Post subject: Google Refuses To Help Bush Spy on US Citizens
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:32 am
too drunk to moderate properly
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Quote:
Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe 3 minutes ago
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.
Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.
Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.
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 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.
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 porn.
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.
Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously."
"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:01 am Posts: 19477 Location: Brooklyn NY
Google said fuck Bush and his army of Puritan fuckwads
_________________
LittleWing sometime in July 2007 wrote:
Unfortunately, it's so elementary, and the big time investors behind the drive in the stock market aren't so stupid. This isn't the false economy of 2000.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 5:51 am Posts: 17078 Location: TX
It's hard for me to even fathom the stupidity and ignorance of this.
I was talking to my Mom about this. You guys know that whoever has these records can see everything everyone has searched for, but not only that they would know who searched for what, on an individual basis, and they could track down individuals addresses. That is about the biggest breach of privacy imaginable.
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
Buffalohed wrote:
It's hard for me to even fathom the stupidity and ignorance of this.
I was talking to my Mom about this. You guys know that whoever has these records can see everything everyone has searched for, but not only that they would know who searched for what, on an individual basis, and they could track down individuals addresses. That is about the biggest breach of privacy imaginable.
That's how I see it too. But, after reading the article, I'm not clear if the gov't wants individual web searches, or just a print out of what was being searched for. To me, the gov't should have neither, but I also think there is a difference. It also wasn't clear to me if they wanted the websites people put in or the google search info.
I'm glad google is saying no, I mean someone has to. The gov't is trying in tiny tiny pieces to tear down the privacy rights of its citizens and it needs to be stopped. Unfortunately, I see this as a slippery slope and something to get used to in "Bush's America".
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 5:47 am Posts: 27904 Location: Philadelphia Gender: Male
After the Patriot Act, I don't see why they would need this information from google. The government basically has the right to spy on all of us in any way imaginable already. Something in that article doesn't quite make sense; there has to be ulterior motives behind this lawsuit.
_________________ It's always the fallen ones who think they're always gonna save me.
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 5:23 am Posts: 1194 Location: Sleeping under my desk
Ironically, I had a hard time finding additional articles on this when I googled it.
_________________ If you're a blacksmith, probably the proudest day of your life is when you get your first anvil. How innocent you are, little blacksmith.
- Jack Handey
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
Why would they need Google?
Doesn't the majority of the internet run through Dept of Commerce servers? Who controls .com, .net, .org, .tv etc domains?
Anyone running a website that contains terror-related material can input code that prevents one from being able to find it with a freaking Google or Yahoo search. I can't find a legitimate al Queda message board by typing "al Queda message board" into a goddamn search engine. Do you think it's that easy to chat with Zarqaui (sp?) and bin Laden? Jesus....
This is fucking ignorant. Google told them to piss off because the US Govt doesn't need Google for this and wouldn't find shit even if they did go through their records.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Why would they need Google?
Doesn't the majority of the internet run through Dept of Commerce servers? Who controls .com, .net, .org, .tv etc domains? Anyone running a website that contains terror-related material can input code that prevents one from being able to find it with a freaking Google or Yahoo search. I can't find a legitimate al Queda message board by typing "al Queda message board" into a goddamn search engine. Do you think it's that easy to chat with Zarqaui (sp?) and bin Laden? Jesus....
This is fucking ignorant. Google told them to piss off because the US Govt doesn't need Google for this and wouldn't find shit even if they did go through their records.
Perhaps you didn't read the article. They're not hunting for terrorists. This is about porn.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Why would they need Google?
Doesn't the majority of the internet run through Dept of Commerce servers? Who controls .com, .net, .org, .tv etc domains? Anyone running a website that contains kiddie porn material can input code that prevents one from being able to find it with a freaking Google or Yahoo search.
This is fucking ignorant. Google told them to piss off because the US Govt doesn't need Google for this.
Perhaps you didn't read the article. They're not hunting for terrorists. This is about porn.
Fixed.
Sure you can find kiddie porn on the net, but they don't need Google to find the people looking at it.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Why would they need Google?
Doesn't the majority of the internet run through Dept of Commerce servers? Who controls .com, .net, .org, .tv etc domains? Anyone running a website that contains terror-related material can input code that prevents one from being able to find it with a freaking Google or Yahoo search. I can't find a legitimate al Queda message board by typing "al Queda message board" into a goddamn search engine. Do you think it's that easy to chat with Zarqaui (sp?) and bin Laden? Jesus....
This is fucking ignorant. Google told them to piss off because the US Govt doesn't need Google for this and wouldn't find shit even if they did go through their records.
Maybe thats why when I google "international Jihad" I never find any militant websites =(
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
Athletic Supporter wrote:
punkdavid wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Why would they need Google?
Doesn't the majority of the internet run through Dept of Commerce servers? Who controls .com, .net, .org, .tv etc domains? Anyone running a website that contains kiddie porn material can input code that prevents one from being able to find it with a freaking Google or Yahoo search.
This is fucking ignorant. Google told them to piss off because the US Govt doesn't need Google for this.
Perhaps you didn't read the article. They're not hunting for terrorists. This is about porn.
Fixed.
Sure you can find kiddie porn on the net, but they don't need Google to find the people looking at it.
Yeah. All they'd find would be the people who are looking for kiddie porn, but are too stupid to know how to use teh interweb.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
punkdavid wrote:
Perhaps you didn't read the article. They're not hunting for terrorists. This is about porn.
Doesn't Bush just call everyone he doesn't like a terrorist?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
