Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Feds Demand Google Search RecordsFollow

QuoteReply
#1 Jan 19 2006 at 4:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Feds Seek Google Records in **** Probe
The Chicago Tribune wrote:
SAN JOSE, Calif. -- The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.
[...]
The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.
[...]
The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from ****.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#2 Jan 19 2006 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1684109803886
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
12,622 posts
Im all for protecting kids, but this is fu[/u]cking ludicrous. How many college students doing reports on drug abuse or sex trade or any other "hot button" topic will be harassed by our government because of this bull?

Google is a key research tool for the internet generation. Good God, someone needs to run up to George Bush and co and kick him/them in the balls quite rightly.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#3 Jan 19 2006 at 4:37 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592347379217
View User Forum
Scholar
***
1,180 posts
Quote:
Good God, someone needs to run up to George Bush and co and kick him/them in the balls quite rightly.


They will probably have to do it over and over and over. Just to be sure they learn.

I don't see why they dont just pass a law to bar adult sites from using .com and require .sex, .prn, .xxx, etc. Parents could then just have adult extentions blocked.

Edited, Thu Jan 19 16:43:29 2006 by BloodwolfeX
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#4 Jan 19 2006 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592761241095
****
9,785 posts
thank god google told em basically to go ***** them self as they should.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#5 Jan 19 2006 at 4:49 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1675037783679
View User Forum
Guru
*****
12,363 posts
BloodwolfeX wrote:
I don't see why they dont just pass a law to bar adult sites from using .com and require .sex, .prn, .xxx, etc. Parents could then just have adult extentions blocked.


ICANN started working on this, but I believe there was some sort of outcry from religious groups thinking that this would make even more **** available.

Here we go...

Quote:
Commerce Department blocks .xxx domain: Around 300 top-level domains are running on the net. But when ICANN decided to carve out a new one for adult content, a Christian group called the Family Research Council saw red, predicting the move would double the amount of smut available online, and, in the words of council attorney Patrick Trueman, "the **** industry would become twice the menace it is today."

When conservative groups start using the word "menace," look out. Prompted by a flood of mail from the Republican base, Michael Gallagher, assistant secretary at the U.S. Commerce Department, drafted a letter to ICANN chairman Vint Cerf asking for the new domain to be delayed. It was, and in that moment any illusion that the internet's critical domain-name system was immune from U.S. political whims evaporated.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#6 Jan 19 2006 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Nadenu
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
BloodwolfeX wrote:
Quote:
Good God, someone needs to run up to George Bush and co and kick him/them in the balls quite rightly.


They will probably have to do it over and over and over. Just to be sure they learn.

I don't see why they dont just pass a law to bar adult sites from using .com and require .sex, .prn, .xxx, etc. Parents could then just have adult extentions blocked.


See, now that would make sense, and we can't have that.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#7 Jan 19 2006 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

I guess the first question is "searches of what"? How often you get **** if you search for "mad cow disease" or how often people type "teen sluts" into the Google search field? I'm not sure what the second one proves since you have no idea of the age of the searcher.

For some additional reading, The Straight Dope on how much internet traffic is pornography?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#8 Jan 19 2006 at 5:01 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1607300319902
Guru
***
1,863 posts
The provisions that allow the government to force booksellers to provide lists of customers, that force telecom companies to hand over call records, and that force libaries to disclose what kind of books a person has checked out are all contained in the same law - the Patriot Act.

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis748/Studentwebguides/fall02/USAPatriotActConroy.html
Quote:
Sections Affecting Libraries

Title II: Advanced Surveillance Procedures

Section 215: Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the FBI to obtain court order without probable cause from a secret court for the production of "any tangible things (including books, record, papers, documents, and other items) for an authorized investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." "Any tangible thing" can include the books you check out in the library and such information can be obtained without your knowledge. Section 215 also forbids persons producing such "tangible things from disclosing to anyone that the FBI ever came calling. See Section 215 FAQ by the American Civil Liberties Union.


Section 216: Modification of authorities relating to use of pen registers and trap and trace devices.

Extends telephone monitoring laws to cover information relating to Internet usage, including e-mail addresses and IP addresses and URLs for web pages. Authorizes pen registers, trap and trace devices, and roving wiretaps for electronic communications, which, unlike telephone numbers carry with them content, to include a persons thoughts and interests.


I doubt sincerely that all the provisions of the act apply strictly and only to terrorism. The government has had a taste of the power they legislated themselves. They will never give it up.

Edited, Thu Jan 19 17:03:26 2006 by Wingchild
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#9 Jan 19 2006 at 5:16 PM Rating: Default
__DEL__1684109803886
View User Forum
Scholar
*****
12,622 posts
Great, let's lock up every college student doing a report on Israeli sex- slave trafficing! Hey, while we're at it, let's lock up every kid doing a report on drug abuse too. Anybody doing a google search for meth labs has to be a criminal!
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#10 Jan 19 2006 at 5:27 PM Rating: Default
__DEL__1670199487804
Scholar
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Im all for protecting kids, but this is ******* ludicrous. How many college students doing reports on drug abuse or sex trade or any other "hot button" topic will be harassed by our government because of this bull?
as a guesstimate... none.

why would the feds even be interested in some clutz downloading Debbie does dallas onto his laptop?

try not over reacting for a change and look at what they are trying to achive.

Big brother is out thier and like most big brothers he doesn't really give a toss what you're upto so long as you stay out of his room.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#11 Jan 19 2006 at 6:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
in the words of council attorney Patrick Trueman, "the **** industry would become twice the menace it is today."


You know, I can't remember the last time I was menaced by ****.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#12 Jan 19 2006 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
Kelvyquayo
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
Im all for protecting kids, but this is ******* ludicrous. How many college students doing reports on drug abuse or sex trade or any other "hot button" topic will be harassed by our government because of this bull?
as a guesstimate... none.

why would the feds even be interested in some clutz downloading Debbie does dallas onto his laptop?

try not over reacting for a change and look at what they are trying to achive.

Big brother is out thier and like most big brothers he doesn't really give a toss what you're upto so long as you stay out of his room.





SO waht you're saying is, that if you're against this kinda thing, you must be hiding somthing?
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#13 Jan 19 2006 at 6:47 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1592262130115
Scholar
****
8,747 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
Im all for protecting kids, but this is ******* ludicrous. How many college students doing reports on drug abuse or sex trade or any other "hot button" topic will be harassed by our government because of this bull?
as a guesstimate... none.

why would the feds even be interested in some clutz downloading Debbie does dallas onto his laptop?

try not over reacting for a change and look at what they are trying to achive.

Big brother is out thier and like most big brothers he doesn't really give a toss what you're upto so long as you stay out of his room.


You'd be right if this particular big brother wasn't of the mind to believe that EVERYTHING is his room. What this really is is just another attempt by the current administration to force their particular moral set onto the rest of us. Please refer to Joph's sig.

Thank bob Google isn't one to be bullied.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#14 Jan 19 2006 at 6:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
You know, I can't remember the last time I was menaced by ****.
I did a Google for "**** monsters" to see if I couldn't quickly find an amusing retort to this. One of the first returns was:

Monsters Inc. ****, Fu[/i]cking Sulley VS XXX Mike

... Smiley: dubious

Then I hit the back arrow out of Google, remaining blissfully ignorant of what Mike's ***** might look like.

[i]Edited, Thu Jan 19 18:54:14 2006 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#15 Jan 19 2006 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Omegavegeta
View User Forum
Sage
****
8,236 posts
Google has a **** filter.

Parents can set and lock, said filter.

That way, **** doesn't show up.

Goggle has it's own *** covered methinks.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#16 Jan 19 2006 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Nadenu
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Quote:
Then I hit the back arrow out of Google, remaining blissfully ignorant of what Mike's ***** might look like.


Sure...
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#17 Jan 19 2006 at 6:55 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1709511392366
Sage
****
6,471 posts
Quote:
I did a Google for "**** monsters" to see if I couldn't quickly find an amusing retort to this. One of the first returns was:

Monsters Inc. ****, ******* Sulley VS XXX Mike

... icon


After that, I made a halfhearted effort to find a pic of that "Uncle Sam wants you" Army thing where he's pointing, except in the nude. I thought that'd be fun to add to this convo.

Now the government is gonna raise an eyebrow when they see that apparently Joph is into Monster's Inc. ****, and I wanted to see Uncle Sam in the buff.

...hooray.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#18 Jan 19 2006 at 6:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The One and Only Omegavegeta wrote:
Google has a **** filter.

Parents can set and lock, said filter.
You can?

I must be missing an option. Google has the SafeSearch filter but all you do is go to Preferences to change it. Heck, you can even change it on the fly via advanced search. I didn't see anyway to password lock your Google search options.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#19 Jan 19 2006 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
__DEL__1656893885245
View User Forum
Guru
**
894 posts
Clearly a case where government is trying to go much much too far # Smiley: oyvey
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#20 Jan 19 2006 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
as a guesstimate... none.

why would the feds even be interested in some clutz downloading Debbie does dallas onto his laptop?
Above and beyond which, the article doesn't specify if the "records of all Google searches from any one-week period" includes personally identifying data such as IP addresses. From another article on this, Yahoo! apparently surrendered their search records but say the list they gave didn't have any personal user data on it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#21 Jan 19 2006 at 7:06 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1670199487804
Scholar
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
SO what you're saying is, that if you're against this kinda thing, you must be hiding somthing?
No what i am saying is:- If the Feds get access to everyones google records, the chances that they will be going after kids in Uni rather than Child **** rings are exactly Zero.

Perspective people, the govenment don't give a monkey's about people downloading "**** F*cked nympho III" (good flick btw) what they are interested in is break child **** rings.

No Fed is going to waste his time arresting some 18 year old doing a thesis on the **** industry when they can use the same information to catch a guy with 30,000 pictures of his "friend" raping 3 year olds.

If you can't grasp that, then there is no hope for you.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#22 Jan 19 2006 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
what they are interested in is break child **** rings.
Actually, in this context, what they're interested in is trying to restrict the presence of any pornographic content on the internet under the auspice of protecting underage internet users.

The Bush administration is seeking to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court, analysts say. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The Justice Department says it needs the Google data to see how frequently pornography shows up in online searches.

Part of the decision to overturn the law what the notion that parents are better served with end-user applications (Net Nannies and the like) than to restrict websites from having the information/photos in the first place. The administration wants to prove that there's just so much scary **** available out there that we have to stop it at the source of distribution.

The information would "assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches, and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software in screening that material," the government's filing said. -- Bloomburg.com

Edited, Thu Jan 19 19:19:17 2006 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#23 Jan 19 2006 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1670199487804
Scholar
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
Actually, in this context, what they're interested in is trying to restrict the presence of any Unwanted pornographic content on the internet under the auspice of protecting underage internet users.
FTFY.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#24 Jan 19 2006 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Try fixing it right next time.

The net result is requiring sites with adult content to put their users through hoops to verify age, identity, etc. Thus, the content is restricted whether one wants to see it or not. The fact that one may gain access to restricted content doesn't make it non-restricted.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#25 Jan 19 2006 at 7:24 PM Rating: Decent
Debalic
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Great. This Prodigal Son may be going away again. Smiley: frown
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
▲ Page top
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 238 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (238)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC