Feds Seek GOOGLE Records in Porn Probe... - GoFuckYourself.com

adrenalinedef · 01-19-2006, 10:54 AM

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13657303.htm

Feds after Google dataRECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAWBy Howard MintzMercury NewsThe 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.

Dirty F · 01-19-2006, 10:55 AM

You couldnt imagine this already being posted? More than once?

Fred Quimby · 01-19-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

You couldnt imagine this already being posted? More than once?

http://images.google.com/images?sour...al&sa=N&tab=wi

adrenalinedef · 01-19-2006, 10:57 AM

I didn't see it posted so I decided to post it. I see alot more news stories being posted and reposted that has nothing to do with GFY, at least this has something to do with people who read this forum

TheSenator · 01-19-2006, 11:07 AM

Its a post worth reposting because it need to get out there.

tristan_D · 01-19-2006, 05:23 PM

expect more threads this

kenny · 01-19-2006, 05:31 PM

Which is it?

Child porn sites or sites accessible to minors?

WME · 01-19-2006, 05:40 PM

the feds can kiss my ass

Rochard · 01-19-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Quimby

http://images.google.com/images?sour...al&sa=N&tab=wi

This brings up a very good point! If you think about it, long before they should be concerned about us building sites they should be looking at Google and Yahoo and saying "search engines are the ones supplying the porn to the masses!".

BigRod · 01-19-2006, 05:49 PM

This will get very interesting!

Mike Okitch · 01-19-2006, 07:09 PM

So the government is screaming over child protection, demand records that jeopardizes the privacy of the average Joe, Google calls bullshit because the remedy is worst than the disease and the government gets pissed off.

Before the internet, I remember sneaking a peek dirty magazines in the convenience store and they never got served a subpoena. So why should Google be served one?

01-19-2006, 10:54 AM	#1
adrenalinedef Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 518	Feds Seek GOOGLE Records in Porn Probe... http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13657303.htm Feds after Google dataRECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAWBy Howard MintzMercury NewsThe 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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. __________________ what?!

01-19-2006, 10:57 AM	#4
adrenalinedef Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 518	I didn't see it posted so I decided to post it. I see alot more news stories being posted and reposted that has nothing to do with GFY, at least this has something to do with people who read this forum __________________ what?!

01-19-2006, 11:07 AM	#5
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,340	Its a post worth reposting because it need to get out there. __________________ ISeekGirls.com since 2005

01-19-2006, 05:23 PM	#6
tristan_D Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 7,865	expect more threads this __________________ Increase your sales. Up to $4 per click.

01-19-2006, 05:31 PM	#7
kenny Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 7,245	Which is it? Child porn sites or sites accessible to minors? __________________ 7

01-19-2006, 10:55 AM	#2
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	You couldnt imagine this already being posted? More than once?

01-19-2006, 05:40 PM	#8
WME Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,005	the feds can kiss my ass __________________ Buy Piercing Online - A very large variety of piercing, in various styles Prepare yourself for drug test!

01-19-2006, 05:49 PM	#10
BigRod Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 3,685	This will get very interesting! __________________ Rod Macdonald Mainstream Ad Agency Owner ICQ: 607306

01-19-2006, 07:09 PM	#11
Mike Okitch Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Location: Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Posts: 4,126	So the government is screaming over child protection, demand records that jeopardizes the privacy of the average Joe, Google calls bullshit because the remedy is worst than the disease and the government gets pissed off. Before the internet, I remember sneaking a peek dirty magazines in the convenience store and they never got served a subpoena. So why should Google be served one? __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.