Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe

[MicroBalrog]

Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe

Thu Jan 19, 10:38 AM ET

The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.

Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.

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

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

MicroBalrog asks

Wouldn't th fact the law has ALREADY been struck down by SCOTUS make it, well, not law?

This is a Clinton-era censorship law. Why did Clinton sign it (liberals? Hello?) and why is Bush reviving it?

 

[Rob P.]

Internet porn is the next suppression point against ordinary citizens.

Remember, Porn is NOT illegal. So, why is the gov't spending time and money "investigating" it?

The fact that porn is potentially embarassing socially makes it easy to target those who indulge in it. The gov't (and I don't care which party is in power) preys on the weak and weak-appearing and knows that those who indulge in porn have very little support in the community. Hence they are weak and easy to feed upon.

If I were on Google's legal team I'd be looking at a counter suit against the gov't for abuse of process. But, I'm sure they've already thought of that.

 

[Wildalaska]

Porn is NOT illegal.

You sure?

o, why is the gov't spending time and money "investigating" it

Following the directions of the Supreme Court I reckon in seeking to have the courts uphold a congressional mandate

The gov't (and I don't care which party is in power) preys on the weak and weak-appearing and knows that those who indulge in porn have very little support in the community. Hence they are weak and easy to feed upon.

Nonesensical tinfoilhatish

f I were on Google's legal team I'd be looking at a counter suit against the gov't for abuse of process. But, I'm sure they've already thought of that.

Doubt they have since abuse pof process doesnt lie in connection with civil court discovery under the federal Rules alhtough improper discovery requests may lead to sanctions..in this case the governments request is well within the bpounds of reason under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure..but hey why let the actual state of the law stand in the way ofd rhetoric

WildnewregimethisyearAlaska

 

[Eghad]

I am of the opinion there is no true way to protect your kiddies from porn other than monitoring thier activities.....

The problem is that the kiddies are more computer savvy than the parents.

My sister moved the family computer into the living room after she discovered some bad choices by her kids. Now the computer is in full view of everyone in the living room and she keeps an eyeball on em.

 

[Trip20]

+1 Eghad.

If parents were more "parental," we may actually need less law to "save the children."

I found my uncle's old Playboy collection when I was a kid. Look at me now - perfectly normal!

 

[FirstFreedom]

Source of that article, Micro? Link(s)?

Some porn is indeed illegal in all 50 states (kiddie porn, for example). I would be interested to learn more about the issue, the (likely) bias or lack thereof in that article, what was being investigated, what portion of the law was struck, etc.

As far as why is bush reviving it? Isn't it obvious? That's what he's all about - the so-called 'religious right' which is strongly against the existence of porn of all types - obviously it's a huge powerful part of his political base. He's "dancin' with who brung him", for better or worse. But it would be very interesting if he's trying to enforce a struck law. Since you seem to know alot about it Wild, do you have time to enlighten us with a few more details?

The gov't (and I don't care which party is in power) preys on the weak and weak-appearing and knows that those who indulge in porn have very little support in the community. Hence they are weak and easy to feed upon.

Quite true. Not nonsensical at all - you're wrong about that, WA. The gov't powers that be most certainly can, will, and do target an unpopular group, if it will mean aggrandizing their power, via scaring the sheeple into voting for them and their programs or otherwise. Ya know, like feinstein, schumer et al do with gun owners. They know that so-called "gun control" has nothing at all to do with reducing crime. It's simply a way for them to aggrandize their power by attacking the law-abiding yet unpopular group. Porn 'consumers' (if that's the word) stand in a similar situation with respect to legal porn.

 

[Cowled_Wolfe]

The question is... Once they get their hands on Google search records, what ELSE will they use them for?

Wolfe... (Who wouldn't be too surprised if this administration spat on the law books to smudge the ink in the name of "national security"...)

 

[Barr]

One aspect of this probe that is not being publicized much is that the federal government is going to reserve the right to subpoena ll search records for any given week. Google makes up 46% of the online searches everyday. This is a major invasion of privacy on two levels. First off, it is none of the governments business what I look at unless it is illegal. I do not want them to know the latest gun I am researching etc. Secondly, the government is stealing Googles' efforts and time. If the government is going to spy on us they should have the decency to at least use their own money.

 

[pipoman]

First off, it is none of the governments business what I look at unless it is illegal.

Lawyers correct me if I am wrong, I cannot think of one law I have ever read or studied which has deemed looking at something/anything illegal, possessing may be illegal.(I am not a lawyer)

Quite true. Not nonsensical at all - you're wrong about that, WA. The gov't powers that be most certainly can, will, and do target an unpopular group, if it will mean aggrandizing their power, via scaring the sheeple into voting for them and their programs or otherwise. Ya know, like feinstein, schumer et al do with gun owners. They know that so-called "gun control" has nothing at all to do with reducing crime. It's simply a way for them to aggrandize their power by attacking the law-abiding yet unpopular group. Porn 'consumers' (if that's the word) stand in a similar situation with respect to legal porn.

+1 First There are undeniably countless government prosecutions, laws enacted, government crusades and the like throughout the last 100 years of unpopular thinkers and consumers of unpopular products or services. All done for the sake of a sector of the dominate party's base. These are executed by bringing to prominence an activity or mindset not participated in by the overwhelming majority of the population. Then attempting to enact change through demonizing the activity and mob rule.

In fact I would be interested if anyone can come up with a single administration, Congress, or Senate which didn't take on the cause of a sector of their base.

Nonesensical tinfoilhatish

You sure?

 

[Wildalaska]

But it would be very interesting if he's trying to enforce a struck law. Since you seem to know alot about it Wild, do you have time to enlighten us with a few more details?

My understanding its back on a remand for fact finding, accordingly the thrid party discovery request to google

One aspect of this probe that is not being publicized much is that the federal government is going to reserve the right to subpoena ll search records for any given week.

Source?

I think we have a combo of both the news and folks not understanding how the legal system works. may I suggest a brief reading of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

Now just to confuse you'all more, what if the Cour orders the search results turned over with IPs deleted? problem? If so, why?

he gov't powers that be most certainly can, will, and do target an unpopular group, if it will mean aggrandizing their power, via scaring the sheeple into voting for them and their programs or otherwise. Ya know, like feinstein, schumer et al do with gun owners. They know that so-called "gun control" has nothing at all to do with reducing crime. It's simply a way for them to aggrandize their power by attacking the law-abiding yet unpopular group. Porn 'consumers' (if that's the word) stand in a similar situation with respect to legal porn.

Sorry I dont see the connection between political pandering to your base (gun control) vis a vis a Court process regarding a means to ensure children do not have access to an already illegal product.

Of course, if you are a true believer in anything goes, kids should have access to that stuff

WildfrcpAlaska

 

[Rob P.]

WA, yes, I'm positive that pornography is NOT illegal. It's illegal to cause to be transported but not illegal to view or posess or even purchase. Note we're not talking about child pornography but regular old sweaty porn between consenting adults. Child porn is illegal to posess or transport or cause to be transported.

 

[MicroBalrog]

[Sorry I dont see the connection between political pandering to your base (gun control) vis a vis a Court process regarding a means to ensure children do not have access to an already illegal product.[/quote]

He's politically pandering to his base (religous right).

And this law has already been declared unconstitutional... what part of un-constitutional do you not get?

Of course, if you are a true believer in anything goes, kids should have access to that stuff

No, I think it's all the business of the parents, not the Federal Government.

 

[Redworm]

This is a Clinton-era censorship law. Why did Clinton sign it (liberals? Hello?) and why is Bush reviving it?

There's no telling why Clinton signed it but I feel it's just as horrible as when he signed the DMCA. That man screwed a lot of people and companies in the tech industry with the technology related laws he signed in. The Bush administration reviving this is no mystery - he has a very specific base and this is what they demand.

 

[Wildalaska]

He's politically pandering to his base (religous right).

really....he wasnt the one that signed or enacted it was he?

And this law has already been declared unconstitutional... what part of un-constitutional do you not get?

Have you read the decsion...?

No, I think it's all the business of the parents, not the Federal Government.

Cool then your kids should be able to go right down to the local vid store and see "Debbie Does Donkeys" displayed next to Disney, neh? By the way, porn legal in your state?

Under your view of the world is this staute unconstiouinal?

"Section 245.11 Public display of offensive sexual material

A person is guilty of public display of offensive sexual material when, with knowledge of its character and content, he displays or permits to be displayed in or on any window, showcase, newsstand, display rack, wall, door, billboard, display board, viewing screen, moving picture screen, marquee or similar place, in such manner that the display is easily visible from or in any: public street, sidewalk or thoroughfare; transportation facility; or any place accessible to members of the public without fee or other limit or condition of admission such as a minimum age requirement and including but not limited to schools, places of amusement, parks and playgrounds but excluding rooms or apartments designed for actual residence; any pictorial, three-dimensional or other visual representation of a person or a portion of the human body that predominantly appeals to prurient interest in sex, and that:

(a) depicts nudity, or actual or simulated sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse; or

(b) depicts or appears to depict nudity, or actual or simulated sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, with the area of the male or female subject's unclothed or apparently unclothed genitals, pubic area or buttocks, or of the female subject's unclothed or apparently unclothed breast, obscured by a covering or mark placed or printed on or in front of the material displayed, or obscured or altered in any other manner.

Public display of offensive sexual material is a Class A misdemeanor. "

It's illegal to cause to be transported but not illegal to view or posess or even purchase

Herss the basic compendium of stae/federal law:

" * It is illegal to distribute pornographic material and child pornography.
* It is illegal to transport pornographic material and child pornography.
* It is illegal to transmit pornographic material and child pornography
* It is illegal to produce child pornography.
* It is illegal to produce pornographic material with intent to distribute.
* It is illegal to distribute material harmful to a minor to minors.
* It is illegal to broadcast pornographic material over radio, television, cable and satellite systems.
* It is illegal to mail pornographic material.

Distribution means conveying the material to another person. This can be done by giving it, showing it, or selling it. All methods of conveyance are illegal, i.e. handing it to someone, mailing it, e-mailing it, putting it on a web site, broadcasting it on television, satellite, or radio, over the telephone line, downloading it, uploading it and any other possible way of transferring information. "

Ya buy a tacky little pamphlet from the guy in the long trench coat and show it to Smilin Bob....crime!

Now Im a beleiver in the fact that a truly free society encourages liberty rather than license, so just like many gun control laws dont bother me and are in fact constituional, porno laws, if proerly drafted, can be too.

WildpsilovepornAlaska

 

[Redworm]

* It is illegal to produce pornographic material with intent to distribute.

* It is illegal to broadcast pornographic material over radio, television, cable and satellite systems.
* It is illegal to mail pornographic material.

then how is porn a multibillion dollar industry?


edit: and the primary driving force behind the majority of security and encryption technologies developed for online transactions

 

[Wildalaska]

Lack of enforecment

Folks dont care what tacky little mags are in the house. Folks care about that stuff on cable TV and the net. Ergo, porn purveyors bring it on themselves as they seek to expand markets. Sort of like gay marraige, smokin weed, carrying openly....

Screming memememe is not good for everyone else.



WildlongandinterestingsocialissueAlaska

 

[Redworm]

yeah but....porn is not illegal to make, sell, or transport

There are regulations and such that porn producers must follow to ensure the safety and health of the participants as well as making sure they're of legal age but porn itself is not illegal. If porn was illegal to broadcast over cable then I wouldn't have nearly a dozen channels to choose from in the 900 range (which is always funny because when I use the listing browser they come right before the regular broadcast channels....so I'm looking to see when "Lost" is on and right above that I see "Naughty Night Nurses 28" followed by "Black C**k Down" lol...)

 

[VaultDweller]

1)There are no federal laws regulating internet pornography except for child pornography.

2)Public display does not cover electronic broadcast, just places that are freely accessible to the public. Most porn laws are state and local laws and as such are out of the jurisdiction of the federal government.

3)The federal law in question (CIPA) porn has been declared unconstitutional by the highest court of the land and the president has no legal power to enforce it.

4) They are trying to make Google do the work for them. If the feds want to conduct research regarding porn and the internet there is no reason they cannot do that reasearch themselves (so long as they stay within constitutional bounds), they have no more right to make Google do the research than FBI agents have to walk into a Gunsmith's shop and demand free work on their guns.

This isn't exactly a legally relevant point but I find that whenever someone is calling to "protect the children" they want to take away everyone's rights so that they don't have to take care of their own kids. It is entirely possible and fairly easy to secure your home internet against porn. It may take a little work but so does moving the kitchen knives to a higher drawer when your kids start to walk and putting safety covers on your wall sockets.

Just because you like the guy in charge it does not mean you should give him unlimited power, he will leave those powers behind for the next guy.

 

[Wildalaska]

yeah but....porn is not illegal to make, sell, or transport

Wrong

There are no federal laws regulating internet pornography except for child pornography.

Correct

The federal law in question (CIPA) porn has been declared unconstitutional by the highest court of the land and the president has no legal power to enforce it.

FWIW, partially correct

They are trying to make Google do the work for them. If the feds want to conduct research regarding porn and the internet there is no reason they cannot do that reasearch themselves (so long as they stay within constitutional bounds), they have no more right to make Google do the research than FBI agents have to walk into a Gunsmith's shop and demand free work on their guns.

Totally and completely incorrect. Please review the Federal Rules of Civil procedure again

WildguessitstimetostartquotingsectionsAlaska

 

[Redworm]

Wild: why do you believe it's illegal to make and sell porn? If it wasn't legal then I wouldn't have a myriad of channels to choose from, Heff and Flint would not have gotten rich, and there wouldn't be countless sites on the internet, operating fully within federal, state, and local regulations, selling the stuff.

It's not illegal. Aspects of it are illegal and it's regulated but porn in general is not illegal. If there are sections that completely invalidate all of this then please educate me because I'd be amazed that an industry that rakes in over ten billion per year, is taxed and regulated by the law, can be operating completely outside of legal boundries.