More Spying on you

[bd]

Feds After Google Data
By Howard Mintz
The San Jose Mercury News

Thursday 19 January 2006

Records sought in US quest to revive porn law.
The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the US Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in US District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort "vigorously."

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.

The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.

"This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared," said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. "The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives."

Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy.

"The government can't even claim that it's for national security," Everett-Church said. "They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people."

The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.

However, the Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn.

As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is "harmful to minors."

The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.

"The production of those materials would be of significant assistance to the government's preparation of its defense of the constitutionality of this important statute," government lawyers wrote, noting that Google is the largest search engine.

Google has the largest share of US Web searches with 46 percent, according to November 2005 figures from Nielsen//NetRatings. Yahoo is second with 23 percent, and MSN third with 11 percent.

***********

You pseudo conservatives better watch out. Your pres might catch you looking at girly pictures.

Big Brother is watching you.

bd

[Waldo]

No they won't.

The US government is asking for the records of all searches made within a 1 week period and 1 million random web addresses.

The US government is not asking for any information that suggest who searched for anything.

The government can ask WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHY, and WHERE, here is what they want...

WHO- they dont care, and havent asked for that information

WHAT- 1 million random web addresses, and records of searches

WHEN- the records within any 1 week period

WHERE- From google, other web services have felt there is no need not to give your information out


Bottom line, they want to see what is searched for, not who searches for it.

[Waldo]

UPDATE:

Yahoo, MSN, and AOL have all released the information.

They understand that the justice department wants the information to see how often pornographic websites show up in childrens searches.


Google did not reject the request because of privacy reasons, they have no problem with that. Google rejected the request because it was to burdensom.

[Son of Norway]

George Bush: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Is he following his own protocol in these matters?

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Son of Norway

George Bush: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

Is he following his own protocol in these matters?

Ever heard of top secret?

[one-eyed-fatman]

Ever heard of the government becoming the law instead of obeying the law?

[Mike TRT]

this isnt about terrorism, its about CHILD PORN. how many of you guys that are trying to make this a "privacy or spying" issue or a constitutional "outrage" have any idea how big of a problem child porn is worldwide????? anyone? libs? c'mon...... didnt think so, Its HUGE..... how many have seen towering stacks of kiddie porn in someones house that just got arrested....trust me, its the most disgusting, vile crap there is. Imagine the most violent, brutal subject you can think of or ever saw that makes you actually want to puke, then multiply that by 1,000.... its BAD and its worse overseas, which the internet accesses in seconds...thats what the gvmnt is trying to stop, they dont care if a grown adult looks at *******, its the predators that prey on kids........ again, this isnt even debatable.

if youve never worked on these types of things, maybe its hard to understand how huge the problem is, and maybe its better that way....

p.s. as a side bar, dont let your kids use chat rooms or instant messenger sites without installing the best, most expensive anti-predator software available.......no price is tool high for the kids safety and to keep these monsters at bay

rant over

[jdavionic]

I'm willing to give up some freedom to lock up child porn scum bags. I'm sure this statement will spawn some hate-filled comments from folks. I can't express the tremendous hate I have for these sub-human POS scum that prey on children. I could not be a LEO because if I caught one, he'd never make it to jail. I'd execute the bastard on the spot. If it helps get these bastards off the street by monitoring my google searches, I say to the gov't - have at it.

[Son of Norway]

Originally Posted by jdavionic

I'm willing to give up some freedom

I say to the gov't - have at it.

Be careful what you ask for. Now go turn in your guns.

[one-eyed-fatman]

There is no giving up some of your freedom without the risk of giving up all your freedom. Do we really want that? NO!