Feds take porn fight to Google

Federal prosecutors preparing to defend a controversial Internet pornography law in court have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to hand over millions of search records--a request that Google is adamantly denying.

In court documents filed Wednesday, the Bush administration asked a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., to force Google to comply with a subpoena for the information, which would reveal the search terms of a broad swath of the search engine's visitors.

Listen up

News.com reporter Elinor Mills talks with Kurt Opsahl of the Electronic Frontier Foundation about privacy and the government's Google request.
Listen now... (2.2MB mp3)

Prosecutors are requesting a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through Google's popular search engine, and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted to Google over a one-week period.

Google said in a statement sent to CNET News.com on Thursday that it will resist the request "vigorously."

The Bush administration's request, first reported by The San Jose Mercury News, is part of its attempts to defend the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which is being challenged in court in Philadelphia by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU says Web sites cannot realistically comply with COPA and that the law violates the right to freedom of speech mandated by the First Amendment.

The search engine companies are not parties to the suit.

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

An attorney for the ACLU said Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL received identical subpoenas and chose to comply with them rather than fight the request in court.

Yahoo acknowledged on Thursday that it complied with the Justice Department's request but said no personally identifiable information was handed over. "We are vigorous defenders of our users' privacy," said Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako. "We did not provide any personal information in response to the Justice Department's subpoena. In our opinion this is not a privacy issue."

Osako declined to provide details, but court documents in the Google case show that the government has been demanding "the text of each search string entered" by users over a time period of between one week and two months, plus a listing of Web sites taken from the search engine's index.

"Our understanding is that MSN and AOL have complied with the government's request, that Yahoo has provided some information in response, but that information wasn't completely satisfactory (according to) the government," ACLU staff attorney Aden Fine said.

Jack Samad, senior vice president for the National Coalition for Protection of Children and Families, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based advocacy group, said search engines should be willing to help the Bush administration defend the law.

"Young people are experiencing broken lives after being exposed to adult images and behaviors on the Internet," Samad said. "I'm disappointed Google did not want to exercise its good corporate branding to secure the protection of youth. I think (complying with the subpoena) would substantiate the basis of COPA if they get a free exchange of information on youthful use of the Internet."

AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein confirmed that the company received a subpoena from the DOJ but said the information from the ACLU was not accurate.

"We did not and would not comply with such a subpoena. We gave (the DOJ) a generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly one day period. There were absolutely no privacy implications," Weinstein said. "There was no way to tie those search terms to individuals or to search results." He declined to elaborate.

A Microsoft representative said: "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested....It is our policy to respond to legal requests in a very responsive and timely manner, in full compliance with applicable law." The company would not confirm or deny whether it complied with the Justice Department's subpoena.

But in a statement released later in the day Thursday, Microsoft said it was, in fact, contacted by the DOJ.

"We did comply with their request for data in regards to helping protect children, in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers," the company said. "We were able to share aggregated query data (not search results) that did not include any personally identifiable information, at their request."

Alberto Gonzales v. Google: the docs

Court documents reveal that the Justice Department has been pressuring Google for excerpts from its search logs for half a year. Prosecutors hope to use the excerpts to show that filtering software can't protect children online.

Government subpoena and Google's objection (186K pdf)

Motion to require Google to comply (660K pdf)

Declaration of Philip Stark, government statistics expert (1.1M pdf)

In a motion filed Wednesday (click here for PDF), prosecutors say that compliance is necessary to prove that the 1998 law is "more effective than filtering software in protecting minors from exposure to harmful materials on the Internet." Records from search logs would help to understand the behavior of Web users and estimate how frequently they encounter pornography, the motion says. For instance, Internet addresses obtained from the search engines could be tested against filtering programs to evaluate their effectiveness.

A subpoena dated August 2005 (click here for PDF) requests a complete list of all Internet addresses that can "be located" through Google's popular search engine, and "all queries that have been entered" over a two-month period beginning on June 1, 2005. Later, prosecutors offered to narrow the request to random samples of indexed sites and search strings. It's unclear what version of the request AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo complied with.

Although the government is not asking for Internet addresses that would identify people, some legal experts fear that disclosing search terms would invade privacy.

"The more (the government) can figure out who the surfers are, the more people's First Amendment rights are in jeopardy," said Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University.

The Justice Department declined to comment on Thursday. But in court papers, it says that even though other search companies voluntarily complied, excerpts from Google's logs are "of value to the government" because it has the "largest share of the Web search market."

To analyze the logs, the Justice Department has hired Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley. Stark said in a statement that analyzing information from Google would let him "estimate the prevalence of harmful-to-minors" and the "effectiveness of content filters" in blocking it.

[tryoneon]

Another Case of trying to legislate morality

I guess GWB and crew want to take peoples minds off of all the bribery going on in their group and use porn as a distraction. This is a behavioral extension of people wanting total control and is right up there with the Patriotic act for limiting liberty. I thought Republicans were for limiting Government into peoples lives? What is next, making people take lie detector test to see if they are morally acceptable? What a wolf in sheeps clothing! All I see this doing is eventually creating some type of civil war between the holier than thou's and people that want their privacy and liberty further dividing our country.

[David Arbogast]

GOOD!

Child pornography is morally wrong, and it SHOULD be legislated. Your freedoms do not include abusing children.

[Decembergirl]

Regarding "spying"

Why are you so concerned about somebody spying on you? I could care less if they scrutinize everything I look up. In fact I love it! HERE I AM, HERE I AM!!!!

[kbagwell]

We legislate morallity every day in this country

Not that this has anything to do with the actual issue but ...<br /><br />Conservative or liberal, left or right, a morality will be legislated.<br /><br />It's not just the conservative Christians that have morality ... you have a morality too Sir !!! and YOU want it to be legislated.<br /><br />Now which morality is going to do us the most good ? That's what we should be asking, not shouting cliche's at each other. <br /><br />BTW, I don't like this obvious intrusion by the government any more than Google. But the whole kiddie porn/adult porn thing must be dealt with - many people are getting hurt here.

[tryoneon]

I Think There is a need ...

For a good ISP and search engine that offers to eliminate all evidence of any site you have visited and any postings coming from your computer. Now that is Liberty.

[David Arbogast]

Its a trap

...and the minute that ISP becomes aware of illegal activities conducted on its network, it'll be guilty of destruction of evidence. The data requested does not identify individuals. There is no harm in it being analyzed. After all... Google reads your personal email in order to give you advertisements... and they know who you are!

[unknown unknown]

RE:

Rather than destroying it, just don't log it in the first place.

[lesliejs]

Putting all political motives aside....

The issue at stake is pornographic material easily available on the internet. Any determined teenager can get past measures put in place to block minors. Who would want to continue allowing porn to be easily available on the web?<br /><br />Porn industries involve high level economics. This includes advertising. Is there any doubt that Google, as a search engine, is also a benefactor from porn advertising revenues? At the same time, if they blocked porn, they would lose a lot of porn-seeking customers.<br /><br />No doubt the porn industry has expensive lawyers as well.<br /><br />But that's not what Google has been asked to do. They've been asked to handover a week's records for federal prosecutors so that they can assess this situation. Google would lose money if they supported the anti-porn fight, because it would lead to loss in advertising, customer, directed search revenues.<br /><br />This is not about privacy. This is not about politics. This is about who gets advantage of economics, for the love of profit/money.<br /><br />As far as I can see, the only people that will raise this issue are:<br />1. People with conspiracy theories, raising the issue of privacy against the feds just so that they can scar the current political party in their own favor, make some noise, get attention. <br />2. People who think porn is fine.<br />3. People who profit from porn (includes search engine companies, as well as a whole chunk of internet businesses).<br /><br />Think about it.

[David Arbogast]

Good thoughts...

...but I think you left out just 1 very important fact. Distributing adult content to minors is a crime. An interest in upholding U.S. law and protecting children while allowing parent's the freedom to raise children the way they deem appropriate is a legitimate reason to push this agenda. ...politics aside, enforcement of the law should not require monetary or political stimulation.

[paulwolfmate]

Re. Think about it

I have thought about it and I have to disagree in part. As stated any determined teenager can access porn. Whether from the internet or the corner grocery store. My problem is the increased lack of privacy. The government is not responsible for our children's morality....We as parents are. with freedom comes great responsiblity. I am not thrilled with porn, rampant violence, or the miriad of other unwholseome things that occur. I am thrilled with the freedom to see what is out there...good and bad so there can be honest and informed discussion. I do not like the idea that someone ie. a governmental agency can snoop into my life see what I as an adult choose to view or not view. The argument is always made that it is "For the children" Great atrocities have been committed in "The name of religion" in the middle ages. I do not wish to see repeated the same infringements revisited under another catch phrase.

[206538395198018178908092208948]

Me.

Are you aware that adult material is the most popular use of the internet, and responsible for its current development?<br />Me. That's who wants it easily available.<br />If you don't like it, find that little key marked delete and press it. Meantime, go watch your kids.

[Philips]

No conspiracies

"1. People with conspiracy theories, raising the issue of privacy against the feds just so that they can scar the current political party in their own favor, make some noise, get attention."<br /><br />You somewhat miss the point of civil liberty proponents.<br /><br />It's not about that single case. It's about all those little powers gov't already have gained in wake of 9/11. And the problem that gov't wants more and more power. If you look at the newly acquired powers: every in separate is Okay and intended to protect you. But if you put them on single page what gov't now can do - with all powers in single hands - abuses will be (and actually are) happening. With the people bearing no responsibility whatsoever.<br /><br />You try to prevent one kind of abuses, allowing another kind of abuses. Go figure.<br /><br />Now you have the joker Bush - try to imaging someone like Hitler winning next elections. The situation you have now in U.S. is that any idiot can win next presidental elections. Frustrating.

[wysiwyg22]

A dangerous precedent

You Say Only: "1. People with conspiracy theories, raising the issue of privacy against the feds just so that they can scar the current political party in their own favor, make some noise, get attention." will disagree with this request. . . <br /><br />Oh, well, I don't want to be lumped into that group. . . but since I believe in the Constitution and founding thoughts of our forefathers, I sincerely disagree with your arrogant aspersion. <br /><br />This country was created to escape from the mentality of Tyrants that believed the INDIVIDUAL owns nothing by default, has no rights to keep anything from the King, all profit, property, thoughts and prosperity belong to the King and by his Whim, you lived, died, were spied upon, culled or made a criminal. . .<br /><br />Our forefathers gave us the essential freedom of speech, life, protection of privacy (against search) and personal property (against seizure) as the primary defense we have from such Tyranny taking root again.<br /><br />I don't know, this sort of strikes a nerve when you openly compromise our freedoms and the pillars of our democracy for a the singular cause decency.<br /><br />It takes no great philosopher or historian to see where this sort of compromise begins to lead us.<br /><br /><br />Google isn't being accused of anything, but their proprietary data is being demanded to support a case they have nothing to do with.<br /><br />By their denial of such dangerous information being released to this government, they're criminals at the least and traitors in the extreme view. . .<br /><br />The ability to make such a precedent into our laws can not be allowed. This is the opening of a true miscarriage of justice and a pretense to do a great disservice to the public. A public of individuals that should be outraged far more whenever our democracy is threatened by this sort of power grab.

[chhooks]

I see, If you disagree you are guilty

This is the modern, Politically correct term. If you disagree with the government them you must be guilty. I guess if we dislike the police following us around we must be breaking the law. If we resent illegal government wiretaps on our phones we must be terrorists. <br />Just because I don't get happy about loosing what few freedoms I have left doesn't make me a criminal!<br />Sorry. I am not a good little sheep. Russia (read USSR) failed to learn the critical fact, keep the sheep happy and they will follow you anywhere. Our government has learned to keep the sheep happy! "Good little sheep! Let me take all the freedoms away that millions died to give you... Let me make a good little socialist out of you!"<br /> Bah! Russians had more freedoms forty years ago than we have today in the USA!

[PzkwVIb]

I would challenge you

Please prove, in a scientific manner, devoid of religious biases, that viewing porn is inherently bad.<br /><br />Is it bad for adults? <br />Is it bad for children.<br /><br />And if it is bad for children, why isn't it their parent's responsibility to monitor them. Why is it the government's?

[MTGrizzly]

A miss understanding of the technology involved...

There is a certain number of people in this country who agree with the current administrations attempts to destroy all the civil liberties they feel are objectionable to them. This group is entitled to support the activities that Dubya is pushing on us. They are not, however, entitled to force that specious position on anyone else.<br /><br />However, the argument that what Dubya is trying to do is within the law is specious. This is a fishing expedition, pure and simple and a clear violation of the 4th, 5th nd 13th amendments. Since the New York Times broke the story about the NSA spying on American citizens without proper warrants and Dubya's reaction to that, it has become clear that Dubya had adapted the attitude that, if he agrees with the ends, any means is justified. And that he won't let something like the law interfere with his agenda. [There is no disagreement, even amongest the members of Dubya's administration, that the spying the NSA is carrying out is illegal. They are just arguing they are above the law and don't have to follow it.) <br /><br />The most suprising thing about this whole debacle is that they used due process to ask for the info from Google. I would have expected they would have just paid some hacker from the NSA to break into Google's computers and take the data. Then, if they had been found out, they would have claimed it was necessary "in the interest of national security." After all, whenever Dubya is asked about anything, he simply says it is justified by the "war on terror."<br /><br />It is sad that any American feels that objecting to this obvious threat to civil liberties has anything to do with wanting to smear Dubya. Dubya does that well enough himself with this lame excuses for violating the law and exercising power he clearly doesn't have. In case you haven't noticed, his approval ratings have dipped below 35%, so there is no way he claim his policies are accepted by a majority of Americans. Even if they were, they are still against the law. Last time I checked, we don't prosecute criminals based on the popularity or unpopularity of their crimes. This is just him pushing his private agenda. As American citizens, we have the right to call to account any politician who ceases to act in our best interest or starts to act in a way that is designed only to pander to his own personal special interests. That's how democracy works.<br /><br />You seem to think there is something wrong with anyone who believes that porn is okay or who profit form it. This is America. The first amendment guarantee us freedom of speech and the surpreme court has long upheld that right. According to the supreme court, speech that is not obscene or child porn is protected speech - just as the diatribes you and your ilk spout about how people who don't support your position aren't good Americans. As protected speech, the government cannot regulate it.<br /><br />The point to the COPA is to criminalize as much speech as Dubya and his right wing cronies don't like. In other words, they want to criminalize speech that has been consistently held to be protected by the first amendment - by the supreme court.<br /><br />Furthermore, a quick glance at history shows us that once a government obtains information for one purpose, they always use it for other purposes. And, once they have bullied the search engine providers to give them this data, bouyed by their successes, they will feel a precedent has been set allowing them to bully the seach engine providers for more and more information. Bullying is a violation of due process. If they have a legitimate need, (and going after Google for this information is a fishing expedition, not a legitimate need), let them follow due process just like everyone else. In fact, I demand that they follow due process for they, like everyone else in this country, are equal under the law. Their positions in government garners them no exception from that.<br /><br />One day, right wingers like you, will run afoul of a sitting president and that president will use the power that you have voluntarily given him to invade your privacy. Then the information you have so willing provided to the government will be used to oppress YOU! This is not something that might happen, it is something that has happened in every government in modern times when the sought to spy on their citizenry.<br /><br />The problem with people like you and your attitudes is you believe the government is here to help you, the individual. That has never been true and it will never be true. Whatever "help" they give you, will cost you, dearly. I just hope you wake up and realize this, before you are sitting in a cell in Guantanamo Bay because you demanded your right to be left alone and keep the government out of your affairs.

[MTGrizzly]

A miss understanding of the effect of what is being asked for...

There is a certain number of people in this country who agree with the current administrations attempts to destroy all the civil liberties they feel are objectionable to them. This group is entitled to support the activities that Dubya is pushing on us. They are not, however, entitled to force that specious position on anyone else.<br /><br />However, the argument that what Dubya is trying to do is within the law is specious. This is a fishing expedition, pure and simple and a clear violation of the 4th, 5th nd 13th amendments. Since the New York Times broke the story about the NSA spying on American citizens without proper warrants and Dubya's reaction to that, it has become clear that Dubya had adapted the attitude that, if he agrees with the ends, any means is justified. And that he won't let something like the law interfere with his agenda. [There is no disagreement, even amongest the members of Dubya's administration, that the spying the NSA is carrying out is illegal. They are just arguing they are above the law and don't have to follow it.) <br /><br />The most suprising thing about this whole debacle is that they used due process to ask for the info from Google. I would have expected they would have just paid some hacker from the NSA to break into Google's computers and take the data. Then, if they had been found out, they would have claimed it was necessary "in the interest of national security." After all, whenever Dubya is asked about anything, he simply says it is justified by the "war on terror."<br /><br />It is sad that any American feels that objecting to this obvious threat to civil liberties has anything to do with wanting to smear Dubya. Dubya does that well enough himself with this lame excuses for violating the law and exercising power he clearly doesn't have. In case you haven't noticed, his approval ratings have dipped below 35%, so there is no way he claim his policies are accepted by a majority of Americans. Even if they were, they are still against the law. Last time I checked, we don't prosecute criminals based on the popularity or unpopularity of their crimes. This is just him pushing his private agenda. As American citizens, we have the right to call to account any politician who ceases to act in our best interest or starts to act in a way that is designed only to pander to his own personal special interests. That's how democracy works.<br /><br />You seem to think there is something wrong with anyone who believes that porn is okay or who profit form it. This is America. The first amendment guarantee us freedom of speech and the surpreme court has long upheld that right. According to the supreme court, speech that is not obscene or child porn is protected speech - just as the diatribes you and your ilk spout about how people who don't support your position aren't good Americans. As protected speech, the government cannot regulate it.<br /><br />The point to the COPA is to criminalize as much speech as Dubya and his right wing cronies don't like. In other words, they want to criminalize speech that has been consistently held to be protected by the first amendment - by the supreme court.<br /><br />Furthermore, a quick glance at history shows us that once a government obtains information for one purpose, they always use it for other purposes. And, once they have bullied the search engine providers to give them this data, bouyed by their successes, they will feel a precedent has been set allowing them to bully the seach engine providers for more and more information. Bullying is a violation of due process. If they have a legitimate need, (and going after Google for this information is a fishing expedition, not a legitimate need), let them follow due process just like everyone else. In fact, I demand that they follow due process for they, like everyone else in this country, are equal under the law. Their positions in government garners them no exception from that.<br /><br />One day, right wingers like you, will run afoul of a sitting president and that president will use the power that you have voluntarily given him to invade your privacy. Then the information you have so willing provided to the government will be used to oppress YOU! This is not something that might happen, it is something that has happened in every government in modern times when the sought to spy on their citizenry.<br /><br />The problem with people like you and your attitudes is you believe the government is here to help you, the individual. That has never been true and it will never be true. Whatever "help" they give you, will cost you, dearly. I just hope you wake up and realize this, before you are sitting in a cell in Guantanamo Bay because you demanded your right to be left alone and keep the government out of your affairs.

[drfrost]

One sample point says you're wrong

And that sample point would be me.<br /><br />I own no stock in Google or any other company that would benefit or be damaged from this suit. There are absolutely no monetary consequences to me one way or the other. And, yet, I'm against search and seizure of evidence JUST TO SEE IF A LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN!<br /><br />They aren't sure whether or not there's been a crime, so they want to issue a broad search and seizure of evidence in order to find out. And just because this personal information is stored by a coorporation and not kept in a safe in your home you think your privacy isn't being violated?<br /><br />THIS IS ALL ABOUT PRIVACY TO ME. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with money. It's about FREEDOM. It's about search and seizure without probably cause. It's about the government taking away more rights.<br /><br />Let's face it, the digital age is changing everything. What's "ours" is no longer necessarily residing inside our homes. The government seems to think that means it's no longer protected by privacy laws. If a journalist publishes his work on the web as opposed to on paper, the government seems to think that freedom of the press no longer applies. Eventually EVERY DETAIL of your life is going to be stored by one company or another. Eventually most journalism is going to be paperless. Do you want the government to be able to look at this data whenever they want just to be sure no laws have been broken? Do you want freedom of the press to go out the window just because they didn't sacrifice a tree to put it on paper? That's not privacy. That's not freedom. It's a Big Brother State and if that doesn't scare you... you're incredibly naive IMO.

[Original_Zen]

Big Brother Is Watching or 1984 is Here Now

Govenrment has stripped the constitution down to something that the founding fathers that wrote it would not nor could not sign today. This "witch hunt" by using COPA is not above the clandestine actions for which Ex-President Nixon was forced to resign, just before he was impeached. This too is of such a nature that millions of Americans are having their privacy invaded on weak pretenses. The Federal Gov't needs to realize that this country was founded on specific freedoms &#38; PRIVACY is one of them.<br />I hope that the proposed trial is able to recognise &#38; over turn this absurd law.

[David Arbogast]

Oh Grow Up

You'll let Google read your email to send you advertisements but the government can't request a random non-identifying sample of data to evaluate the effectiveness of its laws? Grow up, man. The government is not out to get you. ...unless... maybe you are in violation of child pornography laws.... BTW, Nixon broke the law and ordered others to do the same. A court subpeona for non-identifying data is not the same thing. By any stretch of the imagination...even yours.

[shadowself]

Stupidity

The most ludicrous part of the law is that it pertains to the U.S. What happens to the usefulness (if there ever was any) of this law when 99.9% of the porn sites move out of the U.S.?<br /><br />When was the last time any of us thought the Internet was U.S. only?<br /><br />Oh yes, that would be when the current administration recently decided they would maintain control of it. (Which is pure fantasy anyway.)

[David Arbogast]

Out of touch

You can't stop people around the world from doing a lot of evil things... but the question is... What are you doing to stop abuses within your own country? If everybody acted responsibly, the world would be a nice place. To suggest that because others act irresponsibility we should ignore our own laws is just foolish. America should do its part, even if others won't. The law is clear - you do not have the right to distribute adult content to minors.

[michaelbirks]

Non-US enforcement

The solution should be obvious.<br /><br />If something contrary to US law is happening somewhere that isn't in the US, make that place part of the US.

[Vetter83]

conspiracy theories

"1. People with conspiracy theories, raising the issue of privacy against the feds just so that they can scar the current political party in their own favor, make some noise, get attention.<br />2. People who think porn is fine.<br />3. People who profit from porn (includes search engine companies, as well as a whole chunk of internet businesses)"<br /><br />1. The Govt has NO right nor need for the information. <br />2. Pornography is the dead bodies of civilians laying in the streets of Iraq needlessly! <br />3. Haliburton, the oil companies, and the military industrial complex, and this adminstrations 'backers' are ALL profiting from the pornography stated above...

[David Arbogast]

yeah.... RIIIIGHT

1. The Govt has NO right nor need for the information. <br />2. Pornography is the dead bodies of civilians laying in the streets of Iraq needlessly! <br />3. Haliburton, the oil companies, and the military industrial complex, and this adminstrations 'backers' are ALL profiting from the pornography stated above...<br /><br />1. YES, the absolutely do. So says the court that issued the subponea.<br />2. Wrong. Buy a dictionary.<br />3. This case has nothing to do with your anger towards american corporations.

[unknown unknown]

filtering methods are less effective than criminal prohibitions...not

I think they'll have hard time arguing that considering that should the law be enforced it only applies to U.S websites where the internet is Global. So protect minors it won't. <br /><br />Wasn't part of the problem with COPA their definition of harmful to minors? I believe it had something to do with using community standards and how it would force publishers to set standards based on the standards of the most restrictive community thus allowing a minority to dictate what decent for everyone else.

[rcrusoe]

that's the problem with all these laws

to paraphrase another "the U.S. legislates while the Internet <br />laughs".<br /><br />Regardless of whether we think these laws are good or bad, they <br />will intimately fail because they will have no effect on non-U.S. <br />companies/individuals/servers. <br /><br />So I hope the reasons for passing laws like this are political, <br />because I'd hate to think our elected officials are so stupid they <br />think they will actually work.<br /><br />The only hope for protecting children from the Internet's dark <br />side is a combination of better filtering and proper adult <br />supervision.

[tiffanybbrown]

er ... IP addresses?

i'm pretty sure that you can use IP addresses to find a specific computer in a specific location. and what can't be gleaned from an ARIN database search (i.e. your workplace, university or service provider) can probably be served up by your ISP with no problem. <br /><br />it seems that by casting such a wide, aimless net, the feds are trying to stamp out internet porn. (come to think of it, stamping out porn is a part of the rnc 2004 platform.)

[David Arbogast]

False Information

&lt;&lt;stamping out porn is a part of the rnc 2004 platform&gt;&gt;<br /><br />Where is the evidence supporting this claim? The government appears to be supporting and evaluating existing laws. If you want to bad-mouth a political party, you should provide evidence for your claims. RNC makes no mention of "stamping out porn" in their disclosed agenda.

[redjr]

First Google, then your ISP

You are sooooooooo right. The ISP is the next logical step. And then, your cable modem, router, etc, etc. And, I for one don't trust a corrupt government. Power corrupts, absolute power, corrupts absolutely!<br /><br />And who's to say they [the Feds} won't do more data mining, once they get their hands on the dirty little data. This is frightening folks.<br /><br />They will proclaim one purpose now, but later?<br /><br />redjr...

[Tom517]

A Parental Government?

It is interesting to see the perpetual encroachment of the Federal Government into the day-to-day lives of Americans.<br /><br />Slowly we sit here while parents leave parenting to the government and the government seems to think it knows best what is good for me.<br /><br />Here's to Google for resisting!!! Shame on the others for not having done so.

[rivera973]

the lazy way

You know there is a problem immediately. The Bush administration is attacking this problem they way it seems to do everything else: the lazy way. The instant something is done the lazy way, it is clear something is wrong.<br /><br />The FBI has done plenty of good research and work (Innocent Images?) over the last few years on the subject. I am sure there are other organization doing similar work. The point is the Bush administration is to lazy to organize everyone and collect the hard work other people have already done. The lazy way is to ignore current work and start from the begining with data that may add very little to what is already known. The Bush administration prefers to waste money and create yet another situation where civil rights are threatened. It is a strange form of efficiency.<br /><br />Google is doing the right thing.

[jfmezei]

George Orwell would be proud

Americans elected this current government with full knowledge that it had a "total information awareness" goal amongst other things.<br /><br />Now that these programmes are becoming real, it is too late to complain. The government was given a mandate by the people to do what it is doing.<br /><br />Google should simply move north to Canada.

[David Arbogast]

LOL

&lt;&lt;Google should simply move north to Canada.&gt;&gt;<br /><br />HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Riiiight.... <br />Google is not being accused of crime or being forced to alter its business practices or pay any fines. They have no logical reason to leave.

[Christopher Hall]

You act as if this is a recent thing

This whole situation is not the product of any legislation or action put forth in this century. The US has been actively datamining since they've had the capacity to do so. As such, this should surprise no one.<br /><br />As they say: "knowledge is power."<br /><br /><br />So in that sense, yes, the government has been given a mandate by the people to act in what it perceives to be the best interest of society, culture, and security. I fail to understand what the hubbub is about on these matters, as their actions clearly seek to protect the common good. Can one really in good conscience come to the defense of people who would do harm to children?

[Wiggletoe]

Google should sue DOJ.

Google should sue for damage to it's business model.

[drfrost]

Sounds like an excellent strategy to lose millions of dollars....

The government has an infinite amount of money, an infinite amount of lawyers and an infinite amount of time compared to Google. Such a lawsuit would only cost Google millions of dollars. They'd have more luck filing suit against the IRS (and that, too, is nearly impossible to win).

[yrrahxob]

Thank you Google

For standing up to the government and standing up for consumer rights. What the government is doing is blatant disregard for the constitution and those government officials who support this act of tyranny should be indicted as criminals against the people.

[lingsun]

Google should remove sites that show children being molested

Google is the villain. They're not the good guy. They list sites that show children being molested. These aren't adults dressed up like children. I know the difference between an 8 year old and an adult woman with pigtails. That's the real crime here.

[System Tyrant]

Not that I don't agree...

but what you are actually asking is for google to police the internet and track down illegal site. I'm going to say impossible.<br /><br />But, while google is policing the internet for child porn why not police it for illegal music and movie sites. Then go after hate sites that encourage violence against minorities. I'm sure we could find a lot more sites for google to police.<br /><br />Google isn't the villian. Child preditors are. Stop trying to blame everybody else. It's not the adult industries job to protect children and it's not googles job and it's not the governments job unless an illegal act is being committed. It's the parents job, but I suppose that's to difficult for them to do.<br /><br />Oh, great idea, unplug your computer and keep your kids of the internet without supervision. If you can't supervise your children then use software that record all the activities that computer does.<br /><br />Not simple, but your job.

[gmycyk191]

Wrong!

Google does not host websites, it simply reports what it finds. It woud be different if it accepted advertisements from such websites.<br /><br />Molested children? Dude, what sick websites are YOU looking for?

[unknown unknown]

RE

When Google had the number of sites it had indexed on its front page that number was well over 8 billion and I imagine they've managed to add to it since then. Google like many search engines uses software that automates the indexing process and computers can't reliability tell the different between legal and illegal porn. It would be impossible for Google employees to go thru that much content and remove sites with illegal images or sites that link to other sites with such content etc from their index in any reasonable amount of time. I don't think the people at Google have any desire to serve up childporn, but the shear amount data precludes them from doing anything about it effectively. They do have the safe search function, which is turn on by default, that tries to filter offensive content but it's not perfect.

[darcydj]

You dont understand

How can a company possibly sift through 8 billion sites to remove a specific type of data?<br /><br />I am sure that you probably have no technical savvy so you would not understand the magnetude of such a task.

[dicknixon]

How do you know?

First of all, how do you know this? Have you personally seen results like you describe?<br /><br />Second, if you find child porn on the net it is your moral obligation to report it:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.antichildporn.org/reportcp.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.antichildporn.org/reportcp.html</a>

so what have you been searching for?

So Bill, are we to conclude that you have been searching Google for child-porn and have been finding sites with 8-year old girls?<br />Shame on you.

[Anon-Y-mous]

If this was MSN y'all'd be backin the guv'ment

I'm willing to bet. In your eyes, Google can do no wrong, even when refusing to reply with a COURT ORDER.<br /><br />MSFT would drop from $27 to $7 if they pulled this.

[MTGrizzly]

Subpeona not court order...

&gt;refusing to reply with a COURT ORDER.<br /><br />Google has been subpeonaed. No court is involved in issuing a subpeona, it is a purely administrative action.<br /><br />Anyone can move to quash a subpeona. If the court refuses to quash it, then it has the effect of a court order and refusing to comply can be treated as contempt of court. Get your facts straight.<br /><br />I believe that any business who refused to supply the government the information to conduct its fishing expedition. Even Microslob...

[whoeveriam]

No, I'd be in shock

It would considerably bring them up in my estimation if MSN were standing up and doing the right thing (for once).

[drfrost]

*boggle*

Am I the only one who thinks this comment is completely out of left field?

[mydstar]

Eliminate all websites

The only way to eliminate offensive web sites is to eliminate all websites, all forms of printed material,and all other means of communications. Something out there is always going to be offensive to someone. If it is not communicated publicly, then it must not exist???? That is the kind of hypocrisy that has keep child abuse alive for centuries.

[johntherevelator]

nah

Yep. worldwide web is just that - worldwide. so far just the <br />States are being monitored. doesn't apply to anyone outside the <br />u.s. as far as one can tell... unless British ones appeal to the <br />American public... not advocating this. <br /><br />when will an effort be underway to prosecute or bust child porn <br />rings overseas? Why not start with Thailand and the American/<br />China/German tourist trade... sex tours, and all that, if there is <br />really a 'push' to elim all child porn... and a global effort, at <br />that...<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.netmasters.co.uk/european_search_engines/" target="_newWindow">http://www.netmasters.co.uk/european_search_engines/</a><br />germany.shtml<br /><br />another viable reason could very well come up for reading all of <br />your email), happy surfing! (hello, 1984! oh, forgot...it's 2006!~)<br /><br />then they'll have to start monitoring every citizen's keystroke, <br />and those records'll have to be turned over... a citizen's duty, <br />you know! read '1984' - war is peace, and peace is war... <br /><br />we'll all be sitting in front of the web cam that monitors our <br />every move, to ensure that we are being good citizens. hey it's <br />not far off, the U.K. is constantly watched via surveillance <br />cameras.<br /><br />surveilling the records is a good start.

[Drewzilla]

COPA will work as well as CAN SPAM!

COPA will be just as effective in protecting children as the CAN SPAM law stopped spam.<br /><br />CAN SPAM is a good example that technology is much better at fixing a technological problem.<br /><br />Filters work better than legislation.

[vasanisalim]

Thank You Google!!

Great job google. Irrespective of what data the Feds want and what they want to do with it, just the idea of someone invetigating into search terms and their results makes me feel uncomfortable.

[Brad81]

ISP's

Feds should look to the ISP's for the information as the links have been actively clicked and there would be a record there. They are lazy and just trying to take the easy way out by trying to break the back of an organisation that actually cares about user privacy. They should get off their ar*e and do the job properly.

[fasnashun]

No responsibility

This is just another in the long line of governmental interference in our lives because the People don't want take responsibility for themselves (and, in this case, their children). I am a parent. It is my right and privilege to raise them as I see fit, to allow or not allow what they see, hear and do. Parents need to pay attention to their children and control what they do. It is not the place of government to tell people they can't have something simply because parents are too lazy to do their jobs and want everyone else to "take care of the children". What about those who choose not to have children? Why is it supposed to be an influence on their lifestyle as to what affects someone elses children? Parents don't deserve to be parents who don't want to do the work, IMO.