms that lead to them are a big breach of privacy and should be a concern of any individual involved.

This was not discussed in the article.
Posted by hadaso (468 comments )
Reply Link Flag
A few points to make
Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot over this article, there are a few points to make:

First, there is nothing "intrusive" about the government's request. Note that they only want search terms. So, while it's true that if you entered "my name is John Smith, 123 Maple Lane, Podunkville, Nebraska, and I'm looking for instructions on how to make an atomic bomb in my kitchen", you might be in danger of being found out, but I'm guessing not many people would actually do this. Or, if they did, it could be argued that anyone so idiotic deserves to be caught, since he'll probably blow himself (along with you and the rest of Podunkville) into Kingdom Come long before he ever gets the device built.

Second, it's to note that the article continues to perpetuate the myth that cookies provide "personal" information. Cookies mainly provide SYSTEM information, such as operating system, screen resolution, browser version, whether or not you have Flash enabled, etc. The only "personal" information is demographic, in that they also show which general area of the country you're located in by displaying your ISP. Actual "personal" information, such as your name, address, social security number, credit card number, phone number, passwords, etc, is the realm of spyware, viruses, trojans, worms and keyloggers.

It's also to note that the search engines, themselves, along with ICANN and Congress, are really the ones to blame that it's come to this. Remember the proposal that all x-rated sites be placed in the ".xxx" domain category? If ICANN and the major search engines had supported Congress to enact this, along with seriously stiff penalties for those who didn't comply, the entire problem would have been resolved. The search engines would simply filter out any domains ending in ".xxx" and that's that.

And, before you cry, "But how would I get my daily porno fix?!", remember sites like AdultCheck? You'd pay a small yearly premium with a credit card, thereby proving you're 21 years or older, and there are your .xxx sites, ready for perusal.

All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody.
Posted by Joe Bolt (62 comments )
Reply Link Flag
How dare you
"Much to do about nothing." That is such a cowards way out that people use to try and justify the Governments unwanted intrusion into peoples private lives. If we don't stand up against this, no one will.

They are taking a shotgun approach to try and justify their UnConstitutional law. Google, or any of the people who use Google are not specifically targetted. They want ALL data on EVERYONE which is unreasonable and wrong.

If they have someone specific in mind then they should get a supeona concerning that person. They should not do this broad unreasonable search and espect law abiding citizens to just sit back and let it happen.
Posted by Leppard (41 comments )
Link Flag
A few incorrect points
We are getting our knickers in a knot for good reason. This demand from the criminals in power has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILD PORN, it has to do with collecting information about law abiding US citizens. If you believe that the only information collected is innocent cookies you are very very ignorant of the real internet. IP addresses are collected and combined with ISP logs to give an exact list of users, addresses etc. NO Google doesn't do the combining but the criminals in DC will. Any sensitive information they wish to collect is always put under the child porn banner so that if anyone opposes their absolute power they can condemn them as pedophiles. Sadly morons and retards believe this and jump on the traitors bandwagon. Also just a note on your google doesn't care statement. DUH!!!!!!! With yahoo groups being sued for child porn groups etc, every online service is very careful about staying on the safe side of the law. Google just understands that this bogus demand is just that. BOGUS!! Get a brain and get off the retard bandwagon.
Posted by nothingavailable (53 comments )
Link Flag
rep[ly to: " a few points to make
joe,
you must be purer than caesars wife. no skeletons in your closet, eh?
but whether there are or not, the gov't has no right to information that is not the genesis of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. every law enforcement agency would love to have the right to go on fishing expeditions for crime. ever hear of the 4th amendment and due process?

submission to govt's ever reaching intrusions leads us down the path to orwellian encroachments on our valued right to privacy.

this administration is the most corrupt and disrespectful of its citizens constitutional rights since the last president who resigned from office for breaches of the constitution.

perhaps we can impeach this dolt post november elections.

it's unimaginable to me that americans can be so fearful of terror attacks that they would willingly sacrifice the protections the constitution affords its citizens from overreaching government in the name of security.
Posted by ttsoprano (4 comments )
Link Flag
Fishing expedition?
The fact that the information includes the resulting URL's means that this amounts to a fishing expedition to find others to pursue (website owners)- without the full due process of law. No search warrant would be issued for this.

As for Mr Bolt's assertion that the .xxx domain would solve the problem, that is a non-starter. Who would get the .xxx domain for a given name - the owner of the .com, .net, .us, .org? How could this be enforced under country level domains - can (and should) the US control the rest of the world (dubya appears to think they should)? The most that could be done legally from an international standpoint is that a new .xxx.us domain name is introduced and all US based porn companies are forced to use it.

Just my 2 euro cents worth.

Stuart
Posted by stuartindigo (9 comments )
Link Flag
www.google.xxx
If they had the .xxx TLD, you would see Google provide a search engine www.google.xxx that would limit the scope of searches to this TLD.

Companies like Google should support such a move, it's a good way to increase their profits by providing a niche service very easily.
Posted by zaznet (1138 comments )
Link Flag
Basically Numb to Subjection
You are probably a college graduate and that means you have had the highest level of brainwashing known to man. You have been made to believe that being subjected to the whims of another monkey on the rock is "okay". Well, it's not "okay" and it's not "okay" for Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL and whoever else builds these archives of information on people to be collecting information on individuals either! What entity in the universe under the sun gave these dwebes the right to "subject" the masses to their whims? If anything is done - the Government should be making laws against the collection of the data on individuals like they are supposed to be doing - but, instead they are attacking the people. When was the last time you beat up the people in a neighborhood because they were getting thrashed by a bully? Never! Why? Because you stopped the bully! So make no laws to impede or attack the people - but, make laws to control the corporations and businesses using the currency of said government. The corporations and businesses are in business to make money and need the protection of the government - so make laws to govern what smut (porn) and what personal information can be had by these corporations and businesses. And if one individual puts smut on the internet - that person's site will be public and the government can go get them. Leave the rest alone. In my opinion - anyone who thinks "subjection is "Okay"" agrees that you don't kill the mother because you don't like the baby. No! The mother lives and you grow the baby up and kill it in a war or brainwash it in college to kill itself or whatever else contrivention that may have use for it in making money. I think this way of thinking is wrong. Obviously the masses don't. I personally think you should go after the smut developers and the data archivist's. But, like one writer has submitted - "That these corporations collecting the data are themselves in bed with the government (CIA, FBI, etc.). He/She/It may be correct. After all - one always scratches the others back. No Government - No Corporations - No Databanks -- THIS DOES NOT MAKE MONEY!!! With all these Cardinals and Bishops being caught with their pants down (or the choirboys) whatever -- and the many, many government employees that have been caught committing crimes (stealing money, ******, drugs, porna, etc.) Do you really think there is some use for the entirity of humanity on the face of this planet when a person cannot (and this is a fact) trust their leaders in anyway or fashion to be good people that do good things? This is a pipe dream. The U.S. Government is a collection of the best criminal minds in the world and is the leanest, meanest killing machine ever to walk the planet and their job is to go after the masses and sort out the would be threats to said government and make money off them so as to grow ever bigger. A DYNAMIC governemt is what the U.S. is. A stale non-ambitious government wil die in today's world as it has always been in the past. These things will never change. So - regardless what we think, "SUBJECTION" is wrong - but, unfortunately that is the way of life on this rock and the universities, governments and ambitious people (wealthy) will always make sure it stays that way.
Posted by mabradford (36 comments )
Link Flag
Basically Numb to Subjection
You are probably a college graduate and that means you have had the highest level of brainwashing known to man. You have been made to believe that being subjected to the whims of another monkey on the rock is "okay". Well, it's not "okay" and it's not "okay" for Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL and whoever else builds these archives of information on people to be collecting information on individuals either! What entity in the universe under the sun gave these dwebes the right to "subject" the masses to their whims? If anything is done - the Government should be making laws against the collection of the data on individuals like they are supposed to be doing - but, instead they are attacking the people. When was the last time you beat up the people in a neighborhood because they were getting thrashed by a bully? Never! Why? Because you stopped the bully! So make no laws to impede or attack the people - but, make laws to control the corporations and businesses using the currency of said government. The corporations and businesses are in business to make money and need the protection of the government - so make laws to govern what smut (porn) and what personal information can be had by these corporations and businesses. And if one individual puts smut on the internet - that person's site will be public and the government can go get them. Leave the rest alone. In my opinion - anyone who thinks "subjection is "Okay"" agrees that you don't kill the mother because you don't like the baby. No! The mother lives and you grow the baby up and kill it in a war or brainwash it in college to kill itself or whatever else contrivention that may have use for it in making money. I think this way of thinking is wrong. Obviously the masses don't. I personally think you should go after the smut developers and the data archivist's. But, like one writer has submitted - "That these corporations collecting the data are themselves in bed with the government (CIA, FBI, etc.). He/She/It may be correct. After all - one always scratches the others back. No Government - No Corporations - No Databanks -- THIS DOES NOT MAKE MONEY!!! With all these Cardinals and Bishops being caught with their pants down (or the choirboys) whatever -- and the many, many government employees that have been caught committing crimes (stealing money, ******, drugs, porna, etc.) Do you really think there is some use for the entirity of humanity on the face of this planet when a person cannot (and this is a fact) trust their leaders in anyway or fashion to be good people that do good things? This is a pipe dream. The U.S. Government is a collection of the best criminal minds in the world and is the leanest, meanest killing machine ever to walk the planet and their job is to go after the masses and sort out the would be threats to said government and make money off them so as to grow ever bigger. A DYNAMIC governemt is what the U.S. is. A stale non-ambitious government wil die in today's world as it has always been in the past. These things will never change. So - regardless what we think, "SUBJECTION" is wrong - but, unfortunately that is the way of life on this rock and the universities, governments and ambitious people (wealthy) will always make sure it stays that way.
Posted by mabradford (36 comments )
Link Flag
Basically Numb to Subjection
You are probably a college graduate and that means you have had the highest level of brainwashing known to man. You have been made to believe that being subjected to the whims of another monkey on the rock is "okay". Well, it's not "okay" and it's not "okay" for Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL and whoever else builds these archives of information on people to be collecting information on individuals either! What entity in the universe under the sun gave these dwebes the right to "subject" the masses to their whims? If anything is done - the Government should be making laws against the collection of the data on individuals like they are supposed to be doing - but, instead they are attacking the people. When was the last time you beat up the people in a neighborhood because they were getting thrashed by a bully? Never! Why? Because you stopped the bully! So make no laws to impede or attack the people - but, make laws to control the corporations and businesses using the currency of said government. The corporations and businesses are in business to make money and need the protection of the government - so make laws to govern what smut (porn) and what personal information can be had by these corporations and businesses. And if one individual puts smut on the internet - that person's site will be public and the government can go get them. Leave the rest alone. In my opinion - anyone who thinks "subjection is "Okay"" agrees that you don't kill the mother because you don't like the baby. No! The mother lives and you grow the baby up and kill it in a war or brainwash it in college to kill itself or whatever else contrivention that may have use for it in making money. I think this way of thinking is wrong. Obviously the masses don't. I personally think you should go after the smut developers and the data archivist's. But, like one writer has submitted - "That these corporations collecting the data are themselves in bed with the government (CIA, FBI, etc.). He/She/It may be correct. After all - one always scratches the others back. No Government - No Corporations - No Databanks -- THIS DOES NOT MAKE MONEY!!! With all these Cardinals and Bishops being caught with their pants down (or the choirboys) whatever -- and the many, many government employees that have been caught committing crimes (stealing money, ******, drugs, porna, etc.) Do you really think there is some use for the entirity of humanity on the face of this planet when a person cannot (and this is a fact) trust their leaders in anyway or fashion to be good people that do good things? This is a pipe dream. The U.S. Government is a collection of the best criminal minds in the world and is the leanest, meanest killing machine ever to walk the planet and their job is to go after the masses and sort out the would be threats to said government and make money off them so as to grow ever bigger. A DYNAMIC governemt is what the U.S. is. A stale non-ambitious government wil die in today's world as it has always been in the past. These things will never change. So - regardless what we think, "SUBJECTION" is wrong - but, unfortunately that is the way of life on this rock and the universities, governments and ambitious people (wealthy) will always make sure it stays that way.
Posted by mabradford (36 comments )
Link Flag
A few points in response
"All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody."
REally? I thought that should be parents' role in keeping their children off pornography. It's a funny thing when conservatives keep ranting about smaller government, less control but they sings a different tune when Bush administration tries to have more power &#38; control.
Some other points,
-American kids already know about sex even before the internet ages.
-US government can't control what other countries web site decided to display
-There are more way to get x-rated flick, p2p, etc.
I applaud Google's effort to stand up on this issue
Posted by vhac (68 comments )
Link Flag
A few points to make
Before anyone gets their knickers in a knot over this article, there are a few points to make:

First, there is nothing "intrusive" about the government's request. Note that they only want search terms. So, while it's true that if you entered "my name is John Smith, 123 Maple Lane, Podunkville, Nebraska, and I'm looking for instructions on how to make an atomic bomb in my kitchen", you might be in danger of being found out, but I'm guessing not many people would actually do this. Or, if they did, it could be argued that anyone so idiotic deserves to be caught, since he'll probably blow himself (along with you and the rest of Podunkville) into Kingdom Come long before he ever gets the device built.

Second, it's to note that the article continues to perpetuate the myth that cookies provide "personal" information. Cookies mainly provide SYSTEM information, such as operating system, screen resolution, browser version, whether or not you have Flash enabled, etc. The only "personal" information is demographic, in that they also show which general area of the country you're located in by displaying your ISP. Actual "personal" information, such as your name, address, social security number, credit card number, phone number, passwords, etc, is the realm of spyware, viruses, trojans, worms and keyloggers.

It's also to note that the search engines, themselves, along with ICANN and Congress, are really the ones to blame that it's come to this. Remember the proposal that all x-rated sites be placed in the ".xxx" domain category? If ICANN and the major search engines had supported Congress to enact this, along with seriously stiff penalties for those who didn't comply, the entire problem would have been resolved. The search engines would simply filter out any domains ending in ".xxx" and that's that.

And, before you cry, "But how would I get my daily porno fix?!", remember sites like AdultCheck? You'd pay a small yearly premium with a credit card, thereby proving you're 21 years or older, and there are your .xxx sites, ready for perusal.

All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody.
Posted by Joe Bolt (62 comments )
Reply Link Flag
How dare you
"Much to do about nothing." That is such a cowards way out that people use to try and justify the Governments unwanted intrusion into peoples private lives. If we don't stand up against this, no one will.

They are taking a shotgun approach to try and justify their UnConstitutional law. Google, or any of the people who use Google are not specifically targetted. They want ALL data on EVERYONE which is unreasonable and wrong.

If they have someone specific in mind then they should get a supeona concerning that person. They should not do this broad unreasonable search and espect law abiding citizens to just sit back and let it happen.
Posted by Leppard (41 comments )
Link Flag
A few incorrect points
We are getting our knickers in a knot for good reason. This demand from the criminals in power has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILD PORN, it has to do with collecting information about law abiding US citizens. If you believe that the only information collected is innocent cookies you are very very ignorant of the real internet. IP addresses are collected and combined with ISP logs to give an exact list of users, addresses etc. NO Google doesn't do the combining but the criminals in DC will. Any sensitive information they wish to collect is always put under the child porn banner so that if anyone opposes their absolute power they can condemn them as pedophiles. Sadly morons and retards believe this and jump on the traitors bandwagon. Also just a note on your google doesn't care statement. DUH!!!!!!! With yahoo groups being sued for child porn groups etc, every online service is very careful about staying on the safe side of the law. Google just understands that this bogus demand is just that. BOGUS!! Get a brain and get off the retard bandwagon.
Posted by nothingavailable (53 comments )
Link Flag
rep[ly to: " a few points to make
joe,
you must be purer than caesars wife. no skeletons in your closet, eh?
but whether there are or not, the gov't has no right to information that is not the genesis of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. every law enforcement agency would love to have the right to go on fishing expeditions for crime. ever hear of the 4th amendment and due process?

submission to govt's ever reaching intrusions leads us down the path to orwellian encroachments on our valued right to privacy.

this administration is the most corrupt and disrespectful of its citizens constitutional rights since the last president who resigned from office for breaches of the constitution.

perhaps we can impeach this dolt post november elections.

it's unimaginable to me that americans can be so fearful of terror attacks that they would willingly sacrifice the protections the constitution affords its citizens from overreaching government in the name of security.
Posted by ttsoprano (4 comments )
Link Flag
Fishing expedition?
The fact that the information includes the resulting URL's means that this amounts to a fishing expedition to find others to pursue (website owners)- without the full due process of law. No search warrant would be issued for this.

As for Mr Bolt's assertion that the .xxx domain would solve the problem, that is a non-starter. Who would get the .xxx domain for a given name - the owner of the .com, .net, .us, .org? How could this be enforced under country level domains - can (and should) the US control the rest of the world (dubya appears to think they should)? The most that could be done legally from an international standpoint is that a new .xxx.us domain name is introduced and all US based porn companies are forced to use it.

Just my 2 euro cents worth.

Stuart
Posted by stuartindigo (9 comments )
Link Flag
www.google.xxx
If they had the .xxx TLD, you would see Google provide a search engine www.google.xxx that would limit the scope of searches to this TLD.

Companies like Google should support such a move, it's a good way to increase their profits by providing a niche service very easily.
Posted by zaznet (1138 comments )
Link Flag
Basically Numb to Subjection
You are probably a college graduate and that means you have had the highest level of brainwashing known to man. You have been made to believe that being subjected to the whims of another monkey on the rock is "okay". Well, it's not "okay" and it's not "okay" for Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL and whoever else builds these archives of information on people to be collecting information on individuals either! What entity in the universe under the sun gave these dwebes the right to "subject" the masses to their whims? If anything is done - the Government should be making laws against the collection of the data on individuals like they are supposed to be doing - but, instead they are attacking the people. When was the last time you beat up the people in a neighborhood because they were getting thrashed by a bully? Never! Why? Because you stopped the bully! So make no laws to impede or attack the people - but, make laws to control the corporations and businesses using the currency of said government. The corporations and businesses are in business to make money and need the protection of the government - so make laws to govern what smut (porn) and what personal information can be had by these corporations and businesses. And if one individual puts smut on the internet - that person's site will be public and the government can go get them. Leave the rest alone. In my opinion - anyone who thinks "subjection is "Okay"" agrees that you don't kill the mother because you don't like the baby. No! The mother lives and you grow the baby up and kill it in a war or brainwash it in college to kill itself or whatever else contrivention that may have use for it in making money. I think this way of thinking is wrong. Obviously the masses don't. I personally think you should go after the smut developers and the data archivist's. But, like one writer has submitted - "That these corporations collecting the data are themselves in bed with the government (CIA, FBI, etc.). He/She/It may be correct. After all - one always scratches the others back. No Government - No Corporations - No Databanks -- THIS DOES NOT MAKE MONEY!!! With all these Cardinals and Bishops being caught with their pants down (or the choirboys) whatever -- and the many, many government employees that have been caught committing crimes (stealing money, ******, drugs, porna, etc.) Do you really think there is some use for the entirity of humanity on the face of this planet when a person cannot (and this is a fact) trust their leaders in anyway or fashion to be good people that do good things? This is a pipe dream. The U.S. Government is a collection of the best criminal minds in the world and is the leanest, meanest killing machine ever to walk the planet and their job is to go after the masses and sort out the would be threats to said government and make money off them so as to grow ever bigger. A DYNAMIC governemt is what the U.S. is. A stale non-ambitious government wil die in today's world as it has always been in the past. These things will never change. So - regardless what we think, "SUBJECTION" is wrong - but, unfortunately that is the way of life on this rock and the universities, governments and ambitious people (wealthy) will always make sure it stays that way.
Posted by mabradford (36 comments )
Link Flag
Basically Numb to Subjection
You are probably a college graduate and that means you have had the highest level of brainwashing known to man. You have been made to believe that being subjected to the whims of another monkey on the rock is "okay". Well, it's not "okay" and it's not "okay" for Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL and whoever else builds these archives of information on people to be collecting information on individuals either! What entity in the universe under the sun gave these dwebes the right to "subject" the masses to their whims? If anything is done - the Government should be making laws against the collection of the data on individuals like they are supposed to be doing - but, instead they are attacking the people. When was the last time you beat up the people in a neighborhood because they were getting thrashed by a bully? Never! Why? Because you stopped the bully! So make no laws to impede or attack the people - but, make laws to control the corporations and businesses using the currency of said government. The corporations and businesses are in business to make money and need the protection of the government - so make laws to govern what smut (porn) and what personal information can be had by these corporations and businesses. And if one individual puts smut on the internet - that person's site will be public and the government can go get them. Leave the rest alone. In my opinion - anyone who thinks "subjection is "Okay"" agrees that you don't kill the mother because you don't like the baby. No! The mother lives and you grow the baby up and kill it in a war or brainwash it in college to kill itself or whatever else contrivention that may have use for it in making money. I think this way of thinking is wrong. Obviously the masses don't. I personally think you should go after the smut developers and the data archivist's. But, like one writer has submitted - "That these corporations collecting the data are themselves in bed with the government (CIA, FBI, etc.). He/She/It may be correct. After all - one always scratches the others back. No Government - No Corporations - No Databanks -- THIS DOES NOT MAKE MONEY!!! With all these Cardinals and Bishops being caught with their pants down (or the choirboys) whatever -- and the many, many government employees that have been caught committing crimes (stealing money, ******, drugs, porna, etc.) Do you really think there is some use for the entirity of humanity on the face of this planet when a person cannot (and this is a fact) trust their leaders in anyway or fashion to be good people that do good things? This is a pipe dream. The U.S. Government is a collection of the best criminal minds in the world and is the leanest, meanest killing machine ever to walk the planet and their job is to go after the masses and sort out the would be threats to said government and make money off them so as to grow ever bigger. A DYNAMIC governemt is what the U.S. is. A stale non-ambitious government wil die in today's world as it has always been in the past. These things will never change. So - regardless what we think, "SUBJECTION" is wrong - but, unfortunately that is the way of life on this rock and the universities, governments and ambitious people (wealthy) will always make sure it stays that way.
Posted by mabradford (36 comments )
Link Flag
Basically Numb to Subjection
You are probably a college graduate and that means you have had the highest level of brainwashing known to man. You have been made to believe that being subjected to the whims of another monkey on the rock is "okay". Well, it's not "okay" and it's not "okay" for Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, AOL and whoever else builds these archives of information on people to be collecting information on individuals either! What entity in the universe under the sun gave these dwebes the right to "subject" the masses to their whims? If anything is done - the Government should be making laws against the collection of the data on individuals like they are supposed to be doing - but, instead they are attacking the people. When was the last time you beat up the people in a neighborhood because they were getting thrashed by a bully? Never! Why? Because you stopped the bully! So make no laws to impede or attack the people - but, make laws to control the corporations and businesses using the currency of said government. The corporations and businesses are in business to make money and need the protection of the government - so make laws to govern what smut (porn) and what personal information can be had by these corporations and businesses. And if one individual puts smut on the internet - that person's site will be public and the government can go get them. Leave the rest alone. In my opinion - anyone who thinks "subjection is "Okay"" agrees that you don't kill the mother because you don't like the baby. No! The mother lives and you grow the baby up and kill it in a war or brainwash it in college to kill itself or whatever else contrivention that may have use for it in making money. I think this way of thinking is wrong. Obviously the masses don't. I personally think you should go after the smut developers and the data archivist's. But, like one writer has submitted - "That these corporations collecting the data are themselves in bed with the government (CIA, FBI, etc.). He/She/It may be correct. After all - one always scratches the others back. No Government - No Corporations - No Databanks -- THIS DOES NOT MAKE MONEY!!! With all these Cardinals and Bishops being caught with their pants down (or the choirboys) whatever -- and the many, many government employees that have been caught committing crimes (stealing money, ******, drugs, porna, etc.) Do you really think there is some use for the entirity of humanity on the face of this planet when a person cannot (and this is a fact) trust their leaders in anyway or fashion to be good people that do good things? This is a pipe dream. The U.S. Government is a collection of the best criminal minds in the world and is the leanest, meanest killing machine ever to walk the planet and their job is to go after the masses and sort out the would be threats to said government and make money off them so as to grow ever bigger. A DYNAMIC governemt is what the U.S. is. A stale non-ambitious government wil die in today's world as it has always been in the past. These things will never change. So - regardless what we think, "SUBJECTION" is wrong - but, unfortunately that is the way of life on this rock and the universities, governments and ambitious people (wealthy) will always make sure it stays that way.
Posted by mabradford (36 comments )
Link Flag
A few points in response
"All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody."
REally? I thought that should be parents' role in keeping their children off pornography. It's a funny thing when conservatives keep ranting about smaller government, less control but they sings a different tune when Bush administration tries to have more power &#38; control.
Some other points,
-American kids already know about sex even before the internet ages.
-US government can't control what other countries web site decided to display
-There are more way to get x-rated flick, p2p, etc.
I applaud Google's effort to stand up on this issue
Posted by vhac (68 comments )
Link Flag
Privacy? What are you people doing?
Whenever the government does anything besides just wait for terrorists and pornographers to turn themselves in, people come out of the woodwork with their panties in a wad crying PRIVACY!

What in God's name are you people doing on the internet that is so private? Are you afraid that the search term "kiddie porn" is going to lead to your house?

I'll vote for the safety of kids over and above the privacy of perverts anyday!
Posted by nrambeck (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Parental Responsibility
If Parents were doing more to build relationships with their kids, teach them right from wrong and make sure they're not becoming obese instead of allowing them to hibernate in their bedrooms on the computer we wouldn't have as much to worry about. PEOPLE....as much as we fear the kiddie porn stalkers, kids have to get on the internet via a computer and internet connection that PARENTS SUPPLY.

We've become such a country of passing our responsibilities off to others, it's no wonder people are willing to let the government come in and take over. These are the same people arguing conservative values and limited government but are willing to let government increase in size and influence at the same time. Maybe we should start punishing parents directly when their children go places they're not supposed to on the internet..NOW THAT'S AN IDEA...let's monitor their behavior and punish parents when their children go places online that are dangerous!

What do you say about Government Safety now?
Posted by hickeyja (5 comments )
Link Flag
And you probably believe in Santa too
Magic words, "Protect the Children" also try "Trust Me" and "The Government has our best interests at heart" and how about the old stanby "Kill a commie for Christ" and "We've always had them and always will" in regard to the Bill of Rights.

Remember, Such things as the constitution are hard to write, taking much study, but easy to tear up, taking only two hands. Putting it back together is much harder.

People like you seem to say "Sure, go ahead" to tearing it bits off the constitution. Fine, if it will "Save our Children."

And then, in twenty or thirty years, the children will say "What did you save us for? For this?"

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Link Flag
Thinking Critically
Sensational as the idea may be, it is time to think before we act. What has the terrorist precausions added to our country? We are in a position now that we must have "our papers in order" to travel. Watch out your name is on "their" list! You must be a "subversive". Does this smack of freedom, think! Take away our privacy so we will be safe from what, from who? That is your choice not theirs! Start making that choice. Quit giving up your rights so that you don't have to think about it. What is the cost of freedom? It is time we answer that question?
Posted by karenchrist (10 comments )
Link Flag
Thank you for a excellent example!
Thanks to Nathan Rambeck for an excellent example of the way an authoritarian government justifies repressive tactics.
The current controversy has absolutely nothing to do with kiddie porn or with terrorists, but these are certainly important straw men that are used to influence the public.
The current controversy is about criminalizing *any Web content* that the Government considers harmful for children to view. That could include the visual arts, political opinions, science (e.g., evolution), fiction, ... virtually anything. But they've got Nathan's vote, because he's been sold a meritricious justification.
Does anybody remember when the reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction?
Posted by hscohen (3 comments )
Link Flag
Ever search for Osama or Al Qaida?
You could be labeled an "enemy combatant", have yourself rendered to Syria and tortured. Just because you wanted to find out what Osama Bin Laden's latest audio tape says.

Bush has to be stopped.
Posted by SteveBarry687 (170 comments )
Link Flag
Not everyone concerned about privacy is a child pornographer
Read:
Uninvited marketing,
Identity theft,
Electronic harrassment,
Stalking,
Political muckraking,
Blackmail,
etc, etc...
Posted by nsmeaton (2 comments )
Link Flag
Privacy? What are you people doing?
Whenever the government does anything besides just wait for terrorists and pornographers to turn themselves in, people come out of the woodwork with their panties in a wad crying PRIVACY!

What in God's name are you people doing on the internet that is so private? Are you afraid that the search term "kiddie porn" is going to lead to your house?

I'll vote for the safety of kids over and above the privacy of perverts anyday!
Posted by nrambeck (12 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Parental Responsibility
If Parents were doing more to build relationships with their kids, teach them right from wrong and make sure they're not becoming obese instead of allowing them to hibernate in their bedrooms on the computer we wouldn't have as much to worry about. PEOPLE....as much as we fear the kiddie porn stalkers, kids have to get on the internet via a computer and internet connection that PARENTS SUPPLY.

We've become such a country of passing our responsibilities off to others, it's no wonder people are willing to let the government come in and take over. These are the same people arguing conservative values and limited government but are willing to let government increase in size and influence at the same time. Maybe we should start punishing parents directly when their children go places they're not supposed to on the internet..NOW THAT'S AN IDEA...let's monitor their behavior and punish parents when their children go places online that are dangerous!

What do you say about Government Safety now?
Posted by hickeyja (5 comments )
Link Flag
And you probably believe in Santa too
Magic words, "Protect the Children" also try "Trust Me" and "The Government has our best interests at heart" and how about the old stanby "Kill a commie for Christ" and "We've always had them and always will" in regard to the Bill of Rights.

Remember, Such things as the constitution are hard to write, taking much study, but easy to tear up, taking only two hands. Putting it back together is much harder.

People like you seem to say "Sure, go ahead" to tearing it bits off the constitution. Fine, if it will "Save our Children."

And then, in twenty or thirty years, the children will say "What did you save us for? For this?"

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Link Flag
Thinking Critically
Sensational as the idea may be, it is time to think before we act. What has the terrorist precausions added to our country? We are in a position now that we must have "our papers in order" to travel. Watch out your name is on "their" list! You must be a "subversive". Does this smack of freedom, think! Take away our privacy so we will be safe from what, from who? That is your choice not theirs! Start making that choice. Quit giving up your rights so that you don't have to think about it. What is the cost of freedom? It is time we answer that question?
Posted by karenchrist (10 comments )
Link Flag
Thank you for a excellent example!
Thanks to Nathan Rambeck for an excellent example of the way an authoritarian government justifies repressive tactics.
The current controversy has absolutely nothing to do with kiddie porn or with terrorists, but these are certainly important straw men that are used to influence the public.
The current controversy is about criminalizing *any Web content* that the Government considers harmful for children to view. That could include the visual arts, political opinions, science (e.g., evolution), fiction, ... virtually anything. But they've got Nathan's vote, because he's been sold a meritricious justification.
Does anybody remember when the reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction?
Posted by hscohen (3 comments )
Link Flag
Ever search for Osama or Al Qaida?
You could be labeled an "enemy combatant", have yourself rendered to Syria and tortured. Just because you wanted to find out what Osama Bin Laden's latest audio tape says.

Bush has to be stopped.
Posted by SteveBarry687 (170 comments )
Link Flag
Not everyone concerned about privacy is a child pornographer
Read:
Uninvited marketing,
Identity theft,
Electronic harrassment,
Stalking,
Political muckraking,
Blackmail,
etc, etc...
Posted by nsmeaton (2 comments )
Link Flag
Enough Is Enough
Enough is enough! This is America. Our Government simply SHOULD NOT monitor our citizen's behavior...PERIOD. These people asking what's the big deal -- well, there's nothing to keep the government from asking for IP addresses as a next step and identifying personal information about users. Where does it stop? This is exactly what we complain about re: Communism and dictatorships -- the government controlling its citizens behavior - what they research, read and do. Kudo's to Google and let's hope others have the integrity to say "Enough Is Enough".

I wonder what the government used to influence Yahoo, AOL and MSFT to turn the data over so quickly? MSFT has spent years fighting the government's challenges on its products, there must be some reason they'd cooperate with a government request without any challenge.
Posted by hickeyja (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Enough Is Enough
Enough is enough! This is America. Our Government simply SHOULD NOT monitor our citizen's behavior...PERIOD. These people asking what's the big deal -- well, there's nothing to keep the government from asking for IP addresses as a next step and identifying personal information about users. Where does it stop? This is exactly what we complain about re: Communism and dictatorships -- the government controlling its citizens behavior - what they research, read and do. Kudo's to Google and let's hope others have the integrity to say "Enough Is Enough".

I wonder what the government used to influence Yahoo, AOL and MSFT to turn the data over so quickly? MSFT has spent years fighting the government's challenges on its products, there must be some reason they'd cooperate with a government request without any challenge.
Posted by hickeyja (5 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Look you Idiots in Washington
Here we are, trying to stop individuals and advertising companies from screwing with our privacy, even writing Congressmen for help.

What do you do? Why you do it yourselves. Where the hell did we go wrong? I'm glad there aren't any of us guys in your human Congress. I like to think rats are more honorable and ethical than that.

And of course, get even dirtier and mention it's for the benefit of children, as thought that excuse isn't used for everything.

It's always to save the children. Bullcrap.

And we're supposed to trust you. More Bullcrap.

Yeah, I look at pictures of naked rodents, so what? I'm an adult rat.

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Look you Idiots in Washington
Here we are, trying to stop individuals and advertising companies from screwing with our privacy, even writing Congressmen for help.

What do you do? Why you do it yourselves. Where the hell did we go wrong? I'm glad there aren't any of us guys in your human Congress. I like to think rats are more honorable and ethical than that.

And of course, get even dirtier and mention it's for the benefit of children, as thought that excuse isn't used for everything.

It's always to save the children. Bullcrap.

And we're supposed to trust you. More Bullcrap.

Yeah, I look at pictures of naked rodents, so what? I'm an adult rat.

Oscar Rat
Posted by Oscar Rat (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Stupid execs.....
Why keep the search queries anyway? The simple solution is to feed the queries to a service that analyzes each query and stores data about the query only (to be used by the search engine to produce better results).

There is no logical reason for keeping searcher tracking info or even actual searches in a database that can be subject to a supoena.

It costs less corporate $$ to only store characteristics of a search instead of the actual searches themselves. If the search engines really wanted to protect your privacy, they wouldn't keep the actual search info in the first place.
Posted by Jim Hubbard (326 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Stupid execs.....
Why keep the search queries anyway? The simple solution is to feed the queries to a service that analyzes each query and stores data about the query only (to be used by the search engine to produce better results).

There is no logical reason for keeping searcher tracking info or even actual searches in a database that can be subject to a supoena.

It costs less corporate $$ to only store characteristics of a search instead of the actual searches themselves. If the search engines really wanted to protect your privacy, they wouldn't keep the actual search info in the first place.
Posted by Jim Hubbard (326 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Hoax: Google is in same bed as CIA & NSA
This is utter an Hoax that the US government is asking Google for search data. Because the same people (financing) that are behind the CIA, NSA are behind Google (and Yahoo).
That is just as it is the job of CIA &#38; NSA to eves drop on people worldwide, and assist the US government to dominate the world, same is the job
of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.
So when you hear that US government has subpoenaed Google it is a Hoax to fool the people to think that Google is a champion of people and privacy, when in fact Google (and Yahoo) are in the same gang as CIA &#38; NSA.
Now as bad as this is for the people of the USA, it is far worst for us here in Europe and elsewhere. It is high time for our so called leaders here in Europe to realize that it is extremely dangerous, it is against our national
interests, to have our "eye balls" owned by few giant US search (media) companies. It is high time for us here in Europe to have our search engines based here in Europe, in our own countries. Just as we get our news from news sources here in Germany, and other
countries in Europe, from our people in our languages, same must be the case in regard to the all important search engine information.
Just say NO to Google &#38; Yahoo, say NO to Big Brother (CIA, NSA, US government), say YES to search engines from your countries.
Posted by peter2009 (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Evil USA...
Please put a stop to the evil USA, send in the French!!!
Posted by zaznet (1138 comments )
Link Flag
Save me! I'm a victim!
Owned by US media companies? HA! That's rich. Sure... boycott FREE media because you can't filter and think critically on your own. Perhaps you'd prefer to receive your media from North Korea... or China...? Who tied you down and forced you to use abusive services? Hey... why don't we just attack all of the most advanced countries because the media doesn't support your position? I mean... if they aren't saying exactly what you want to hear, then they are abusive and biased, no doubt. ...sheesh.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Hoax: Google is in same bed as CIA & NSA
This is utter an Hoax that the US government is asking Google for search data. Because the same people (financing) that are behind the CIA, NSA are behind Google (and Yahoo).
That is just as it is the job of CIA &#38; NSA to eves drop on people worldwide, and assist the US government to dominate the world, same is the job
of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.
So when you hear that US government has subpoenaed Google it is a Hoax to fool the people to think that Google is a champion of people and privacy, when in fact Google (and Yahoo) are in the same gang as CIA &#38; NSA.
Now as bad as this is for the people of the USA, it is far worst for us here in Europe and elsewhere. It is high time for our so called leaders here in Europe to realize that it is extremely dangerous, it is against our national
interests, to have our "eye balls" owned by few giant US search (media) companies. It is high time for us here in Europe to have our search engines based here in Europe, in our own countries. Just as we get our news from news sources here in Germany, and other
countries in Europe, from our people in our languages, same must be the case in regard to the all important search engine information.
Just say NO to Google &#38; Yahoo, say NO to Big Brother (CIA, NSA, US government), say YES to search engines from your countries.
Posted by peter2009 (3 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Evil USA...
Please put a stop to the evil USA, send in the French!!!
Posted by zaznet (1138 comments )
Link Flag
Save me! I'm a victim!
Owned by US media companies? HA! That's rich. Sure... boycott FREE media because you can't filter and think critically on your own. Perhaps you'd prefer to receive your media from North Korea... or China...? Who tied you down and forced you to use abusive services? Hey... why don't we just attack all of the most advanced countries because the media doesn't support your position? I mean... if they aren't saying exactly what you want to hear, then they are abusive and biased, no doubt. ...sheesh.
Posted by David Arbogast (1709 comments )
Link Flag
Google and DOJ
The gov't is fully capable of sampling the internet and determining what can be found by searches. It appears to me they are tryig to "steal" the work of Google and others, rather than doing the work or paying for it. I do not have any rosy expectations of privacy regarding the internet.
Posted by jpg366 (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
To whom it may concern
Whatever happens between the Justice Dept and Google begs the overall problem of trying to reach anyone in the Google Company. Google is not a transparent company and hides behind a vast number of sites that frustrate the user until they just give up.
I submit to the Justice Dept. that Google should list People that can be reached without going crazy trying to make ones way through a jungle of sites that get you nowhere.Google is very adept at protecting it's own Privacy to sheild it's self from customer complaints regarding their botched services.

Thank you
Posted by cookiepup (2 comments )
Link Flag
Google and DOJ
The gov't is fully capable of sampling the internet and determining what can be found by searches. It appears to me they are tryig to "steal" the work of Google and others, rather than doing the work or paying for it. I do not have any rosy expectations of privacy regarding the internet.
Posted by jpg366 (6 comments )
Reply Link Flag
privacy
It looks like the white house has freedom of information and privacy confused. They think you are free to provide all information they want and they are free to take it at will!
Posted by dparsonswv (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
privacy
It looks like the white house has freedom of information and privacy confused. They think you are free to provide all information they want and they are free to take it at will!
Posted by dparsonswv (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Possible Government Abuse Scenario
What if some young student in class has some offbase belief that his teacher may be a pedophile.. for example and types in

"Teacher John Richards and Atlanta and Pedophile" as a search term to see if anything comes up.. this "WOULD" be in the government report..

While there may be no qualifying evidence, no qualifying history, or any basis of any kind for this belief to be valid...

the government now has easily identiable information, through a little bit of research, that this John Richards (John Doe) is potentially a pedophile and that kids may be in danger..

the government may then choose to take action to alert the school to a "potential" unsafe situation involving having this teacher around children, which in turn may result in him being fired, and then investigated for being a pedophile..

the police may then issue a search warrant may for "probable cause" and anything illegal they find in his house can be used against him, and the next thing is, he is in prison from the results of the seizure of the search warrant..

just a scenario of this "harmless" action..

slowly and more slowly our freedoms are being taken and chipped away.. sounds like 9/11 just gave the government a valid reason to completely intrude on our lives, as if they are thankful for the deaths of thousands...

they are taking advantage of the deaths of thousands for their advantage.. thanks US of A..

nowonder everyone hates us..
Posted by markerone (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Possible Government Abuse Scenario
What if some young student in class has some offbase belief that his teacher may be a pedophile.. for example and types in

"Teacher John Richards and Atlanta and Pedophile" as a search term to see if anything comes up.. this "WOULD" be in the government report..

While there may be no qualifying evidence, no qualifying history, or any basis of any kind for this belief to be valid...

the government now has easily identiable information, through a little bit of research, that this John Richards (John Doe) is potentially a pedophile and that kids may be in danger..

the government may then choose to take action to alert the school to a "potential" unsafe situation involving having this teacher around children, which in turn may result in him being fired, and then investigated for being a pedophile..

the police may then issue a search warrant may for "probable cause" and anything illegal they find in his house can be used against him, and the next thing is, he is in prison from the results of the seizure of the search warrant..

just a scenario of this "harmless" action..

slowly and more slowly our freedoms are being taken and chipped away.. sounds like 9/11 just gave the government a valid reason to completely intrude on our lives, as if they are thankful for the deaths of thousands...

they are taking advantage of the deaths of thousands for their advantage.. thanks US of A..

nowonder everyone hates us..
Posted by markerone (2 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Cognitive dissonance...
This whole scenario doesn't add up. Why ask
multiple search providers for the information
when a statistically valid sample can be had
from just one? The additional data points won't
add much.

How is it that subpoenas are being issued
without any related court proceeding
(particularly without one to which the recipient
is attached)?

Ostensibly, they are interested in queries
related to child pornography, but the government
is uniquely cognizant of the terms and methods
that would be used for this purpose (being in
possession of all the computers of everyone ever
arrested for that), so what more can they hope
to get?

Presumably, it would require an employee of the
company to extract the requested information
from their systems and turn it over to the
government -- an expense of time, effort, and
possibly service quality. So, the federal
government can now commandeer you or your
resources for political purposes?

And what of the government motive? The reasons
COPA had been declared unconstitutional in the
lower courts was pretty clear cut from the
ruling. Traditionally, one would simply retool
the law to accommodate the objections and try
again. The DOJ shouldn't care since they enforce
the law, not make it, and certainly similar
legislation would come up again.

The only rational motive would be if the DOJ
wanted to avoid putting the ball back in the
legislative branch's court and if they felt they
had a lock on the higher court to side with them
(it didn't come up during the hearing, but
Samuel Alito's record shows that he always sides
with the federal government in questions of
government authority). Even then, the only
reason to push it is if they want the parts
deemed unconstitutional in the first place
(prior restraint and right to censor without
regard to content and without oversight).

Either we're being misled (possibly not
intentionally) about what's going on (likely) or
that the DOJ has a sinister agenda.

Personally, if I were Google, I'd just make up
the information -- plainly state that I can't
vouch for the accuracy or completeness -- and
let them go on their way. In many ways,
providing disinformation would be more effective
than providing none at all.
Posted by Zymurgist (397 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: Cognitive dissonance
My paranoia leads me to the following analysis:

If the government wants to prevent children from surfing the net
for porn sites, this is the responsibility of parents. The
government has no right to decreee what an adult can or cannot
see. So much for who logs into these sites.

If they want to disuade child porn sites... why don't they log
into them themselves and find out who they are? The search
string is really not that complicated.

In the past when I looked for "jobs" I came across quite a strange
number of sites. What would concern me is this scenario: I am
now in politics and someone is able to prove that I viewed a
particular site which could damage my reputation. Prove that I
was just looking for a job.
Posted by aravaca (2 comments )
Link Flag
Cognitive dissonance...
This whole scenario doesn't add up. Why ask
multiple search providers for the information
when a statistically valid sample can be had
from just one? The additional data points won't
add much.

How is it that subpoenas are being issued
without any related court proceeding
(particularly without one to which the recipient
is attached)?

Ostensibly, they are interested in queries
related to child pornography, but the government
is uniquely cognizant of the terms and methods
that would be used for this purpose (being in
possession of all the computers of everyone ever
arrested for that), so what more can they hope
to get?

Presumably, it would require an employee of the
company to extract the requested information
from their systems and turn it over to the
government -- an expense of time, effort, and
possibly service quality. So, the federal
government can now commandeer you or your
resources for political purposes?

And what of the government motive? The reasons
COPA had been declared unconstitutional in the
lower courts was pretty clear cut from the
ruling. Traditionally, one would simply retool
the law to accommodate the objections and try
again. The DOJ shouldn't care since they enforce
the law, not make it, and certainly similar
legislation would come up again.

The only rational motive would be if the DOJ
wanted to avoid putting the ball back in the
legislative branch's court and if they felt they
had a lock on the higher court to side with them
(it didn't come up during the hearing, but
Samuel Alito's record shows that he always sides
with the federal government in questions of
government authority). Even then, the only
reason to push it is if they want the parts
deemed unconstitutional in the first place
(prior restraint and right to censor without
regard to content and without oversight).

Either we're being misled (possibly not
intentionally) about what's going on (likely) or
that the DOJ has a sinister agenda.

Personally, if I were Google, I'd just make up
the information -- plainly state that I can't
vouch for the accuracy or completeness -- and
let them go on their way. In many ways,
providing disinformation would be more effective
than providing none at all.
Posted by Zymurgist (397 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Re: Cognitive dissonance
My paranoia leads me to the following analysis:

If the government wants to prevent children from surfing the net
for porn sites, this is the responsibility of parents. The
government has no right to decreee what an adult can or cannot
see. So much for who logs into these sites.

If they want to disuade child porn sites... why don't they log
into them themselves and find out who they are? The search
string is really not that complicated.

In the past when I looked for "jobs" I came across quite a strange
number of sites. What would concern me is this scenario: I am
now in politics and someone is able to prove that I viewed a
particular site which could damage my reputation. Prove that I
was just looking for a job.
Posted by aravaca (2 comments )
Link Flag
Enough!
They are getting out of hand. Are they doing this just to see if people search Al-Quida and clues of getting all of Al-Quida and Bin Laden? Could of had him if we weren't so busy getting Saddam. Vote Democrat in 2008!
Posted by pentium4forever (192 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Read the article!
You obviously haven't read it yet. Like many you get bent out of shape from the subject line and make wild assumptions.

The information requested is being used to determine if minors have easy access to pornography. The data returned COULD be used to spur other investigations or requests to identify an individual.

The real worry here is that these search results are being provided by the companies the DoJ requested logs from. Should the law be upheld these companies could be found guilty of violating the law by the very evidence they provide. I think this is what has Google so worried. If they use the 5th amendment in court, you will know that's the case.
Posted by zaznet (1138 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.