Ever Googled porn? The Feds may be looking for you . . .

[Deb in IA]

Feds seek Google records in pornography probe
Bush administration wants details of what users look for with search engine

Updated: 11:32 a.m. ET Jan. 19, 2006
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.

 

[Bob Slydell]

Whew -- I only use Yahoo

 

[Hercules10]

You can't 'GOOGLE' anything and not pull up some sort of porn...

 

[Trish Bessette]

...before we know it we won't be able to sneeze without the government knowing about it

 

[wvjules]

UhOh!!!!!!!!!

 

[CapeCodTenor]

Whew -- I only use Yahoo

I have mine memorized.

 

[sgtdisney]

Bookmark it baby!

Seriously, I wonder if they have ever tried googling 'White House'

 

[Chicago526]

Gee, I thought Republicans were all about "personal responsibility". What's wrong with just saying "There are lots of things on the internet that are not for children, and parents need to be diligent in monitoring their childrens use of the internet."

Oh, wait, that wouldn't give Bush and the Republicans an issue they can take to the religious right and say "Look, we're trying to legislate morality". Sorry, silly me!

I guess when Republicans say "we need less governement not more", they mean "we need less government, not more, but only for things that WE decide aren't important, like say, social programs and education."

 

[Marseeya]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who could get in trouble for this!

 

[Geoff_M]

Before people here start to fly off the handle again, stop a second and read the story. The DoJ request isn't for criminal investigations, it an attempt to look at Google's search DBs to gather evidence in support of getting a law reinstated.

 

[wvrevy]

Before people here start to fly off the handle again, stop a second and read the story. The DoJ request isn't for criminal investigations, it an attempt to look at Google's search DBs to gather evidence in support of getting a law reinstated.

A law which has already been struck down by the supreme court. They're doing exactly what Chicago526 said they were doing - attempting to legislate morality (and as usual, they are ignoring the court).

 

[Geoff_M]

They're doing exactly what Chicago526 said they were doing - attempting to legislate morality (and as usual, they are ignoring the court).

Yep, by golly, the next thing you know they'll want stores to also check IDs before they sell people booze. It should be the parent's job to police that too!

they are ignoring the court

Attempting to re-tool a law in an attempt to eliminate judical concerns is hardly "ignoring" the court. Nor is gathering evidence that might contradict the courts' underlying basis for rejectin g the law in the hope that the court will change its mind on the matter.

 

[MzDiz]

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.

Oh, for pete's sake. An access code? How could they even begin to regulate and enforce this. Everyone would be in jail within a week's time. I can't think of one good reason I should sign up for an access code to look at adult material. Furthermore, that puts the government in charge of deciding what's adult and what isn't. Personally, I find that scary.

 

[TDC Nala]

There were four companies subpoenaed: Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL/Time Warner, and Google. Google is the only one that refused. The others complied.

The story on this is that the government is, at this point, not interested in identifying data. They want to assemble statistical evidence on how easy it is to access pornography through a search engine so they can prove a need for this law that outweighs the Supreme Court's stance on it.

The law seeks to criminalize the purveyors of pornography who do not take steps to exclude minors from access, not the viewers.

Personally, my questions are: what will the next law seek to penalize? What information will the government want next time; will they want identifiers so they can seek out adults who look at pornography online in a home where there are children? I personally don't trust any administration, Republican or Democrat, not to decide that it's going to reach further in this area.

 

[xterratri]

Oh dear, I spend alot of internet time looking at porn-








bike porn that is. Trek, Quintana Roo, Specialized, Litespeed, you get the picture. Cheers to Google for standing up for privacy, but they'll probably lose in the end.

 

[eclectics]

A law which has already been struck down by the supreme court. They're doing exactly what Chicago526 said they were doing - attempting to legislate morality (and as usual, they are ignoring the court).

They ignore the court and attempt to ammend the constitution when the law doesn't suit them, but if they agree with the court, then all is right with the world. If the supreme court struck down Roe V Wade, do you think they will make an attempt to reinstate it?

 

[Micca]

Oh well, so much for my senate confirmation hearing.

 

[DisneyMomOK]

I bet there are a lot of teen-age boys that are going to be in BIG trouble over this.

Sharon

 

[pdchris]

Whew -- I only use Yahoo

That's even worse. Yahoo along with MSN, according to the news report, actually did give up records to the feds.

 

[JerryMoCricketsGal]

<quickly deletes history in computer>



what is this 'porn' you speak of?? the only place I go is to the Disney board...geesh...