Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe

" * It is illegal to distribute pornographic material
Click to expand...

Chapter, section?

and child pornography.
Click to expand...

Only as long as actual child sex occurs during the production.
[Ashcroft vs. Free Speech coalition, 2002]


Have you read the decsion...?
Click to expand...

So they didn't declare it unconstitutional, they just barred the Federal Government from enforcing until the lower court re-examined it... which it didn't do.

Guess what that means? Oh, it doesn't mean that enforcing this is illegal... does it?
 
Sorry I was slightly in error what I said earlier. The US Dept of Justice wants all the records from a particular week irregardless of search. If they are allowed to have that, what is to stop them from searching any other week they want for whatever reason?

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena. A motion has been filed this week by US Department Of Justice to force Google to hand over the data. In particular, the Bush administration wanted one million random web addresses and records of all Google searches for a one week period.
Click to expand...

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/19/_doj_search_requests.html
 
Section 1466. Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter

(a) Whoever is engaged in the business of selling or transferring
obscene matter, who knowingly receives or possesses with intent to
distribute any obscene book, magazine, picture, paper, film,
videotape, or phonograph or other audio recording, which has been
shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, shall be
punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or by a fine
under this title, or both.
(b) As used in this section, the term ''engaged in the business''
means that the person who sells or transfers or offers to sell or
transfer obscene matter devotes time, attention, or labor to such
activities, as a regular course of trade or business, with the
objective of earning a profit, although it is not necessary that
the person make a profit or that the selling or transferring or
offering to sell or transfer such material be the person's sole or
principal business or source of income. The offering for sale of
or to transfer, at one time, two or more copies of any obscene
publication, or two or more of any obscene article, or a combined
total of five or more such publications and articles, shall create
a rebuttable presumption that the person so offering them is
''engaged in the business'' as defined in this subsection

WildmoretofollowinafrenzyAlaska
 
Section 1466 of what? For all I know that could be from the New Guinea penal code.
Click to expand...

ooops sorry I forgot that many folks who make statements about what the law is have no idea of where to find it :)

Federal criominal law is generally embodied in Title 18 of the United States Code. Try 18 USC 1466 et seq and prior

WildheretohelpyaAlaska
 
The problem I have with this is that it is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It is no different than the govt sending agents to come into my house, without a warrant, to look around and see if I have any porn.

If the govt believes that I am committing a crime, then they should go to a judge and show their probable cause and get a warrant. When did that change?

The other problem that I have with it is that it is another step in the direction of abuse of power. Today it is Bush (ostensibly) wanting to reduce porn, tomorrow who knows what crazy will get into power and what his/her personal agenda will be? Suppose Hilary gets elected and wants to find out who is visiting gun related sites?

If the govt takes away our right to privacy on line, we have lost something we will not likely regain - another piece of freedom.
 
The problem I have with this is that it is an unwarranted invasion of privacy. It is no different than the govt sending agents to come into my house, without a warrant, to look around and see if I have any porn.
Click to expand...

has the Government even asked for IP addresses?

WildanyoneknowAlaska
 
has the Government even asked for IP addresses?
Click to expand...

I don't know. If they haven't then how long before they do? If this first step is made, then why do you think they won't take the next step?

If they haven't asked for IP addresses, then it is more like the govt sends agents out to randomly enter houses, without warrants, to inventory the houses contents.

I don't find that appealing either.
 
Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter
Click to expand...


Prosecution under Title 18 requires the Government, a Grand Jury, or Judge to determine specific material "obscene". This is a very difficult thing to do, public standards of decency are tested and defined periodically (usually instigated by a political figure trying to pander to special interests).

Two months ago in Sedgwick County Kansas a religious group demanded a Grand Jury in attempt to charge seven porn shop owners with violations of decency. A Grand Jury was impaneled. During the hearings the Grand Jury watched videos and looked at other pornographic materials for 2 solid days. The jury did indict one shop owner on 1 count of misdemeanor distribution of obscene materials.

Pornography is absolutely not illegal...."obscene" material is.
 
The AG appears to be singing that old song, Do It For The Children. Google appears to have told DOJ to "stuff it". I wonder as to how this will turn out. I suspect that the bruearcrats will triumph, meaning that individual rights, privacy and that sort of thing will loose. I hope I'm wrong.
 
read a news article tonight in the Anchorage Daily Worker that the Governmetn wasnt aking for IP addresses...

With all due respect, i suggest that rather than go off half cocked on this one, that you guys learn a little bit about civil law and discovery. As I understand the situation, the factual scenario before the Court is the issue of programs like net nanny vis a vis a law limiting in some fashion acess to internet porn. The issue of how much porn is accessed on the net is clearly material and relevant to the questions before the Court. Accordingly Google may very well lose in in its opposition.

This is not a tinfoil hat witch hunt but a part of an ongoing legal proceding. A parties rights to discovery is carefully supervised by the Courts and fishing expeditons are allowed. This proceding involving Google has nothing to do with privacy or individual rights, nothing, nada nil and I defy anyone to show different.

WildignoranceofthelawisnoexcuseAlaska
 
This proceding involving Google has nothing to do with privacy or individual rights, nothing, nada nil and I defy anyone to show different.
Click to expand...
Yes it does because they're asking google to provide records of search results. It doesn't matter if I'm searching for "bomb" "incest" and "kennedy" or "apple pie" "bunny rabbits" and "key engraving", they have no business knowing what I searched for. Whether or not the government is asking Google to supply the IP addresses that searched for that information the point remains that they're asking for personal information. Google should have no obligation whatsoever to comply with this.

It's like going to a gun shop and asking "How many rifle purchasers were hispanic?" and "How many unemployed men between 30 and 45 purchased a revolver?".


On the issue of porn: I still don't understand how something that is supposedly illegal under US Code is allowed to operate while being subject to rules and regulations? By your definition, Hugh Heffner should be behind bars as should everyone in Comcast's programming department. It makes no sense; how can you regulate something that is banned in the first place?
 
On the issue of porn: I still don't understand how something that is supposedly illegal under US Code is allowed to operate while being subject to rules and regulations? By your definition, Hugh Heffner should be behind bars as should everyone in Comcast's programming department. It makes no sense; how can you regulate something that is banned in the first place?
Click to expand...


Again, porn is not illegal, obscene material is.

Flint was not convicted because the jury found his magazine was not "obscene".

Determination of what is/is not obscene is usually a matter for a State court. "Community standards" of obscenity vary from one state/local to another. You may find stricter standards in one area than another usually based on a cross section of the population available to participate in a jury pool.
 
Yes it does because they're asking google to provide records of search results. It doesn't matter if I'm searching for "bomb" "incest" and "kennedy" or "apple pie" "bunny rabbits" and "key engraving", they have no business knowing what I searched for. Whether or not the government is asking Google to supply the IP addresses that searched for that information the point remains that they're asking for personal information. Google should have no obligation whatsoever to comply with this.
Click to expand...

They dont know what you searched for, they dont know what anyone searched for, they just know that a search was made. if Google chose to release on its own the fact that on April 1, 2204, there were one millionsearches for Whopee cuchions, would that invade your privacy.

Put another way, the Government knows AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE and asa matter of compusion that yesterday, 1 Billion gallons of gas were sold....sold to who is not relevant nor even provided...you bought a gallon for your Moto guzzi..is your privacy attacked.???



Sorry....you havent even made a 1/10 convincing argument

Like I have said before, or this gnarling and gnashing of teeth over NOTHING (indeed, over nothing with a total lack of knowledge as to what is being done besides) detracts from real violations...WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF

:D

I understand that under the Miller Test, 99% of all pornography is not "obscene"...
Click to expand...


Source please


WildgonnashottthewolfAlaska
 
would that invade your privacy.
Click to expand...
Unless IP addresses were released, which is in violation with google's own policy, then no. But it's not just the privacy of people that we should be concerned with but the business itself. Google shouldn't have its' privacy violated either. If Google chooses to comply then I've got nothing to complain about. If they're forced to comply then it's a privacy violation of a company who's services I frequently use.
 
But it's not just the privacy of people that we should be concerned with but the business itself. Google shouldn't have its' privacy violated either. If Google chooses to comply then I've got nothing to complain about. If they're forced to comply then it's a privacy violation of a company who's services I frequently use.
Click to expand...

OK then what you are saying is that in EVERY civil action between parties only the parties themselves should be compelled to give info, and not necessary witnesses?

Check out this thoroughly constituional and well founded precept of law...in civil actions, ANY person can be compleed to give material and relevant information under such cricumstances as the Court may deem appropriate

WildreadthelawAlaska
 
EVERY civil action between parties only the parties themselves should be compelled to give info, and not necessary witnesses?
Click to expand...

Google is so far not compelled to give them anything. They are SEEKING a court order to compel Google to do things. They ain't got it yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top