It’s a good thing. Let it go to the Supreme Court
It’s the “get out of jail free” card for the conservatives…
CLINTON DID IT!
[quote]Zap
If this extends beyond child porn than it should be opposed.
The government is always trying to extend it’s powers.
Sometimes it is the right thing but often it is not.
[/quote]
nephorm hit the nail on the head.
The child online protection act focused on children making innocuous searches and finding porn, and was written so broadly it made all porn on the net subject to prosecution. Hence was shot down by the Supreme Court.
What is scarier about them trying to prove their point about innocuous searches is the precedent it would set if they could act on any information they found.
Some attorneys have argued, suppose multiple like searches were found showing clear criminal activity. With evidence now of clear criminal activity, they could then argue to have those same searches with the ip addresses of the offenders.
You say fine, get the ones with the kiddy porn. I say what next?
I don’t think this is about child protection or kiddy porn, it’s about what it’s always about, power and control.
I like Google trying to draw the line, somebody needs to.
And I don’t care which party started this, I hate them both.
Honestly no one should defend this sort of thing. It’s a clear invasion of privacy. And might I add not at all reflective of good republican government.
At what point do some of you think that the Government has enough power? How about when you see a government agent opening your mail at the end of your driveway?
“It’s okay sir if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.”
Isn’t that what they say in the name of “justice?”
It’s BULLCRAP!
This trancsends party lines. Don’t blindly follow any party or politician that takes your privacy rights away one by one.
Every one of you guys should be writing your Congressman over this and over the very intrusive Patriot Act!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Should Google protect child porn? Should the government try to stop it?
This has nothing to do with child porn, and everything to do with the DoJ’s vendetta against (currently) legal pornography. If you’ve been keeping track of Gonzalez’s (and Ashcroft’s before him) attempts to prosecute mail-order porn companies in jurisdictions with more rigorous “community standards,” you’ll notice this is just an extension of that agenda.
…
If this extends beyond child porn than it should be opposed.
The government is always trying to extend it’s powers.
Sometimes it is the right thing but often it is not.
It is interesting if it is true that or something similar was started under Clinton’s admin yet the MSM and many of the posters try to solely lay the blame on Bush’s admin.
Go on Google, keep protecting my privacy! Please also do the reponsible thing and squeal on the child pornographers so that cannot be used as an excuse.
What mentality causes you to look at this current action…and think “Clinton”? [/quote]
Marmadogg brought up that Clinton’s admin started it. Someone else confirmed it. I said “if it is true” regarding Clintons involvement.
It is important to understand historical perspective. If the previous admin proposed something similar it should be noted otherwise it degenerates too easily into partisan BS.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
nephorm wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Should Google protect child porn? Should the government try to stop it?
This has nothing to do with child porn, and everything to do with the DoJ’s vendetta against (currently) legal pornography. If you’ve been keeping track of Gonzalez’s (and Ashcroft’s before him) attempts to prosecute mail-order porn companies in jurisdictions with more rigorous “community standards,” you’ll notice this is just an extension of that agenda.
…
If this extends beyond child porn than it should be opposed.
The government is always trying to extend it’s powers.
Sometimes it is the right thing but often it is not.
It is interesting if it is true that or something similar was started under Clinton’s admin yet the MSM and many of the posters try to solely lay the blame on Bush’s admin.
Go on Google, keep protecting my privacy! Please also do the reponsible thing and squeal on the child pornographers so that cannot be used as an excuse.
What mentality causes you to look at this current action…and think “Clinton”?
Marmadogg brought up that Clinton’s admin started it. Someone else confirmed it. I said “if it is true” regarding Clintons involvement.
It is important to understand historical perspective. If the previous admin proposed something similar it should be noted otherwise it degenerates too easily into partisan BS.[/quote]
I think that you have mentioned before that politicians are out for themselves (thought it was if it wasn’t).
I think that’s pretty obvious. Clinton was a republican in disguise, hence why I am not a fan of his policies. He loves free trade as much as any Bush…and when it comes down to it, foreign policy is mostly a function of economics (as most things are in the world, unfortuanely).
But a man in power is a man in power. He gets corrupted as easily as any other man, regardless of his party. There are few that can resist that temptation, and truly still seek the greater good. That the government wishes to increase its power should surprise no one.
Please. Clinton was not a Republican in disguise. He was a moderate and centrist. And one with a brain. A modicum of politcal savvy too. The Democratic party could use another one.
I’m a sixteen year old boy, so I’m happy Google is fighting this.
I don’t know about this.
Will there be any identifying information attached to it at all? Will any government agent know that I like watching chicks and dalmations if Google caves in?
[quote]doogie wrote:
I don’t know about this.
Will there be any identifying information attached to it at all? Will any government agent know that I like watching chicks and dalmations if Google caves in?[/quote]
There are a few different issues at play, here.
-
The DoJ wants a list of searches. A large list, and one that is not linked to the people who made the searches. This is (probably) not an invasion of privacy, except in a “slippery slope” sort of way. However,
-
The DoJ wants, as near as I can tell, for Google to essentially perform the services of a consultant… for free. The DoJ is trying to get a court order to enforce their “request.” Note that this is not a criminal investigation (for which it would be reasonable to expect a business to comply) but rather a legislative fact-finding mission, which it is not generally incumbent upon businesses or private individuals to assist with.
-
The reason for the fact-finding is to try to reinstate a law that has already been declared to be unconstitutionally broad. In addition, the MSM keeps talking about child pornography, when the COPA is really about protecting minors from encountering pornography, not from starring in it, and it was already determined that the COPA would block legitimate access to porn to adult citizens.
-
Going back to 1 (yes, I’m disorganized), this is a very, very broad request. In a criminal investigation, prosecutors might ask google to supply search terms entered from a single IP address or range of IP addresses at certain times, based on information gathered from the ISP of the accused.
Alternatively, they might ask for a list of addresses that have searched for a particular site, such as an online child-porn store, to track down pedophiles. We can debate those issues separately, but the point is that they are fairly narrow requests, in relation to a certain crime or attempted criminal activity.
This is, however, an indiscriminate act of surveillance. A normal warrant would give access to search a particular place for evidence related to a specific crime, not a whole block because someone thinks that a non-specific crime might have been committed at some point. My point is somewhat refuted by the lack of identifying information being tied to the search queries, but often times searches themselves contain information that identifies the searcher.
Of course, some of the rage about this request is due to the political end to which the DoJ would like to employ this information, rather than the request itself. Also, the DoJ seems to have become the front-line of tyranny over the years. Reno, Ashcroft, and Gonzalez are only the most recent additions to a line of AGs who seem to focus on ways of skirting constitutional protections and extending executive power.
All of these factors make this request a “bad thing.” On the other hand… we allowed it to happen.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is interesting if it is true that or something similar was started under Clinton’s admin yet the MSM and many of the posters try to solely lay the blame on Bush’s admin.[/quote]
Why are we still talking about a president that has not been in office for over half a decade?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is interesting if it is true that or something similar was started under Clinton’s admin yet the MSM and many of the posters try to solely lay the blame on Bush’s admin.
Why are we still talking about a president that has not been in office for over half a decade?
[/quote]
Good question. It is like if I brought up Reagan at every chance I got. For some reason, you actually still have those foolish enough to fall for it and excuse actions by this administration as long as you get them to focus on the term “blow job”.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Why are we still talking about a president that has not been in office for over half a decade?[/quote]
Because of the simple fact that policy usually has its roots in precedent.
And often what we are discussing are executive powers generally, so if one President has used the power, it serves as a useful tool to see if another has used it previously.
It also raises interesting questions of consistency in criticism: if a previous President exercised the power generally, why shouldn’t a current President exercise it? And so forth.
Historical context.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is interesting if it is true that or something similar was started under Clinton’s admin yet the MSM and many of the posters try to solely lay the blame on Bush’s admin.
Why are we still talking about a president that has not been in office for over half a decade?
[/quote]
Because you brought him up when you said:
"It is nothing but a distraction for the base and the MSM.
Clinton started it and the GOP has kept it going. "
Do you have short term memory loss or are you just merely antagonistic?
[quote]
doogie wrote:
I don’t know about this.
Will there be any identifying information attached to it at all? Will any government agent know that I like watching chicks and dalmations if Google caves in?
nephorm wrote:
There are a few different issues at play, here.
-
The DoJ wants a list of searches. A large list, and one that is not linked to the people who made the searches. This is (probably) not an invasion of privacy, except in a “slippery slope” sort of way. However,
-
The DoJ wants, as near as I can tell, for Google to essentially perform the services of a consultant… for free. The DoJ is trying to get a court order to enforce their “request.” Note that this is not a criminal investigation (for which it would be reasonable to expect a business to comply) but rather a legislative fact-finding mission, which it is not generally incumbent upon businesses or private individuals to assist with.
-
The reason for the fact-finding is to try to reinstate a law that has already been declared to be unconstitutionally broad. In addition, the MSM keeps talking about child pornography, when the COPA is really about protecting minors from encountering pornography, not from starring in it, and it was already determined that the COPA would block legitimate access to porn to adult citizens.
-
Going back to 1 (yes, I’m disorganized), this is a very, very broad request. In a criminal investigation, prosecutors might ask google to supply search terms entered from a single IP address or range of IP addresses at certain times, based on information gathered from the ISP of the accused.
Alternatively, they might ask for a list of addresses that have searched for a particular site, such as an online child-porn store, to track down pedophiles. We can debate those issues separately, but the point is that they are fairly narrow requests, in relation to a certain crime or attempted criminal activity.
This is, however, an indiscriminate act of surveillance. A normal warrant would give access to search a particular place for evidence related to a specific crime, not a whole block because someone thinks that a non-specific crime might have been committed at some point. My point is somewhat refuted by the lack of identifying information being tied to the search queries, but often times searches themselves contain information that identifies the searcher.
Of course, some of the rage about this request is due to the political end to which the DoJ would like to employ this information, rather than the request itself. Also, the DoJ seems to have become the front-line of tyranny over the years. Reno, Ashcroft, and Gonzalez are only the most recent additions to a line of AGs who seem to focus on ways of skirting constitutional protections and extending executive power.
All of these factors make this request a “bad thing.” On the other hand… we allowed it to happen.[/quote]
I just wanted to say nephorm is spot-on on his analysis of what the DOJ is doing here, at least given what I’ve read.
Honestly, COPA doesn’t really scare me all that much. Personally I keep close watch on what the boys are doing on my computer, and I don’t think I’ve got a lot to worry about. I know this is not possible for everyone, so maybe some more protection isn’t the horrible thing some here have made it out to be. I know I’ve come across some wierd shit online when I wasn’t looking for it, the pornographers are always looking for new and exciting ways to trick me into visiting their sites.
I’m envisioning a “worst-case” scenario here in which it becomes more difficult for me to access pictures and videos of hot naked chicks any time I want.
Man, what is the world coming to?
At first, I was glad to see Google “standing up for my rights”, but then today I find out that the same company is more than willing to censor any number of sites and news stories in order to appease the Chinese government, thus limiting the “freedom” of the Chinese Google users. So what exactly is Google standing for - values or money?
News Link:
[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Honestly, COPA doesn’t really scare me all that much. Personally I keep close watch on what the boys are doing on my computer, and I don’t think I’ve got a lot to worry about. I know this is not possible for everyone, so maybe some more protection isn’t the horrible thing some here have made it out to be. I know I’ve come across some wierd shit online when I wasn’t looking for it, the pornographers are always looking for new and exciting ways to trick me into visiting their sites.
I’m envisioning a “worst-case” scenario here in which it becomes more difficult for me to access pictures and videos of hot naked chicks any time I want.
Man, what is the world coming to?
At first, I was glad to see Google “standing up for my rights”, but then today I find out that the same company is more than willing to censor any number of sites and news stories in order to appease the Chinese government, thus limiting the “freedom” of the Chinese Google users. So what exactly is Google standing for - values or money?
News Link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6426[/quote]
So, you advise them to simply be banned in China?
[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
Honestly, COPA doesn’t really scare me all that much. Personally I keep close watch on what the boys are doing on my computer, and I don’t think I’ve got a lot to worry about. I know this is not possible for everyone, so maybe some more protection isn’t the horrible thing some here have made it out to be. I know I’ve come across some wierd shit online when I wasn’t looking for it, the pornographers are always looking for new and exciting ways to trick me into visiting their sites.
I’m envisioning a “worst-case” scenario here in which it becomes more difficult for me to access pictures and videos of hot naked chicks any time I want.
[/quote]
I am envisioning a worst-case scenario where requesting companies to divulge search information without specific cause becomes routine.
[quote]
At first, I was glad to see Google “standing up for my rights”, but then today I find out that the same company is more than willing to censor any number of sites and news stories in order to appease the Chinese government, thus limiting the “freedom” of the Chinese Google users. So what exactly is Google standing for - values or money?
News Link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6426[/quote]
Years ago when a Russian spy defected, he was questioned by a Russian diplomat on US soil to confirm defection. To every question regarding his treatment in Russia he replied “I have no complaints”. Finally the frustrated Russian diplomat asked why he then left. The defector replied, “because in the USA, I can have complaints”. That in your face remark exemplifies, different laws for different lands.
Under Chinese law the government can censor what it wishes. If Google wants to do business in China, it has to follow Chinese rules. It is not Google’s job to break the law. It is the Chinese people’s job to change their goverment and the law if they do not like censorship.
Regarding money, I imagine it would be markedly cheaper to quietly acquiesce like MSN and Yahoo did, then fight the legal fight with DOJ that may be ahead.
Last I checked it is still a Democracy here, and the rules are different. And here it is Google’s job to again follow the law. And if the DOJ oversteps their bounds, I am glad Google is fighting it. The Chinese may not be able to stop their government from unreasonable intrusion, but that doesn’t mean we have to.
Go to Google, type the word failure for your search, then hit the I’m Feeling Lucky search. Pretty funny.
Here’s one from the Times, its a bit more in depth
After Subpoenas, Internet Searches Give Some Pause
By KATIE HAFNER
Published: January 25, 2006
Kathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a “rent boy.”
It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy - a young male prostitute?
Ms. Hanson, 45, immediately told her boyfriend what she had done. “I told him I’d Googled ‘rent boy,’ just in case I got whisked off to some Navy prison in the dead of night,” she said.
Ms. Hanson’s reaction arose from last week’s reports that as part of its effort to uphold an online pornography law, the Justice Department had asked a federal judge to compel Google to turn over records on millions of its users’ search queries. Google is resisting the request, but three of its competitors - Yahoo, MSN and America Online - have turned over similar information.
The government and the cooperating companies say the search queries cannot be traced to their source, and therefore no personal information about users is being given up. But the government’s move is one of several recent episodes that have caused some people to think twice about the information they type into a search engine, or the opinions they express in an e-mail message.
The government has been more aggressive recently in its efforts to obtain data on Internet activity, invoking the fight against terrorism and the prosecution of online crime. A surveillance program in which the National Security Agency intercepted certain international phone calls and e-mail in the United States without court-approved warrants prompted an outcry among civil libertarians. And under the antiterrorism USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has demanded records on library patrons’ Internet use.
Those actions have put some Internet users on edge, as they confront the complications and contradictions of online life.
Jim Kowats, 34, a television producer who lives in Washington, has been growing increasingly concerned about the government’s data collection efforts. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I just feel like it’s one step away from … what’s the next step?” Mr. Kowats said. “The government’s going to start looking into all this other stuff.”
Until last year, Mr. Kowats worked at the Discovery Channel, and a few years ago, in the course of putting together a documentary on circumcision, he and his colleagues were doing much of the research online. “When you’re researching something like that and you look up the word ‘circumcision,’ you’re going to end up with all kinds of pictures of naked children,” he said. “And that can be misconstrued.”
“There’re so many things you can accidentally fall into when you’re surfing on the Internet,” he said. “I mean, you can type in almost anything and you’re going to end up with something you didn’t expect.”
Privacy is an elusive concept, and when it comes to what is considered acceptable, people tend to draw the line at different points on the privacy spectrum.
Ming-Wai Farrell, 25, who works for a legal industry trade association in Washington, is one of those who draw the line somewhere in the middle. They are willing to part with personal information as long as they get something in return - the convenience of online banking, for example, or useful information from a search engine - and as long as they know what is to be done with the information.
Yet these same people are sometimes appalled when they learn of wholesale data gathering. Ms. Farrell said she would not be able to live without online banking, electronic bill paying or Google, but she would consider revising her Web activity if she had to question every search term, online donation or purchase.
“It’s scary to think that it may just be a matter of time before Googling will invite an F.B.I. agent to tap your phone or interrogate you,” Ms. Farrell said.
Mike Winkleman, 27, a law student who lives in Miami and, like Ms. Farrell, belongs to the generation of people who came of age with the Internet, said he would like to think that the erosion of his privacy was for “a good cause, like national security or preventing child porn,” he said. “But I can’t help but feel that for each inch I give, a mile will be taken.”
But Josh Cohen, a financial adviser in Chicago, identifies more closely with a subset of Internet users who see the loss of at least some privacy as the price they pay for being on the Web. Mr. Cohen, 34, said he was willing to accept that tradeoff in the pursuit of national security.
“We as U.S. citizens have got to start making concessions,” he said. “In order for the government to catch people that prey on children, or fight the war on terror, they are going to need the help of the search engines.”
Mr. Cohen said he doubted there would be much compromising of his individual privacy because the amount of data collected by the government was so voluminous. “My rationale tells me that with close to 300 million people in the U.S., and about 45 to 50 percent of households having Internet access, that I don’t need to be too concerned with my search engine behavior,” he said.
Susan P. Crawford, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law in New York, agreed that the sheer volume of information obtained by the government was likely to dilute privacy threats.
“More experienced Internet users would understand that in the mountain of search-related data available in response to a subpoena, it is very unlikely that anything referring to them personally would be revealed,” Professor Crawford said.
She likened one’s online activity to walking down the street. “We walk down the street all the time and we can be seen there,” she said. “We also move around online, and can be ‘seen’ to some extent there as well. But we continue to go for walks.”
Nevertheless, last week’s court motion is giving some people pause. Sheryl Decker, 47, an information technology manager in Seattle, said she was now thinking twice about what she said in her personal e-mail correspondence. “I have been known to send very unflattering things about our government and our president,” Ms. Decker said. “I still do, but I am careful about using certain phrases that I once wouldn’t have given a second thought.”
Ms. Decker’s caution is being echoed by others. Genny Ballard, 36, a professor of Spanish at Centre College in Danville, Ky., said she had grown more conscious about what she typed into the Google search box. “Each time I put something in, I think about how it could be reconstructed to mean that I have more than an academic curiosity,” Ms. Ballard said.
To be sure, Google is citing a number of reasons for resisting the government’s subpoena, including concern about trade secrets and the burden of compliance. While it does not directly assert that surrendering the data would expose personal information, it has told the government that “one can envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal identifying information about a specific Google user, which is another outcome that Google cannot accept.”
Ms. Hanson, who did the “rent boy” search, said that although she was aware that personal information was not being required in the Google case, she remained uneasy.
She pointed to a continuing interest she has in the Palestinian elections. “If I followed my curiosity and did some Web research, going to Web sites of the parties involved, I would honestly wonder whether someone in my government would someday see my name on a list of people who went to ‘terrorist’ Web sites,” she said.
Mr. Kowats, the television producer, shares that fear. “Where does it stop?” he said. “What about file sharing? Scalping tickets? Or traveling to Cuba? What if you look up abortion? Who says you can’t look up those things? What are the limits? It’s the little chipping away. It’s a slippery slope.”
12Next