Bush Wants YOUR Google Records

[Mark]

What next, Conservatives?

Now your president wants to know what YOU have been Googling on the internet:

Google is resisting a White House subpoena to hand over the records of the searches internet users are asking it to perform, it has emerged.

The request was first made last summer, but when California-based Google refused to comply, the US attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, lodged papers with a federal judge in San Jose to enforce the order.

The White House argues that a list of all requests entered into its search engine over a single week - which could span tens of millions of queries - will help it build up a profile of internet use it needs to defend an online pornography law...

...The papers said Google's search record "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users [and] to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1691273,00.html

My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?

[Mephisto]

My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?

Good question, Mark!

I guess it's going to take a few apologists being arrested for kiddie-porn before they get too upset about this. It is, after all, a necessary step toward ensuring the security of the U.S. (as I'm sure many terrorists occasionally Google for info on bomb-recipes, how to fly a jet-liner, etc.).

I suggest that we start a Google-It campaign whereby we gather a great number of friends and acquaintances and ask them to Google IMPREACHMENT PROCESS. That'll get them worried! ;)

[Ed]

So what?

[aerocontrols]

I guess they would have to be looking for personal information to get me worked up.

That said, I hope they lose the court case - both the effort to subpoena google and the case to defend the latest attempt to legislate internet decency.

[Darat]

On what grounds can they demand this information from a private company - surely the data belongs to the company and therefore its shareholders? If the government want it shouldn't they have to at least pay for it?

[Manny]

My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?Well, let's see.

I object to the government's request in this matter and I hope they lose their court case. Happy?

That said, I note that the government is not asking for the requesters of any searches. Which is to say, your title is inaccurate. Bush doesn't want YOUR (or MY) Google records, but rather Google's Google records. YOUR (or MY) Google Images Searches for exhibitionistic thong wearing 17 year old fundamentalist Christian lesbians (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50801) will remain private to us; the government will just know that someone ran that search. This is objectionable. But why exaggerate it?

[Mark]

So what?

Every time the Bush Administration assaults the Bill of Rights, someone asks this question. If you can't see the pattern---and be alarmed by it---nothing I can say will convince you. The individual violations may not be that bad, but taken together they present a pattern that every American who values our liberties should be upset about.

For those who would give up their freedom for the mere illusion of safety, I suppose "So what?" is a valid question.

Mephisto
I suggest that we start a Google-It campaign whereby we gather a great number of friends and acquaintances and ask them to Google IMPREACHMENT PROCESS. That'll get them worried! ;)

I love it! (And I just did it, too.)

[aerocontrols]

On what grounds can they demand this information from a private company - surely the data belongs to the company and therefore its shareholders? If the government want it shouldn't they have to at least pay for it?

I imagine they use the same principle that allows them to get fuel efficiency standards so they can examine CAFE compliance and whatnot.

[Mephisto]

On what grounds can they demand this information from a private company - surely the data belongs to the company and therefore its shareholders? If the government want it shouldn't they have to at least pay for it?

On the same grounds they use to monitor our telephone messages or our email (and likely the contents of our computers), don't you remember there is a war going on, Darat and President Bush is responsible for the safety of the American people. Please don't forget that, because of 9/11, our government has the right to investigate anyone they consider suspicious.

I'll wager that the NSA spy scandal is the tip of the iceberg and we'll someday find out that the government routinely "looks into" the data of private companies and private citizens.

P.S. They DID pay for it, but now they'll have to pay Jackoff. ;)

[headscratcher4]

Have no fear. Given this Administration's record, there is no doubt that they will use whatever information they gather, wisely, judiciously and with respect for individual rights. They took an oath on the consitution to do so. Clearly, they should be given great leeway and be credited with the most noble of intentions. Fortunately, though many in the Administration began their careers as politicians, they have morphed into super patriots who now put the safety and security of our country above politics or other base considerations...and I, for one, have every confidence that they will protect whatever information they gather (whether from warrentless wire-tapping to examining google-searches) only to protect this nation and to promote freedom and democracy around the globe, oh, yes, and to fight terrorism.

I have finally seen the light. God bless George Bush.

[Mark]

Well, let's see.

I object to the government's request in this matter and I hope they lose their court case. Happy?

Marginally, except that you sort of took it away with your comment below.


That said, I note that the government is not asking for the requesters of any searches. Which is to say, your title is inaccurate. Bush doesn't want YOUR (or MY) Google records, but rather Google's Google records. YOUR (or MY) Google Images Searches for exhibitionistic thong wearing 17 year old fundamentalist Christian lesbians (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=50801) will remain private to us; the government will just know that someone ran that search. This is objectionable. But why exaggerate it?

Do you think that information is not in the records? Where do you think Spam comes from?

I am not exaggerating. You, on the other hand, are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

[Manny]

Do you think that information is not in the records? Where do you think Spam comes from?Yes. I think that information is not in the records requested by the government (or, sadly, supplied by Yahoo or MSN). I do not think Spam comes from my Google searches. I have complete, 100% confidence that the only email address of mine of which Google is aware ends in "gmail.com."

[Mark]

Yes. I think that information is not in the records requested by the government (or, sadly, supplied by Yahoo or MSN). I do not think Spam comes from my Google searches. I have complete, 100% confidence that the only email address of mine of which Google is aware ends in "gmail.com."

Oh, good. That solves everything.

You can go back to sleep now. ;)

Oh, btw:
In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1523418

[Freakshow]

I'm with you on this one, Mark. I'm glad to see Google is fighting it.

[Mark]

I'm with you on this one, Mark. I'm glad to see Google is fighting it.
Ever since I read your political view list, I realized we agree far more than we disagree. There is no reality. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

I am no apologist for the administration, but this particular thing doesn't bother me as much upon relfection as it did when I first heard about it. They aren't asking for information to determine who made what search, just records showing that out of X number of searches ran in a week, there were Y number looking one thing, Z number looking for another and so on, along with a list of web sites that Google is capable of directing a user to. So I have to agree that your thread title is a little misleading.

That being said though, I am no lawyer (and maybe a lawyer could explain this to me if I am wrong) but I don;t see how Google is in any way obligated to help the government prove its case unless Google is somehow party to the suit. It bothers me more from that point of view than from a privacy violation point of view.

[Mephisto]

I love it! (And I just did it, too.)

HA! Won't they be pi$$ed if they finally get the "approval" from Google to look through their records only to find a vast number of hits on IMPEACHMENT PROCESS?

I've got a pretty extensive list of friends and family that I'll send the suggestion to - maybe we could start a movement! Too bad we can't have them sing a bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walk out . . .

Just think, if this grew exponentially, we could get as many as 300 or 400 people involved!

[Manny]

Oh, good. That solves everything.
In case you care, here (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/google-doj/mcelvain.declaration.pdf) is the original subpoena and here (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/google-doj/motion.to.compel.pdf) is the recently filed motion so you can judge for yourself. I'm sure you agree that original sources are generally preferable to having one's information distilled through the media.

[Mark]

In case you care, here (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/google-doj/mcelvain.declaration.pdf) is the original subpoena and here (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/google-doj/motion.to.compel.pdf) is the recently filed motion so you can judge for yourself. I'm sure you agree that original sources are generally preferable to having one's information distilled through the media.

I also know that THERE IS NO WAY YOU READ THROUGH THAT WHOLE THING ALREADY. No way at all.

So, all you have done is prove how desperate you are to excuse this Administration for anything. ABC news has reported that they ARE asking for web addresses. You choose not to believe it based on absolutely nothing, except the assumption (aslo based on nothing) that ABC is lying.

And the media disinformation continues:
Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued in 2005, for a wide range of material from its databases, including a request for one 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 on Wednesday in a U.S. court in San Jose.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/19/business/techbrief.php

Pf course, the Associated Press are lying about poor Bushie, too, right?

[Nyarlathotep]

I also know that THERE IS NO WAY YOU READ THROUGH THAT WHOLE THING ALREADY. No way at all.

So, all you have done is prove how desperate you are to excuse this Administration for anything. ABC news has reported that they ARE asking for web addresses. You choose not to believe it based on absolutely nothing, except the assumption (aslo based on nothing) that ABC is lying..

Yes, web addresses of the companies that Google can provide a hit to, not web addresses of the people doing the searches (I am not so sure they could even DO that without the cooperation of lots and lots and lots of ISPs)

[Manny]

I read 'em yesterday, when the story broke. And yes, they're asking for web addresses. Random web addresses. As in, 'we originally wanted all valid web addresses, but we can't count to a trillion so we'll just take a million and use that as a sample.' Actually, I don't object to the government's request for that information at all.

[rikzilla]

I read 'em yesterday, when the story broke. And yes, they're asking for web addresses. Random web addresses. As in, 'we originally wanted all valid web addresses, but we can't count to a trillion so we'll just take a million and use that as a sample.' Actually, I don't object to the government's request for that information at all.

I am similarly underwhelmed... Mark is doing his usual Daffy-Duck as chicken-little routine...but it's cute...keep it up man! ;)

-z

[aerocontrols]

I also know that THERE IS NO WAY YOU READ THROUGH THAT WHOLE THING ALREADY. No way at all.

So, all you have done is prove how desperate you are to excuse this Administration for anything. ABC news has reported that they ARE asking for web addresses. You choose not to believe it based on absolutely nothing, except the assumption (aslo based on nothing) that ABC is lying.

They are asking for web addresses (URLs) that are searchable by google.

They are not asking for e-mail addresses.

I think manny is arguing more that you don't know what you're talking about, rather than that ABC is lying.

[Mark]

I read 'em yesterday, when the story broke. And yes, they're asking for web addresses. Random web addresses. As in, 'we originally wanted all valid web addresses, but we can't count to a trillion so we'll just take a million and use that as a sample.' Actually, I don't object to the government's request for that information at all.

I know you don't.

I do.

And I would if Clinton were still in office.

[Mark]

They are asking for web addresses (URLs) that are searchable by google.

They are not asking for e-mail addresses.

I think manny is arguing more that you don't know what you're talking about, rather than that ABC is lying.

Google says that information would be in the data; read the subpoena. The Government disagrees. Guess who I find more credible? The people who actually have the data.

[aerocontrols]

HA! Won't they be pi$$ed if they finally get the "approval" from Google to look through their records only to find a vast number of hits on IMPEACHMENT PROCESS?

They subpoenaed the search data for the dates June 1, 2005 till July 31, 2005.

Still, have fun.

[varwoche]

That said, I note that the government is not asking for the requesters of any searches. Which is to say, your title is inaccurate. Bush doesn't want YOUR (or MY) Google records, but rather Google's Google records. Google's web log -- or any web log for that matter -- contains IP addresses which can identify users in some instances.

[Mark]

I am similarly underwhelmed... Mark is doing his usual Daffy-Duck as chicken-little routine...but it's cute...keep it up man! ;)

-z

No problem. Some of us have to be concerned about our liberties, no matter which party is in the White House.

And I am hardly alone on this one.

Pam Dixon, the executive director of the World Privacy Forum, told the Associated Press that Google was right to resist the requests.

"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time. Google should be commended for fighting this."

She said she hoped the case would remind people to be careful when they used search engines. "When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1691273,00.html

Btw, making an argument against my position---based on my avatar!---is pretty lame. Is that really the best you can do?

[aerocontrols]

Google says that information would be in the data; read the subpoena. The Government disagrees. Guess who I find more credible? The people who actually have the data.

1) Google's case isn't in the subpoena. Why would I find google's argument there?

2) So you agree that manny wasn't accusing ABC of lying, then?

[Mark]

Google's web log -- or any web log for that matter -- contains IP addresses which can identify users in some instances.

Which is what I tried to point out earlier...but some just don't want to hear that.

[Mark]

1) Google's case isn't in the subpoena. Why would I find google's argument there?

2) So you agree that manny wasn't accusing ABC of lying, then?

You didn't read the entire document. Big surprise.

[aerocontrols]

Google's web log -- or any web log for that matter -- contains IP addresses which can identify users in some instances.

Too bad that the IP addresses are superglued in there. I guess there's nothing to be done.

[aerocontrols]

You didn't read the entire document. Big surprise.

Don't be surprised. As you said, there are quite a few pages. If you care to prove your point, just quote the relevant material.

Also, please answer my question.

Thanks

[Manny]

Google's web log -- or any web log for that matter -- contains IP addresses which can identify users in some instances.Correct. However, the government is not requesting that information. Nor is it requesting what websites were returned as a result of a search string, which data Google has, nor the number of hits, which Google also has. They're just asking for the search terms and the random list of URLs.

Google says that information would be in the data; read the subpoena. I've read it. Google says no such thing. Indeed, Google says the information the government seeks from the random list is available from archive.org. Google does say that some identifiable information might be in the other part of the subpoenaed information -- the queries. And that's true, to some extent. People who search on their own names, for example. But that's the part of the subpoena to which I object.

[Mark]

Don't be surprised. As you said, there are quite a few pages. If you care to prove your point, just quote the relevant material.

Also, please answer my question.

Thanks

Don't comment on what you have not read. I can't copy and paste it because it is a pdf document...you'll have to actually make the effort to read it yourself. Which you won't...not that that will stop you from commenting on it.

Manny either accused ABC of lying or being incompetent. Never mind the fact that many news organizations have commented on it. Probably all part of the liberal media conspiracy.

[Soapy Sam]

I think Google, AOL etc should hand over the lot.
Everything.
Every email address, dirty picture download, text message, forum post, advert tittle and spam.
Twice a day.
By direct electronic transfer.
Everyone should keep backups. Let the government do it.
At least you'll know your tax dollars are doing something useful.

And I bet I know who cries "uncle" first.

[aerocontrols]

Don't comment on what you have not read.

Thanks for the advice.

I can't copy and paste it because it is a pdf document...you'll have to actually make the effort to read it yourself.

You and manny are directly disagreeing about Google's claim, and you've both read the document. Since manny's says that google doesn't say what you claim anywhere in the document, it seems your next step is to show that they do. If you can't be bothered to type the section out, perhaps you can tell us the paragraph and page number.

[Jocko]

Don't comment on what you have not read. I can't copy and paste it because it is a pdf document...you'll have to actually make the effort to read it yourself. Which you won't...not that that will stop you from commenting on it.

Golly. Someone who doesn't know how to c & p from a PDF is gonna lecture me on the subtle and sublime capacities of the internet. There's something I never would have expected.

Mark, you can pull copy from a PDF. Open Acrobat and look in the upper left of the menu bar for a type cursor. That's the "select text" function. Once it's active, you can copy to your heart's content.

Manny either accused ABC of lying or being incompetent. Never mind the fact that many news organizations have commented on it. Probably all part of the liberal media conspiracy.

If it helps any, I salute Google on pure principle. The less the government knows about people the better. However, that doesn't change the fact that as far as privacy issues go, this is a non-starter for a whole host of reasons already given.

On principle, the feds should get stuffed. As a practical matter, it doesn't amount to jack squat, though. Sorry.

[Random]

I think Google, AOL etc should hand over the lot.
Everything.
Every email address, dirty picture download, text message, forum post, advert tittle and spam.
Twice a day.
By direct electronic transfer.
Everyone should keep backups. Let the government do it.
At least you'll know your tax dollars are doing something useful.

And I bet I know who cries "uncle" first.
I don't know about direct electronic transfer of such a large amount of information. It's inviting large scale data corruption. Better make it paper hard copy just to be on the safe side.

[corplinx]

Bush Wants Your Hotmail Account Too

[Mephisto]

They subpoenaed the search data for the dates June 1, 2005 till July 31, 2005.

Still, have fun.

Oops! Have any idea why they want anything between those dates?

Since the impeachment process search won't catch their eye, maybe we could run a Bush + Criminal + Cocaine Google bomb? That would probably be more fun anyway . . .

[aerocontrols]

Jocko:

This .pdf is, as many tend to be, a .pdf of a photocopy. You need an ocr program to pull text out of it.

[Manny]

Manny either accused ABC of lying or being incompetent. No I didn't. ABC (actually, it was an AP story running on ABC's website) accurately reported that the government was seeking 1 million random websites.

[aerocontrols]

Oops! Have any idea why they want anything between those dates?

There's nothing special at all about those dates. They're looking for aggregate data to demonstrate a point that the Supreme Court said they hadn't proved in the prior case, instead of looking for personal data so they can throw Mark in jail for mopery with intent to creep.

[Freakshow]

Ever since I read your political view list, I realized we agree far more than we disagree. There is no reality. ;)Well, there is reality right now, because I have to get some work done. But you're welcome to come hang out this weekend. You're in a band, right? You should fit right in. :D

[RandFan]

My God, what does it take for some of you to even start objecting to any of this stuff?:D I'm sorry Mark. It is a serious matter and I don't mean to bellitle it. You're just funny sometimes.

legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin suspects that the Bush Administration considers the Google search records too important to be left to the decision of a court. He concludes that Google and the government will reach an agreement for sharing Google's records before the court is allowed to create a precedent on the conflict. I object Mr. Bush. What you are doing is wrong.

Are you happy now?

Google to Bush: Go pound sand (http://afr.com/articles/2006/01/20/1137734145507.html).

[Mark]

Golly. Someone who doesn't know how to c & p from a PDF is gonna lecture me on the subtle and sublime capacities of the internet. There's something I never would have expected.

Mark, you can pull copy from a PDF. Open Acrobat and look in the upper left of the menu bar for a type cursor. That's the "select text" function. Once it's active, you can copy to your heart's content.



If it helps any, I salute Google on pure principle. The less the government knows about people the better. However, that doesn't change the fact that as far as privacy issues go, this is a non-starter for a whole host of reasons already given.

On principle, the feds should get stuffed. As a practical matter, it doesn't amount to jack squat, though. Sorry.


You got me there...I didn't know you could do that with a pdf document. However, since Manny linked to the document, and I had to read the entire thing to find the pertinent paragraph, I suggest you bust his chops. Or read it yourself as I did. If that sounds petulant, it is; I get tired sometimes of being held to a different standard from conservatives.

So read it or shut up about it. That's what I had to do.

[Mark]

Well, there is reality right now, because I have to get some work done. But you're welcome to come hang out this weekend. You're in a band, right? You should fit right in. :D

Actually, I'd love to. You won't be at the NAMM show this weekend, will you?

[Jocko]

Jocko:

This .pdf is, as many tend to be, a .pdf of a photocopy. You need an ocr program to pull text out of it.

Whoops. Never mind!

[Mark]

Whoops. Never mind!

I'll accept your apology now.

[Mark]

There's nothing special at all about those dates. They're looking for aggregate data to demonstrate a point that the Supreme Court said they hadn't proved in the prior case, instead of looking for personal data so they can throw Mark in jail for mopery with intent to creep.

The scary thing is, if they did do that, people like you would think it was perfectly OK.

[Manny]

You got me there...I didn't know you could do that with a pdf document. However, since Manny linked to the document, and I had to read the entire thing to find the pertinent paragraph, I suggest you bust his chops. Or read it yourself as I did. If that sounds petulant, it is; I get tired sometimes of being held to a different standard from conservatives.
Heh. As Aero pointed out and Jocko has agreed, Jocko's request was in error. Neither of us can easily cut and paste the text from the relevant links.

We could each type out the relevant parts of course, except that I'm alleging that the part is not there, so what would I type? I guess I could type "And one could envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome Google cannot accept." But that was in the objection to the disclosure of the search terms, not the random URLs.

[Mark]

Heh. As Aero pointed out and Jocko has agreed, Jocko's request was in error. Neither of us can easily cut and paste the text from the relevant links.

We could each type out the relevant parts of course, except that I'm alleging that the part is not there, so what would I type? I guess I could type "And one could envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome Google cannot accept." But that was in the objection to the disclosure of the search terms, not the random URLs.

Believe it or not, I really am working under a deadline...and doing this debating in between. I really don't have time to manually type out the paragraphs. People on your side of the aisle will say it is because they are not there. There is nothing I can do about that right now. Maybe later today.

Although I remind you all that several independent news orgainizations read it the same way I did. How can people who have not read the document dispute the media take on it?

[Manny]

Believe it or not, I really am working under a deadline...and doing this debating in between. I really don't have time to manually type out the paragraphs. People on your side of the aisle will say it is because they are not there. There is nothing I can do about that tight now. Maybe later today.Hey, we all got a gig. I for one will never accuse someone of ducking anything simply because they don't do it in some short time span.

Although I remind you all that several independent news orgainizations read it the same way I did. How can people who have not read the document dispute the media take on it?I think you're misreading the articles. All the articles say that the url portion of the subpoena is for random urls and none say that there would be identifying information of google users attached to that information.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Only the guily have something to hide what are you afraid of? Why do you hate our freedom?

[Mark]

Hey, we all got a gig. I for one will never accuse someone of ducking anything simply because they don't do it in some short time span.

I think you're misreading the articles. All the articles say that the url portion of the subpoena is for random urls and none say that there would be identifying information of google users attached to that information.

Maybe. If I have time this afternnon, I will indeed copy the paragraphs in question and we can debate them.

Although, given that the personal data are almost cetainly in the records anyway, it is sort of a moot point. The government can track our use of search engines without your consent and without probable cause. You don't find that alarming. I do. Very. What else is there to debate?

For all of you who have no objection to this, I have to wonder: what won't you let this administration do? They can examine your records without a warrant or probable cause. They can imprison you indefinitely without charge or trial. What won't you let them do?

[aerocontrols]

Maybe. If I have time this afternnon, I will indeed copy the paragraphs in question and we can debate them.

I reiterate:

If you can't be bothered to type the section out, perhaps you can tell us the paragraph and page number.

It doesn't seem that hard...

[Anti_Hypeman]

What won't you let them do?

As long as they dont let gays marry the base will be happy. They only get ruffled over the important issues.

[Mark]

I reiterate:

If you can't be bothered to type the section out, perhaps you can tell us the paragraph and page number.

It doesn't seem that hard...

Read it. Same as I did.

[aerocontrols]

Read it. Same as I did.

No thanks.

[Jocko]

I'll accept your apology now.

I apologize for not taking a good look at the document, but not for your ignorance of the text select tool. You will need it someday.

You're welcome.

[Jocko]

Read it. Same as I did.

Just so you know, you're staring to resemble CFLarsen in a most unflattering way with your refusal to clarify.

Just saying.

[Ohmer]

So what?
Because the Feds are going to use this information to find the best girl on girl web sites and shut them down. Such sites are wrong. Do you want that Ed?:mad:

Seriously, what bothers me about this is the government is asking to google to hand over data that it collected for a court case that has nothing to do with google.
Feds seek Google data (http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/technology/google_suit/index.htm?cnn=yes)
"Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches," Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said in a comment to CNN.

If the feds need this information to make their case, they should either collect it themselves or pay for it. They are tying to get a expert witness for free.

[TragicMonkey]

My last few Google searches:

"Hitler" AND "hat size"
"lyrics" AND "Billy Ocean" and "Caribbean Queen"
"Zoo Tycoon" AND "cheats"
"monkey" AND "skull" AND "for sale"
"non stick frying pan"

And I'll state, unafraid of the controversy, that Billy Ocean was really pretty damn good.

[Mark]

I apologize for not taking a good look at the document, but not for your ignorance of the text select tool. You will need it someday.

You're welcome.

Apology and rebuke accepted.

In all seriousness, it bothers me that Manny could argue with what's in the document without reading it, and no one questions it. I agree with something in it and I have to take my time to manually type out what's in it. Or re-read the whole thing---well, at least half; I think that's where the paragraph was---which I do not have time for right now.

Do you see the double standard?

Do you also see how silly it is when the news outlets reporting it agree with me?

In any case, I'll read it again when I can spare 15 minutes to do so (I admit I did not write down the paragraph number). But the blatant double standard is still very, very annoying. It shows me that certain people are not interested in accuracy; they are interested in supporting Bush. If it were otherwise, they would read it themselves.

[Mark]

No thanks.

Not interested in facts, only supporting Bush, eh?

[roger]

Maybe. If I have time this afternnon, I will indeed copy the paragraphs in question and we can debate them.Well, the front page of today's Washington Post explicitly states:The government asked...Google... to turn over every query...without providing identifying information about the people who conducted the searches.

Admittedly this is a secondary source, but unless they publish a retraction in a day or so I think we can take it as accurate.

[Mark]

Well, the front page of today's Washington Post explicitly states:

Admittedly this is a secondary source, but unless they publish a retraction in a day or so I think we can take it as accurate.

The tracking information is in the data unless it is somehow deleted (a possibility). Remember, the government is demanding the data be delivered electronically, not by hard copy.

If it is deleted (and Google agrees that it has) I will withdraw my objection.

[Darat]

The tracking information is in the data unless it is somehow deleted (a possibility). Remember, the government is demanding the data be delivered electronically, not by hard copy.

If it is deleted (and Google agrees that it has) I will withdraw my objection.

If I was google and was forced to do this I would be so tempted to deliver it as hard copy!

[aerocontrols]

Not interested in facts, only supporting Bush, eh?

I'm not supporting Bush in this instance. Pretty obvious from my initial post. Whether I'm interested in the facts or not should be rather obvious from my defense of you Re: jocko's assertion that you could copy/paste from those .pdfs. "People like [me]" who care about the facts point out things like that, even to benefit people like you who refuse to be civil to "people like [me]".

I don't have time to read 45 pages of .pdf looking for something you claim is in there, somewhere. (something I'm sure you can understand, since you don't have time to type out 3-4 sentences from one of them)

Since you claim that the document says something, it should take almost no effort at all to prove it to everyone. The fact that you're so unwilling sets off my BS detectors.

[WildCat]

Not interested in facts, only supporting Bush, eh?Mark, the only one not interested in facts here is you. You are only interested in spin, just like you were here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1387169#post1387169).

[Mark]

Mark, the only one not interested in facts here is you. You are only interested in spin, just like you were here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1387169#post1387169).

Please state the facts of this thread that show where I am wrong.

Oh, wait, if you could you already would have.

[Mark]

I'm not supporting Bush in this instance. Pretty obvious from my initial post. Whether I'm interested in the facts or not should be rather obvious from my defense of you Re: jocko's assertion that you could copy/paste from those .pdfs. "People like [me]" who care about the facts point out things like that, even to benefit people like you who refuse to be civil to "people like [me]".

I don't have time to read 45 pages of .pdf looking for something you claim is in there, somewhere. (something I'm sure you can understand, since you don't have time to type out 3-4 sentences from one of them)

Since you claim that the document says something, it should take almost no effort at all to prove it to everyone. The fact that you're so unwilling sets off my BS detectors.

Are you illiterate? READ IT YOURSELF!

You don't have time? Neither do I to do it twice. Oh, there's that wonderful conservative double standard again.

[Darat]

So let me understand this. It would seem to me that the people who don't think this is a big deal are pretty much saying the government should be able to demand information for any company even when that company is not involved directly in an action? Or that the government acting as if it can demand such information is no big deal?

[Nyarlathotep]

If I was google and was forced to do this I would be so tempted to deliver it as hard copy!

With each entry getting its own page.

With the pages in no particular order.

[Nyarlathotep]

So let me understand this. It would seem to me that the people who don't think this is a big deal are pretty much saying the government should be able to demand information for any company even when that company is not involved directly in an action? Or that the government acting as if it can demand such information is no big deal?

Not so. From my reading of this thread, even the people who don't see it as a big deal from a personal privacy standpoint, still agree that the government ahs no right to demand those records.

The two really are seperate issues and it is possible to not care about one and be deeply concerned about the other, or vice versa.

[Manny]

The tracking information is in the data unless it is somehow deleted (a possibility). Remember, the government is demanding the data be delivered electronically, not by hard copy.

If it is deleted (and Google agrees that it has) I will withdraw my objection.As regards the URLs, the tracking information is not in the data -- the government wants just the actual urls. i.e., amazon.com, forms.randi.org, exhibitionisticthongwearing17yearoldfundamentalist christianlesbians.com, etc.

As regards the search strings, from the motion to compel (http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/google-doj/motion.to.compel.pdf) (page 6, starting at line 8), "the subpoena specifically directs Google to produce only the text of the random sample of search strings, without any additional personal identifying information."

Now that said, I do not withdraw my objection to the subpoena of the search strings. It is possible, indeed probable, that at least some of the search strings themselves contain personally identifying information. Say my IRL name is John Smith. But I have a secret live as pornstar Lance Package. If I'm concerned that my secret identity is out there on the net I might run a search for "John Smith" "Lance Package." So Google's concern in this instance is not without merit.

[TragicMonkey]

So let me understand this. It would seem to me that the people who don't think this is a big deal are pretty much saying the government should be able to demand information for any company even when that company is not involved directly in an action? Or that the government acting as if it can demand such information is no big deal?

Simply shout "War on terror! 9/11! War on terror!" enough times, and anything is justified. Right to a fair and speedy trial, the Geneva Convention, rules of evidence, warrants, right to representation, rights against unfair search and seizure...if those can be superceded, what cannot? The government has whatever powers it decides it wants.

[aerocontrols]

So let me understand this. It would seem to me that the people who don't think this is a big deal are pretty much saying the government should be able to demand information for any company even when that company is not involved directly in an action? Or that the government acting as if it can demand such information is no big deal?


What Nyarlathotep said.

[Manny]

What Nyarlathotep said.In fairness, I said that I have "no objection" to the request for random URLs. Let me amend that statement. I have no privacy-related objection to the government's request for that information. As regards the government's "right" to obtain the information by subpoena I can see some arguments on both sides and I'm content to let the big boys at the Justice Department and Google's legal department slug it out, but I'm secretly rooting for Google to win.

[Mark]

I just spent 30 minutes doing what you people asked, and had the site delete my post. So this attempt will be much shorter. Keep in mind this is a motion filed by the government's attorneys!!!!. Also,I have to put in my password every few minutes to keep from losing what I type...so this will be added to over the next few minutes.

A) Page 4, line 6 on, show how the government did want all data, including personal info, but now limited it to data that do not have that info. This is bogus, because they still want the original electronic data which does have such personal identifiers. There is no provision in this entire motion explaining how personal identifiers will be deleted, or how we as Google users can confirm such deletions.

Page 8, line 8 again confirms that the government wants the electronic files...and there is no provision whatsoever explaining how personal identifiers are to be deleted, or how such deletions are to be confirmed.

On this section, the motion also says that the government wants access to the databases where the URLs are stored...such databases certainly contain personal identifiers. You may be comfortable trusting politicians with your personal information, but I am not, be they Republican OR Democrat.

B)
"What an outrage!" says Paul Alan Levy, an attorney with the litigation group of nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. "There are two kinds of questions that are raised here. One is what ought a court to do about a subpoena like this? Our general view is that because Internet activity is a form of speech or association, there ought to be some standard of proof that a party seeking such discovery ought to be able to meet before obtaining information."

"The second problem," he continues, "is ISPs should be aware of the danger of such subpoenas and really should be thinking very hard about how much of this information they ought to be retaining."
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=177102097&pgno=2

C)It's not just me who is concerned. From an attorney actually fighting child porn:
Parry Aftab, a cyberspace lawyer who runs WiredSafety.org, an online safety group to protect children online, said the identification requirements of COPA violate the privacy of adults.


"There is not yet a way to identify that somebody is an adult without also identifying who they are," she explains. "And in this country, adults are allowed to view legal pornography without having to identify who they are. You might have to flash a driver's license to show that you're over 21 but nobody writes it down."
http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=177102097&pgno=2

***FINISHED***

[TragicMonkey]

<techie tip>Write your post in Notepad or another simple text editor, then copy and paste. This will make it easier than handling having to reenter passwords and such if the session expires, and if your browser or the site experiences technical difficulties, you will not lose your post. Also, you can save the text file forever, that you may open it up occasionally and bask in your own wisdom. Oddly enough, I don't seem to make any posts worth saving, myself.</techie tip>

[Jocko]

In fairness, I said that I have "no objection" to the request for random URLs. Let me amend that statement. I have no privacy-related objection to the government's request for that information. As regards the government's "right" to obtain the information by subpoena I can see some arguments on both sides and I'm content to let the big boys at the Justice Department and Google's legal department slug it out, but I'm secretly rooting for Google to win.

Does anyone remember... was it Webcrawler or Lycos or Hotbot (remember when those were the last word in search engines? Boy I feel old)... anyway, one of them had an auto-refreshing window on its homepage that displayed 10 random search strings entered by users.

There was an option to filter out adult content if you wished, but otherwise it was practically a ticker tape of real-time searches spewed out 24 hours a day. It was presumably there to reinforce the engine's popularity, but from what I've seen here, it's more or less the same kind of random sampling of search strings under discussion here.

And that was pushed into the PUBLIC, by the website iself! I don't recall any uproar about it at the time.

Any other old codgers remember that? I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Nyarlathotep]

Any other old codgers remember that? I'll see if I can dig it up.

I do. I think it was Lycos

[Darat]

[QUOTE=Jocko;1393899
...snip...

And that was pushed into the PUBLIC, by the website iself! I don't recall any uproar about it at the time.

Any other old codgers remember that? I'll see if I can dig it up.[/QUOTE]

Why is that comparable to this isue?

[Jocko]

Why is that comparable to this isue?


Because, Darat. It's (apparently) the same "sensitive, personal information" that has everyone's knickers in a twist. Do you not see how that relates to the discussion at hand?

[Nyarlathotep]

Why is that comparable to this isue?

Because it is the same level of invasion of privacy. It told you what was being searched for, not who was doing it.

[TragicMonkey]

Does anyone remember... was it Webcrawler or Lycos or Hotbot (remember when those were the last word in search engines? Boy I feel old)... anyway, one of them had an auto-refreshing window on its homepage that displayed 10 random search strings entered by users.


Yes, and it was hilarious!

Last ten seaches:

Backstreet Boys
N Sync
naked AND girls AND girl on girl
Backstreet Boys
michael jackson AND freak AND children
nude girls
leather AND girls AND free porn
Backstreet Boys
Backstreet Boys
Backstreet Boys AND gay AND talentless

Only the real ones were usually misspelled.

[Darat]

Because it is the same level of invasion of privacy. It told you what was being searched for, not who was doing it.

Because, Darat. It's (apparently) the same "sensitive, personal information" that has everyone's knickers in a twist. Do you not see how that relates to the discussion at hand?

One was what a company decided to do with its own data - one is a government telling a company what to do. I really don't see the comparison.

[Nyarlathotep]

One was what a company decided to do with its own data - one is a government telling a company what to do. I really don't see the comparison.

Again, though, I think most people here that don't see this as an egregious breach of privacy still agree that the aspect of the government forcing a third party with no involvment in the case to hand over info like that is troubling. As I said, they are two different issues.

[Jocko]

One was what a company decided to do with its own data - one is a government telling a company what to do. I really don't see the comparison.

No one, as far as I can tell, is arguing that the feds should have the right to demand the data, so you can stop thrashing at that strawman any time. My point was, and I really think I was quite clear on the matter, is that the SAME DATA was available publicly, where anyone could see it, even an FBI agent with an AOL account - and no one cared.

My point of dispute is not over Google's rights and responsibilities, but rather over the predictable hysteria that flows in the wake of every "Bush is out to destroy us all" issue like this one.

Like most of the others, it's a non-starter, no matter how much outraged spittle flies from the lips of the "aggreived."

[Jocko]

Yes, and it was hilarious!



Only the real ones were usually misspelled.

Right on. Glad to see I'm not recalling incorrectly. Those really were funny... and if the records of these searches and their identities were ever given to any agency, it should be the Department of Education so they could assign mandatory remedial grammar classes.

[Manny]

No one, as far as I can tell, is arguing that the feds should have the right to demand the data, so you can stop thrashing at that strawman any time. My point was, and I really think I was quite clear on the matter, is that the SAME DATA was available publicly, where anyone could see it, even an FBI agent with an AOL account - and no one cared.
Again, let's be fair. Some of the very same people screaming about this were in fact screaming about the search engines collecting (and in particular retaining, of course) the data in the first place. That's why Firefox has a Google cookie scrambler, for example.

Google, of course, is not in the same position, having collected the data in the first place.

[Darat]

No one, as far as I can tell, is arguing that the feds should have the right to demand the data, so you can stop thrashing at that strawman any time. My point was, and I really think I was quite clear on the matter, is that the SAME DATA was available publicly, where anyone could see it, even an FBI agent with an AOL account - and no one cared.


But why should anyone have cared? That is what that company said to its users that it would do with that information.

That is why the two things are not comparable.

[Jocko]

But why should anyone have cared? That is what that company said to its users that it would do with that information.

That is not the issue. The issue is that the same anonymous data is considered humorous when disseminated one way, and a mortal threat to the American way of life when used the same way by someone else, even though that someone else already had access to it, as in the Lycos matter.

Again - I have made no comment on the legal standing of Google or the feds. I think the feds should get stuffed just on basic free market principles. But I also think it's does us no favors to conflate data that has already proven itself to be harmlessly innocuous with Big Brother paranoia.

That is why the two things are not comparable.

I and most people here obviously disagree.

[Freakshow]

That is not the issue. The issue is that the same anonymous data is considered humorous when disseminated one way, and a mortal threat to the American way of life when used the same way by someone else...Absolutely. I apply much stricter rules to government than I do to private industry.

[Jocko]

Absolutely. I apply much stricter rules to government than I do to private industry.

As do I. But with the data that's on the table, it's no more a practical concern than cameras posted on the interstate to measure traffic flow. It's all out there for anyone who cares to sit by the road and watch.

Perhaps a bigger issue here is the general (and erroneous) impression that one's exploits on the web are anonymous. It feels like we're trying to protect a right that has never really existed in the first place.

[TragicMonkey]

As do I. But with the data that's on the table, it's no more a practical concern than cameras posted on the interstate to measure traffic flow. It's all out there for anyone who cares to sit by the road and watch.

Perhaps a bigger issue here is the general (and erroneous) impression that one's exploits on the web are anonymous. It feels like we're trying to protect a right that has never really existed in the first place.

Perhaps the alarm isn't over the particulars, but the principle: the government wants information from a private company, and it demands it. Is the government entitled to seize whatever information it wants, from anyone, for any reason? Or are there limits and qualifications?

[Freakshow]

As do I. But with the data that's on the table, it's no more a practical concern than cameras posted on the interstate to measure traffic flow. It's all out there for anyone who cares to sit by the road and watch.

Perhaps a bigger issue here is the general (and erroneous) impression that one's exploits on the web are anonymous. It feels like we're trying to protect a right that has never really existed in the first place.I understand, but I don't want to set a precedent where it is okay for the government to start doing this. Because the next step is to get information like this that DOES have personal information in it.

"Slippery slope" isn't always a logical fallacy when talking about the advancement of government power. Rights can be taken away step by step, in small increments. There are a lot of historical examples to support that.

[Freakshow]

Perhaps the alarm isn't over the particulars, but the principle: the government wants information from a private company, and it demands it. Is the government entitled to seize whatever information it wants, from anyone, for any reason? Or are there limits and qualifications?Holy crap, that's pretty much exactly what I just said! Me and TM, saying basically the same thing? First Mark...now TM! I think I need to see my shrink...
:D

[LeFevre]

edited because Mark did post the page number of what he was talking about. Thanks Mark.

[RandFan]

:D I'm sorry Mark. It is a serious matter and I don't mean to bellitle it. You're just funny sometimes.

I object Mr. Bush. What you are doing is wrong.

Are you happy now? Mark to Alan: {sounds of crickets}

[Mark]

edited because Mark did post the page number of what he was talking about. Thanks Mark.

No worries.

I would, however, like to point out that after Jocko and Aero demanded that I do their reading for them and post the results, they didn't even bother to respond. I will remember that next time, guys, when you make unreasonable demands of me.

[peptoabysmal]

I'm not sure I trust Google with the information much more than the government. Is anyone else worried about how much info Google may have and to what level of detail? That being said;

COPA has been declared unconstitutional. It was bad law in 1998, it's bad law now. This action is first of all being justified to defend bad law?

I'm against this culling of data that could be personal data and infringe on first amendment and privacy rights. On whose orders is it being done? By Bush directly or by the Justice Dept. or...

[corplinx]

Bush wants your askjeeves searches too

its 1984 all over again man

[Soapy Sam]

He can have it.
I'll do anything to help in the Holy War.

Just remind me- Who are we fighting again?

[Darat]

He can have it.
I'll do anything to help in the Holy War.

Just remind me- Who are we fighting again?


If you have to ask - you're one of them! ;)

[aerocontrols]

My original claim:

They are asking for web addresses (URLs) that are searchable by google.

They are not asking for e-mail addresses.

Mark's response:

Google says that information would be in the data; read the subpoena. The Government disagrees. Guess who I find more credible? The people who actually have the data.

So after some wrangling, we get Mark to point out where in the subpoena it says what he claims. And what does he come up with?


A) Page 4, line 6 on, show how the government did want all data, including personal info, but now limited it to data that do not have that info. This is bogus, because they still want the original electronic data which does have such personal identifiers. There is no provision in this entire motion explaining how personal identifiers will be deleted, or how we as Google users can confirm such deletions.

No, page 4, line 6 on, shows that the government asked for all data, and then granted Google's requests to let the data be stripped of personally identifying information. Your objection that that is 'bogus' seems once again to show that you don't know the difference between 'an' electronic file and some file which you refer to as 'the' electronic file which (according to you) must contain personal identifiers. The motion implies that the manner and confirmation of deletion of personal identifiers would be at google's discretion.

The simple fact of the matter is that the government is willing to do without the personal info, because it doesn't need that info to demonstrate what it wants to demonstrate.

Page 8, line 8 again confirms that the government wants the electronic files...and there is no provision whatsoever explaining how personal identifiers are to be deleted, or how such deletions are to be confirmed.

Once again, you say 'the' electronic files as if the government is demanding some master file that personal identification can't or won't be stripped out of. Page 8, line 8 on refers to an electronic file first of all URLs (these are web addresses, not e-mail addresses, and THERE WOULD BE NO PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS IN SUCH DATA, how could there be?) that google finds via web search, and then this request is limitted to a list of random URLs, which once again would contain no personal information.

There is nothing I see in that section that suggests that even google objected to providing this info on the the grounds that it could have personally identifying information within it.

On this section, the motion also says that the government wants access to the databases where the URLs are stored...such databases certainly contain personal identifiers.

On which line does the motion say that?

[Manny]

COPA has been declared unconstitutional. It was bad law in 1998, it's bad law now. This action is first of all being justified to defend bad law?That's just the problem. Parts were declared unconstitional; other parts were declared, for lack of a better term, "probably unconstitutional but we're sending this back for a full trial to find out, and here's the evidence we want to see." One of the things SCOTUS wondered whether net nanny filters might do a sufficient job of protecting kids from access to porn that the law wasn't necessary. The government here is trying to get data to address that question.

On whose orders is it being done? By Bush directly or by the Justice Dept. or...It'll be the Justice Department and indirectly the Supreme Court.

[Mycroft]

I wonder what would have happened if the government had approached Google and just offered to buy this information.

[luchog]

There's a good article in The Register (http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/21/gonzales_vs_google/) about a part of this issue that most people don't seem to notice. Specifically that Google wasn't the only one targetted; but was the only one that didn't immediately cave in to government pressure. However, because of the nature of the information, and the fact that it's duplicated by their AOL partner, Google's resistance is moot.

Plus, Google is not really resisting on a privacy basis, but on "proprietary business information" grounds.

As far as the War on Privacy goes, this little skirmish isn't even a sideshow.

[Mark]

As far as the War on Privacy goes, this little skirmish isn't even a sideshow.

That I agree with. Bush has effectively scuttled the 1st and 4th ammendments. This one really is a blip in comparison.

From the Florida Sun-Sentinel:
While the White House defended domestic surveillance as a safeguard against terrorism, a Florida peace activist and several Democrats in Congress accused the Bush administration on Friday of spying on Americans who disagree with President Bush's policies.

Richard Hersh, of Boca Raton, Fla., director of Truth Project Inc. of Palm Beach County, told an ad hoc panel of House Democrats that his group and others in South Florida have been infiltrated and spied upon despite having no connections to terrorists.
http://www.jabberwonk.com/flinker.cfm?cliid=661tu

[TragicMonkey]

I'm still amazed at the sheer effort and energy devoted by this administration to fighting pornography. Don't they keep telling us that we should be focused on the War On Terror?

[Darat]

I'm still amazed at the sheer effort and energy devoted by this administration to fighting pornography. Don't they keep telling us that we should be focused on the War On Terror?

But the pornography is sapping the vitality of the young men we need to fight the war on terror/drugs/bush's mother-in-law/that man who short changed me at Starbucks*



*Delete as applicable.

[Mephisto]

I'm still amazed at the sheer effort and energy devoted by this administration to fighting pornography. Don't they keep telling us that we should be focused on the War On Terror?

Much like the "war on drugs" the "war on Christmas" and the "war on Christians," putting money in the pockets of pornographers is like putting money in the pockets of terrorists!

[luchog]

Holy crap, that's pretty much exactly what I just said! Me and TM, saying basically the same thing? First Mark...now TM! I think I need to see my shrink...
:D
It's just proof that the orbiting Libertarian Mind-Control Lasers are working.

[luchog]

Much like the "war on drugs" the "war on Christmas" and the "war on Christians," putting money in the pockets of pornographers is like putting money in the pockets of terrorists!
Plus, all it does is drive the industry underground where it will flourish unregulated, and be prone to far more abuse.

It's nothing more than the same old scapegoating that's been going on forever. "It's not our fault our children are growing up to be delinquent thugs, it's the fault of video games/pornography/role playing games/drugs/atheism/religion/floridated water/etc. It's not our bad parenting that's to blame." And polititians are elected from and by those people, and either believe it themselves or pander to them.

The War on Porn will eventually fade, be replaced with something else more trendy, and undergo yet another resurgence when people get bored of other scapegoats.

"I'll give up my porn when they pry my cold, dead, sticky fingers off it."

[TragicMonkey]

It seems that people want a crusade against everything in life that's any fun. Porn, fattening food, drugs, sex, smoking, alcohol, unsafe-for-children television, violence in movies and video games....yes, yes, we could all live to be 120 in a sanitized Flanders world...but who the hell would want to? As Rumpole once advised the puritan child, "there is no pleasure in life worth sacrificing for the sake of an extra five minutes of living in the Sunnyside Old People's Home!"

[Manny]

I don't think that's quite fair. After all, as long as Republicans are running the show golf will always be safe. ;)

[Luke T.]

"I'll give up my porn when they pry my cold, dead, sticky fingers off it."

Close. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=553082#post553082)

Put me in the "Anti" category on this search. In the "Strongly Disagree" box.

Corporations should have privacy rights just like individuals. If the government wanted to come into your house and look at your internet cache, you'd be pretty pissed, too.

This is total ************.

The government claims this is supposedly to determine if kids are able to access porn without having to register or otherwise prove their age. So the government can craft legislation to prevent it.

Um.

Okay. How much of a freaking genius does it take to just do a freaking GOOGLE SEARCH FOR YOURSELF and find out that way?

Uh, gee, George, google "bukkake", "blowjob", and a few Rule 8 words and see what happens.

Hire a million monkeys to search a million random sites. Better yet, use the lawyers you are wasting on this case.

Dumbasses.

[jj]

Okay. How much of a freaking genius does it take to just do a freaking GOOGLE SEARCH FOR YOURSELF and find out that way?

Uh, gee, George, google "bukkake", "blowjob", and a few Rule 8 words and see what happens.

Dumbasses.


The simplest conclusion is that that isn't what they are really interested in, eh?

[Luke T.]

The simplest conclusion is that that isn't what they are really interested in, eh?

Exactly. My guess is that they want to force search engines to prevent kids from being able to search for porn.

[Luke T.]

There's no way the government can stop porn sites. So they are going after a channel to them.

[Manny]

Okay. How much of a freaking genius does it take to just do a freaking GOOGLE SEARCH FOR YOURSELF and find out that way?Heh. Despite disagreeing with the government in this matter, I have some sympathy for its attorneys. Basically, they've been asked by the Supreme Court that the 1998 law is necessary to acheive the government's (legally legitimate) goal of making it difficult to access pornography. And they have to do so to the evidentiary satisfaction of the Court. If they did their own search they'd be (probably justly) accused of cherry (heh) picking sites which less intrusive measures such as net nannies didn't catch. To make their case, they need to be able so say something like, "We took a random sample of all the sites on the web. X percent were pornographic; Y percent were accessible by children by typing in a common search term and Z percent were not blocked by commercially available net nanny software."

As it happens, I applaud the methodolgy the government has chosen to try to make its case. Whether they have subpoena power to attain the data necessary to apply the methodology from a non-party to the case is the question at issue. Whilst I agree with and applaud your stance in favor of the sanctity of business records, there is lots of case law and evidentiary rulings which have eroded that power over time; I'm content to let the big boys from Google's law firm fight that one out.

[Luke T.]

Heh. Despite disagreeing with the government in this matter, I have some sympathy for its attorneys. Basically, they've been asked by the Supreme Court that the 1998 law is necessary to acheive the government's (legally legitimate) goal of making it difficult to access pornography. And they have to do so to the evidentiary satisfaction of the Court. If they did their own search they'd be (probably justly) accused of cherry (heh) picking sites which less intrusive measures such as net nannies didn't catch. To make their case, they need to be able so say something like, "We took a random sample of all the sites on the web. X percent were pornographic; Y percent were accessible by children by typing in a common search term and Z percent were not blocked by commercially available net nanny software."

"We did a search on the term 'tits' on Google, Yahoo, etc. X percent of the first 1,000 results on Google were pornographic. Y percent of those were not blocked by commerically available net nanny software. X percent of the first 1,000 results on Yahoo were..."

Et cetera. And it doesn't narrow the test to one database.

[Manny]

"We did a search on the term 'tits' on Google, Yahoo, etc. X percent of the first 1,000 results on Google were pornographic. Y percent of those were not blocked by commerically available net nanny software. X percent of the first 1,000 results on Yahoo were..."
"Your honor, our research indicates that children don't search on the term 'tits.' They prefer 'breasts' or 'hooters.' Indeed, an analysis of Google's most common search terms..." See where the government's going here? Their methodology is sound (though they'd save a few bucks if they hired someone familiar with sampling techniques so they didn't have to go through a million sites). It's the execution that leaves much to be desired. As someone else asked in this thread, I wonder what would have happened if Uncle had simply offered to buy the data instead of trying to subpoenaing it?


On another subject: Not to harp on this, but Google is seriously pissing me off. Here in this instance, where they know they've got nothing but a few bucks to the legal department at risk, they're all like, "Look at us! We're first amendment warriors! Not like those other losers! Do no evil! We're awesome!!!!one!eleventy!!!!" But in China (http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/24/google.china.ap/index.html) they're all, "I'm sorry, Mr. Party Boss Repressor Guy. Shall I bend over further? Spread my butt cheeks a little further? Don't worry about the reach-around, sir." Makes me sick. Is there another search engine that's halfway decent that isn't putting its kneepads on for China? Because I'd totally switch.

[Mark]

On another subject: Not to harp on this, but Google is seriously pissing me off. Here in this instance, where they know they've got nothing but a few bucks to the legal department at risk, they're all like, "Look at us! We're first amendment warriors! Not like those other losers! Do no evil! We're awesome!!!!one!eleventy!!!!" But in China (http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/01/24/google.china.ap/index.html) they're all, "I'm sorry, Mr. Party Boss Repressor Guy. Shall I bend over further? Spread my butt cheeks a little further? Don't worry about the reach-around, sir." Makes me sick. Is there another search engine that's halfway decent that isn't putting its kneepads on for China? Because I'd totally switch.

Could you explain why Google caving into China's demands bothers you (I agree with that), but resisting Bush's trampling of the 4th ammendment also bothers you?

Am I missing something? If China does it, bad. If Bush does it, good. Huh?

[Manny]

I can, but only after you explain how you got to be your age without ever having flown on a commercial aircraft.

[Mark]

I can, but only after you explain how you got to be your age without ever having flown on a commercial aircraft.

Sorry, I missed the joke. Or were you serious? I have, scores of times. Your turn.

[Manny]

Wait. You've travelled by commercial aircraft? How odd. OK, then you'll probably be aware that not all warrantless searches are "trampling of the 4th ammendment (sic)." I happen to believe that intercepting the international communications of the agents of a foreign power with which we are in a declared war is not such a trampling.

[Mark]

Wait. You've travelled by commercial aircraft? How odd. OK, then you'll probably be aware that not all warrantless searches are "trampling of the 4th ammendment (sic)." I happen to believe that intercepting the international communications of the agents of a foreign power with which we are in a declared war is not such a trampling.

Ah. Yes, I am aware of that. However, imprisoning people without charge or trial, spying on citizens, making a grab for internet traking records...all are clear violations of the 4th Ammendment. To anyone not married to the Republican Party, anyway.

[Manny]

Oh, hey, speaking of that: One of your uncharged, untried buddies made the news the other day (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=69849&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17).

[drkitten]

Oh, hey, speaking of that: One of your uncharged, untried buddies made the news the other day (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=69849&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17).

Yeah. On a completely unrelated matter:


Although Khamsan was the first Guantanamo prisoner to go on trial in Yemen, he was not accused of any terrorist charges.

This kind of "lump all the bad guys together, because bad is just bad" pseudo-"thinking" is what got us into the Gulf War in the first place. (Oh, gee, there are Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan? Quick, let's invade Iraq!) It's also directly contrary to the nature of the rule of law.... but that doesn't seem to bother contemporary Republican neo-fascists much.

[Mark]

Oh, hey, speaking of that: One of your uncharged, untried buddies made the news the other day (http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=69849&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17).

You didn't answer the question.

Big surprise.

[Luke T.]

"Your honor, our research indicates that children don't search on the term 'tits.' They prefer 'breasts' or 'hooters.'

And exactly how do you know it is children searching on those terms?

[Luke T.]

Defendant seeks to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act ("COPA"). In Google's understanding, Defendant would use the one million URLs requested from Google to create a sample world-wide web against which to test various filtering programs for their effectiveness. Google objects to Defendant's view of Google's highly proprietary search database--the primary reason for the company's success--as a free resource that Defendant can access and use, some levels removed, to formulate its own defense. This is not an appropriate use of the federal courts' subpoena power.

From page 16 on pdf subpoena linked by Manny on page 1 of this topic.

(edited to fix copy errors)

[Luke T.]

(The Court) held that there was an insufficent record, at that stage of the proceedings, by which the Government could carry its burden of proof that existing technologies, namely filtering software, are less effective than the statutory restrictions in protecting minors from harmful, sexually explicit mater. Id. at 2793. Because "there are substantial factual disputes remaining the case," the Court remanded the matter for trial on the merits.

As directed by the Supreme Court, the Government is now developing its defense of the constitutionality of COPA, and specifically, its development of a factual record in support of its contention that COPA is more effective than filtering software in protecting minors from exposure to harmful materials on the Internet. As part of it development of this defense, the Government has issued subpoenas to Google, and to other entities that operate search engines on the Internet, asking those entities to produce two sets of materials.

From page 3 of motion to compel Manny linked on page 1 of this topic.

(edited to supplement copied material)

[Luke T.]

Anyone besides me reminded of the old JREF "schools and libraries" argument I debunked a while back? :D

[TragicMonkey]

Am I crazy, or would it just be a lot easier, and avoid any kind of First Amendment threats, to just tell parents to watch their damn kids? You don't want little Suzy watching "Nip/Tuck"? Don't put a TV in her room. You don't want little Johnny looking up "panda suit fetish" online? Don't give him his own computer. You don't want Suzy and Johnny playing "Grand Theft Auto"? Don't buy it for them! And yes, they might try to do all these things elsewhere. So? Forbid it, and make it stick! It's called "parenting". If you can't manage that, then your kids have a lot more serious problems than seeing Janet Jackson's nipple.

[Luke T.]

It seems to me the government is going down a blind alley.

Here's the way I understand it:

There is porn on the internet which anyone can access.

Someone invents net nanny software to help parents filter out porn sites.

Porn sites sprout like weeds and net nanny software does a poor job of filtering out all porn sites. Not only that, net nanny software has an annoying habit of blocking non-porn sites.

The government feels this is not enough prevention to keep kids from seeing porn, so back in Clinton's Administration, they enact legislation to make commercial internet porn that anyone can access a crime. I can only assume they felt fines and jail would serve as a deterrent since net nanny software does not deter anyone from putting porn out there.

The ACLU and others sue the government saying this COPA law violates free speech. Basically, their argument is that by forcing pornographers to remove free porn from the internet, it denies that material to adults. The Supreme Court decided on the ACLU's side.

So I don't understand what the government hopes to achieve by proving that net nanny filters aren't effective. Their end goal is still the same; to shut down porn sites with fines and jail terms. And that has already been decided on against their favor.

ETA: The Supreme Court decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU, says this is about community standards. And since a web site can be accessed from anywhere, a web site would have to satisfy the toughest community standards to be in compliance with COPA, which effectively shuts out every other community's access to porn.

I don't see what this has to do with proving net nannies don't work.

[Luke T.]

Am I crazy, or would it just be a lot easier, and avoid any kind of First Amendment threats, to just tell parents to watch their damn kids? You don't want little Suzy watching "Nip/Tuck"? Don't put a TV in her room. You don't want little Johnny looking up "panda suit fetish" online? Don't give him his own computer. You don't want Suzy and Johnny playing "Grand Theft Auto"? Don't buy it for them! And yes, they might try to do all these things elsewhere. So? Forbid it, and make it stick! It's called "parenting". If you can't manage that, then your kids have a lot more serious problems than seeing Janet Jackson's nipple.

If I were a legislator who was hellbent on crafting a law to stop kids from seeing porn on the internet, here's how I would approach the problem:

1. I must realize I will never stop non-US porn sites from abiding by US law or from being accessible to kids.

2. Write a law that US-based commercial porno suppliers must register their URL with a government database. That database would be available for free to all net nanny software providers.

3. Then it is on the parents to get the net nanny software.

4. It would be up to the net nanny software companies to compete on who has the best blocks to foreign porn sites.

[TragicMonkey]

If I were a legislator who was hellbent on crafting a law to stop kids from seeing porn on the internet, here's how I would approach the problem:

1. I must realize I will never stop non-US porn sites from abiding by US law or from being accessible to kids.

2. Write a law that US-based commercial porno suppliers must register their URL with a government database. That database would be available for free to all net nanny software providers.

3. Then it is on the parents to get the net nanny software.

4. It would be up to the net nanny software companies to compete on who has the best blocks to foreign porn sites.

It sounds pretty fair, except #2 has a couple of huge hurdles: who determines what is, and isn't, porn and therefore should register their URL? Yeah, it's fairly clear that Hot Girl-On-Girl Schoolgirl Oil Wrestling is probably porn. But what about the not-so-clear cases? An unusually candid blog, the online catalog for exotic swimwear, a racy Harry Potter fanfic, an art museum with an online sampling of their exhibits which might be anything from Maplethorpe to Rubens to Greek statuary....who has to register, who doesn't?

eta: Yeah, it's a pain. But at the root of all pornography/obscenity laws is going to be the question of definition. It's never been answered satisfactorily yet, and until it is, all such legislation is doomed to be unjust to somebody.

[Manny]

Yeah. On a completely unrelated matter:



This kind of "lump all the bad guys together, because bad is just bad" pseudo-"thinking" is what got us into the Gulf War in the first place. (Oh, gee, there are Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan? Quick, let's invade Iraq!) It's also directly contrary to the nature of the rule of law.... but that doesn't seem to bother contemporary Republican neo-fascists much.Oh, sure, he's no Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar or even a Mohammed Hamdi Al-Ahdal. But post-release, he, like them, has been a bad, bad boy and as a result will not be available to carry out the terror attack you are so desparately hoping for.

[Luke T.]

Oh, sure, he's no Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar or even a Mohammed Hamdi Al-Ahdal. But post-release, he, like them, has been a bad, bad boy and as a result will not be available to carry out the terror attack you are so desparately hoping for.

We will return to our regularly scheduled topic on the government vs. Google right after this:

WTF are you doing, Manny?

[Manny]

Growing extremely weary of being called a neofascist.

[Luke T.]

Ah, I've been reading the Supreme Court's decision on Ashcroft v. ACLU from 2001.

There was another one in 2004. Found something here (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.html).

I'm going to paste bits and pieces which collectively should summarize the summary. :)

Congress’ first attempt to make the Internet safe for minors by criminalizing certain Internet speech, was unconstitutional because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest and because less restrictive alternatives were available.

Net nanny filters are less restrictive than COPA, and maybe even more effective, in other words.

The District Court’s conclusion that respondents were likely to prevail was not an abuse of discretion, because, on the record, the Government has not met its burden. Most importantly, respondents propose that blocking and filtering software is a less restrictive alternative, and the Government had not shown it would be likely to disprove that contention at trial. Filters impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source.

Under a filtering regime, childless adults may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information.

Filters, moreover, may well be more effective than COPA. First, the record demonstrates that a filter can prevent minors from seeing all pornography, not just pornography posted to the Web from America. That COPA does not prevent minors from accessing foreign harmful materials alone makes it possible that filtering software might be more effective in serving Congress’ goals. COPA’s effectiveness is likely to diminish even further if it is upheld, because providers of the materials covered by the statute simply can move their operations overseas.

Filtering’s superiority to COPA is confirmed by the explicit findings of the Commission on Child Online Protection, which Congress created to evaluate the relative merits of different means of restricting minors’ ability to gain access to harmful materials on the Internet.

Although filtering software is not a perfect solution because it may block some materials not harmful to minors and fail to catch some that are, the Government has not satisfied its burden to introduce specific evidence proving that filters are less effective.

So. How would you go about proving filters are ineffective?

(edited to fix link)

[Luke T.]

Or conversely, how would you prove they are just as, if not more, effective?

[TragicMonkey]

In the era of identity theft and credit card fraud, I find it hard to believe someone seriously proposes using credit cards to verify age. Unless, of course, their real agenda is that porn is universally bad, and therefore people who view it deserve to be defrauded.

And, of course, what stops Little Johnny from using his dad's Visa card?

Plus, won't someone stand up for the porn addicts without credit cards? If people can argue against requiring ID to vote on the basis that not everyone can afford a driver's license, surely they must realize that not everyone has credit cards!

[Luke T.]

It sounds pretty fair, except #2 has a couple of huge hurdles: who determines what is, and isn't, porn and therefore should register their URL? Yeah, it's fairly clear that Hot Girl-On-Girl Schoolgirl Oil Wrestling is probably porn. But what about the not-so-clear cases? An unusually candid blog, the online catalog for exotic swimwear, a racy Harry Potter fanfic, an art museum with an online sampling of their exhibits which might be anything from Maplethorpe to Rubens to Greek statuary....who has to register, who doesn't?

That's the second problem COPA is faced with. The predecessor to COPA (called CDA) was challenged by the ACLU and it was struck down by the Supremes for being to broad in its definitions of indecent subject matter. COPA was the answer to that Supreme Court decision. They narrowed it down to sites that make money off porn.

Aside from "community standards" problems, COPA is also suffering from too broad definitions.

I can just see this all coming down to a bunch of lawyers from each side arguing over a Google search term like "breasts" or "suck" and whether or not that counts as a porn term and should be caught by a net nanny filter to prove the filter's effectiveness.

[Luke T.]

In the era of identity theft and credit card fraud, I find it hard to believe someone seriously proposes using credit cards to verify age. Unless, of course, their real agenda is that porn is universally bad, and therefore people who view it deserve to be defrauded.

And, of course, what stops Little Johnny from using his dad's Visa card?

Plus, won't someone stand up for the porn addicts without credit cards? If people can argue against requiring ID to vote on the basis that not everyone can afford a driver's license, surely they must realize that not everyone has credit cards!

All of those arguments have been made to the Supremes. I just haven't pasted them all.

From my last link:

In addition, the District Court found that verification systems may be subject to evasion and circumvention, e.g., by minors who have their own credit cards.

And I believe somewhere in one of manny's links is where I saw the "what about the adult with no credit card" argument.

[TragicMonkey]

I can just see this all coming down to a bunch of lawyers from each side arguing over a Google search term like "breasts" or "suck" and whether or not that counts as a porn term and should be caught by a net nanny filter to prove the filter's effectiveness.

I think it's going to take a thousand hours of programmers' testimony as to what is, and isn't, possible with computer programs. I've had experience trying to explain the limitations of programming to non technical people, and it's not fun. "But I saw in a movie once..." The only way to really get it across is to teach them all programming.

That would occupy Congress for a bit. "First, we make a flowchart"...