Google Records Sought In U.s. Quest To Revive Porn Law

[Mike AI]

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

Feds after Google data

RECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAW

By Howard Mintz

Mercury News

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robin]

First the good news.

I believe Google know they are on very strong legal grounds here to refuse the subpoena because they are completely unconnected with the case in question and therefore the court probably cannot force them to comply.

But the bad news is that the prosecution are even attempting this, even though they know it's in violation of millions of people's privacy. Someone has a deep agenda over COPA and will try to tread over all sorts of people's rights to get it upheld.

[JoesHO]

The hourglass is ticking.....

the key question is will sanity and the rule of law outlast the tyranny adn abuse we are now under as a nation ????

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by JoesHO1

The hourglass is ticking.....

the key question is will sanity and the rule of law outlast the tyranny adn abuse we are now under as a nation ????

Do you use a blender for metaphors, or do you just shake them?

Seriously, if your hourglass is ticking, you may want to call the bomb squad.

I'm not a big fan of censorship, and I consider most anti-porn efforts to be just that.

HOWEVER ... rhetoric like "tyranny and abuse" seems way overstated in this context.

[Bhelliom]

Originally Posted by JoesHO1

the key question is will sanity and the rule of law outlast the tyranny adn abuse we are now under as a nation ????

Great line

[TheEnforcer]

Can't think of anyone else besides Microsoft that I'd like to have in the position to tell the government to fuck off when trying to do something like this. I can't imagine Google ever backing down on this.

[Vick]

Once again I love this law and wish the case would pass

All nudity behind an age verification

Go COPA!!!!

No nudity on american owned sites unless behind age verification

I don't care about your rights, I care about profit

[brand0n]

Originally Posted by Vick

All nudity behind an age verification

i could live with that, but think of the task force it would take to regulate it.

how many new sites do you think pop up daily?

whos going to pay for that? us?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally Posted by brand0n

i could live with that, but think of the task force it would take to regulate it.

how many new sites do you think pop up daily?

whos going to pay for that? us?

Don't intrude on his fantasy by clouding the issue with relevant facts.

[Vick]

Originally Posted by PornoDoggy

Don't intrude on his fantasy by clouding the issue with relevant facts.

Exactly damn it

[Biggy]

Originally Posted by Vick

I don't care about your rights, I care about profit

to get any advantage, you will have to move offshore.

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally Posted by Biggy

to get any advantage, you will have to move offshore.

I don't understand why more webmaster don't just move offshore. Maybe not their entire operation but another company. I know we talk about this a few years ago but I wonder if anything has changed since.

Censorship has always been an issue. Not just on the web. The goverment has tried and even been successful in taken people down.

It's like turtles laying eggs on the beach. They hatch 1000's of babies and thay all start running to the water. Some make it and swim and others get eaten alive.

[urb]

Frank Zappa saw this coming... back in 1986 he appeared on TV in a debate about censorship in rock music.

The link to the movie is here http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/10.html#a6651

I agree with Mr. Zappa.

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally Posted by urb

Frank Zappa saw this coming... back in 1986 he appeared on TV in a debate about censorship in rock music.

The link to the movie is here http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/10.html#a6651

I agree with Mr. Zappa.

Lofton: Well then you are an anarchist. Every form of civil government is based on some kind of morality, Frank.

Zappa: Morality in terms of behavior-not in terms of theology


DAMN RIGHT!

[TheEnforcer]

Moving offshore won't do squat for protection unless you actually give up your citizenship.

[Dianna Vesta]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Moving offshore won't do squat for protection unless you actually give up your citizenship.

Unless the domains are NOT registered in your name but an offshore company.