Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Government Wants Google Search Records
JimBridgerBowl writes "According to the San Jose Mercury News, The Bush administration wants access to Google's huge database of search queries submitted by users to track how often pornography is returned in results. This information would be used for Bush's appeal of the 2004 COPA law, targeted to prevent access to pornography by children. The law was struck down because it would have restricted adults access to legal pornography. Google is promising to fight the release of this information." From the article: "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."
The solution is obvious! Let's all submit pornographic requests to Google.
I guess bush really wants to know how many people are looking for 'Miserable failure' on google.
200GB/2TB $7.95 Coupon: SAVE90DOLLAR
...then there would be nothing to obtain.
I've got the results right here.
Interestingly enough, the first results all deal with being victimized by pornography. There goes my buzz.
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
But how can a law that puts no filter whatsoever in place be more effective than a software filter?
That aside, this is pretty alarming. But let's haul out two old arguments: 1. the media tends to be alarmist (true), and 2. if you're innocent, you shouldn't have to worry (true, but only if the government isn't violating the rights of the innocent, and leads to the possibility of forfeiting other rights).
I am scientifically inaccurate.
What relevance is the data if they can't divide it into demographics?
When did Google start asking for your age along with your query? How are they going to tie queries to ages?
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
"We need to see how much of the political commentary online is speech protected by the First Amendment, and how much is dangerous speech that can't be allowed in these extraordinary times," a Whitehouse spokesman said.
I really think we need an amendment to the Constitution that says "the words 'no law' shall be construed by the courts to mean 'no law whatsoever, without exceptions, and this means you, moron.'"
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
If the administration wants statistics to back up there bill, why not ask Google for statistical data regarding pornographic requests instead of records of the actually quaries?
Both the summary and the article speak of child porn and protecting children from accessing porn as if they're interchangeable. Well, they're not - which one is it?
There's no more sure-fire way to push people's buttons than to mention child porn... bah. Always makes me feel that it trivializes the problem when it's being used to push someone's agenda.
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Parents are the ones who need to educate their children... filters are pretty much useless.
I'm sure glad no one "protected" me from porno when I was a kid. Someone always has an older brother or father with porno mags and they make the rounds. I had a pretty good collection before I turned 18 and it was legal - from playboy to hardcore. What's so wrong with pornography? I'd be surprised if Bush didn't have some stashed away in the oval office.
He can't even figure out by himself what to search for???
Sorry had to be like this. I wanted to list all national issues... but list is too big
to track how often pornography is returned in results.
Isn't this an invasion of privacy?
What ever happened to parents and not the government being responsible for their kids?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
google search: george bush naked
I totally believe Cheney wants this information to "protect the children".
If they want to know how often pornography is returned in search results, how about they, um, perform some searches?
(no black helicopters were harmed while making this comment).
By printing results 1...4.7googilian in full detail at 72point font full color.
In the real world, why can't they do their own analysis of the search results?
They could use the Zeitgeist and get most popular terms and actually search and see what the results are.
Unless there is some other reason for wanting the data, then I see this as reasonable.
liqbase
children seeing porn != child porn
Trust me, I work for the government.
Is that the government is claiming other search engines have already given up the requested data. I'd rather search with Google who's trying to protect my privacy than some other engine that coughed up the goods without a fight!
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
I thought the two salient points from the article were
1) Google were resisting the subpoena
and
2) Others (unnamed) had complied with the subpoena
which is slightly worrying for those that use other search engines.
Isn't there already a country that filters all the content that they allow within their borders on the internet? Hmmmm......oh yeah.
Welcome to China!
Don't worry, the NSA has a full profile on you to cross-reference.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The problem with this action is that if it passes, it will serve as a foot in the door so that it is possible for the Bush administration (and those who will follow it) to inspect and analyze the internet habits and actions of everyone who has an internet connection. Right now there are state agents questioning certan US citizens' because of their reading habits, there are databases ran with information on normal, law abiding citizens just because they have an oppinion different from the current administration and God knows what other things are being done behind closed doors. Doesn't this worry anyone?
US: formerly known as land of the free, currently aquiring police state status and on the fast track to fascism.
One imagines the dedicated team of talented evaluators at Justice combing the list of returned sites, carefully categorizing them as pRon or non-pRon. No waste of tax dollars there -- noooo. Glad to see we're spending our dollars on the big issues that face us as a society.
The Supreme Court decision back in June 04 went back, again, to the first amendment. The series of decisions made over the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) and the earlier Communications Decency Act, came back to the laws not being "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest" and to whether less restrictive alternatives were available.
In response to those two reservations, Bush and company are apparently looking to prove how very compelling their government interest is -- by showing that kids are awash in the stuff on Google. Apparently the part where they get access to this enormous, open-ended source of information about searches doesn't set off any bells with them about the other half of that decision -- where the idea was to minimize the restrictiveness of the law and keep government intrusion to a minimum.
These were the "small government" conservatives, right?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
"1998 Law" places this in the Clinton presidency, doesn't it?
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
"Don't be evil!"
That includes you too, George W. Bush.
Time for Google to start developing a beowulf cluster of lawyers.
The words "fully functional battlestation" come to mind.
I'm sure that their legal staff will become "most impressive".
First off, while there may be obvious pornographic search terms, the range of human fetishes is such that otherwise innocuous searches are actually searches for sexually oriented material (feet, smoking, chewing gum, darn near anything else I imagine). So, it would seem to me that it would be more productive to focus on which search results were actually followed.
Also, just because a search term has a sexual/fetish connotation is not sufficient to imply a search for pornographic material. Even if it is, it does not explain the motive. Case in point, there is a registered sex offender in my neighborhood. From the local sex offender database, it appears he had either received or downloaded child pornagraphy. I have two young children. So, I'd like to know more about this particular type of fetish. However, if my understanding of the law is correct, an attempt to research this on the internet could put me in the position of violating the same law that required him to register as a sex offender.
My purpose is not to obtain illicit material, but rather to get inside the head of someone who may be a danger to my children. How would Bush or anyone else know the difference based upon a Google search?
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Wait a minute, which "bush" were you talking about?
It was 1998, remember? Janet Reno was singing its praises, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
He tried, but couldn't spell either word and ended up getting porn.
I won't stand idle while Bush crushes my constitutional right to search for pics of Kobe Tai during my hot, passionate, lonely nights.
I'm all for preventing child access to porn. But if google hands over (voluntarily or otherwise) even a portion of their logs for a specific purpose it makes it just that little bit easier for Bush (or whoever) to get their grubby mitts on log data the next time round. Where does it end?
Also, how would this play from an international viewpoint? Would the data (potentially) handed over include google.co.uk or google.de logs?
The EU is busy being lobbied (can you be busy being lobbied?) about communications data retention (e.g. pi report). Without serious safeguards in place and with all those logs sloshing around it's only a matter of time before log subpoenas become routine.
Nearly all criminal cases are solved and prosecuted based on witnesses testimony. Usually this starts with Det. Lenny Briskow asking neighbors what they heard/saw on a given night. OR askig a restaurant to check their receipts and their waiters memories.
Imagine how hard a case would be to solve if everyone responded to these inquieries with a 'No, that violates the rights of the people I see and do business for me to talk to you.'
Why can't those g-d college hippies as Google be decent citizens and recognize that their lot is tied to the prosecution of illicit activities just like everyone else and just co-operate with the attempt to determine if COPA is effective or not.
I know that most parents just don't want their children to see porn. Period.
However, in order to justify a federal law against children accessing porn, there should be at least some scientific evidence that a) Porn is harmful to children and/or b) Children seeing porn is harmful to society
Does anyone know if there have been any such serious studies? (When I say serious I mean no links from the Family Research Council, etc.)
If there isn't any evidence, or if any related studies show no negative effects, it should be up to the parents only to monitor what their kids see.
Finally, someone is thinking of the children!
I see, too lazy too think up our own search queries are we?
Smile, it confuses people
The sting operations by local police forces seems more than adequate enough to catch pedofiles. Boost funding for this and lock up these perverts with the satisfaction of knowing you caught them in the act.
Google pr0n queries?? Probably take the worlds fastest super computer a year to parse!
To be honest, I'd far rather they didn't have to fight this because they didn't actually keep the information in the first place.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
1. protecting children from pr0n is completely different from combatting child pr0n. keeping johnny from searching for free pr0n sites is not the same as preventing the sickos out there violating kids. 2. heaven forbid the PARENTS actually do something and pay attention to their kids of they're looking at things they shouldn't be online. It's not the gov'ts job to be a babysitter, parent, etc.
This will really be helpful in destroying a good technology. If they think of more use of these queries than statistics like how many people look for xyz, for example block all of them containing the words sex, pussy, or any others, sites with literature, sites about cats, sites with texts about the procreation of fireflies, etc. will then not be retrievable anymore???
They can also just use google, msn, yahoo and many others to search themselves. It will just be another cat-mouse game again in which sites with illegal content will alter the way they show up in the search engines to prevent goverment queries from detecting them, and innocent sites with accidental hits on the subject will get FBI visits.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Wouldn't a subpoena be based on some sort of law? Like that a crime has occurred and the case requires the information?
As if they didnt already?
Wake up people. While I am all for Google and Share the knowledge with everyone policy - I am less for the privacy issue that arises here. You all know it - Gooooooogle ADS are everywhere and you have a couple of cookies that identify you. Probably not the Slashdotters as we regularly clean our cache, but people with less knowledge will eventually suffer privacy issues.
As far as I am concerned - Google is the smartest internet move in the world. CIA, FBI and NSA loves this stuff. Why do you think the "military" abandoned the internet to the public? Imagine if you create a system that everyone uses...and Imagine you have full access to it...given all of that...you dont really need that much imagination to imagine how bad this COULD be. You can monitor just about anyone and everyone - find out their habits, what do they like? Are Johnny-Pedo watching the "family-album" on a Gooooooogle ADS partner online-photo-album today? If so...is he also logging onto his GMAIL today? Maybe Alichk-WoludbeTerrorist is visiting the do-it-yourself-bombmaker site a bit too frequently and of course using his nice free big juicy google mailbox?
While thats kind of obvious to most of us...there is something FAR more sinister at hand...something you might need to be a bit of a paranoid person to think of (like me!)
Imagine that youre a worried "family dad" and want to educate yourself, finding out what "bad stuff" there is out there and what your family could be subjected to, or just curious in general. Imagine that you are subscribing to the same Goooooogle ADS partner sites and you are a man of your habits...you read certain news in online newspapers with great interest, you also give up what you prefer to eat, what people you hang with, which chat groups you visit, what products you prefer etc. All this can and WILL create a profile of you which Google easily can use for 2 things. 1) Direct their marketing at you with almost lethal accuracy and 2) Sell your information to the highest bidder...wether this is the government that make a "sweet trade-deal" with them...or the sinister business corporate that want to make sure that they only get "pure and clean" employees that fit the "corporate profile". This kind of information is worth more than Gold these days.
All that I am saying guys...is...Honestly, if you didnt see this coming then youre simply to plain naive. Remember - Knowledge is YOUR power too.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Will there be some agreed legal "definition" of what is pornography? Or will it be a subjective defn or list of key "words"? The results will change dramatically. Of concern here is that we would have a case of "apples" and "oranges" with an ability to produce statistical results to suit any type of requirement of the asking person.
Well, not if the president orders it, dummy. Thank God we here in the U.S. has a leader with the courage to come out and say "I am above the law as long as this war, which will never end, goes on."
I only wish he would take the next logical step and declare that presidential elections in a time of war could make us vunerable, and therefore they must be indefinitely suspended until we defeat terrorism.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
- ...targeted to prevent access to pornography by children...
- ...and is the only viable way to combat child porn...
- ...software filters in protecting children from porn...
I thought children watching porn and child porn were different things. But then hey, what do I know.I, anal.
GWB was sppoked by his daughters' spring break videos.
I'd just like to ask a technical question: just how does the government intend to garner much of anything from what Google gives them, even if they got it. The request for one million random web sites alone would keep them pretty busy for a while, let alone the queries of a typical week at Google. Can anyone ballpark how many queries that might be? 10^6? 10^9? The government has some data mining capabilities, but I doubt it has anything that could be readily used on that scale. As a matter of fact, one of the only organizations out there that could do it would be ... Google? Does anyone suppose that part of the subpeona is that Google has to analyze the data for the government as well?
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.
Why should the government be able to access Google's privately-held database, which contains sensitive information about millions of users, just so the government can try to defend a poorly written law? I see this as nothing more than a fishing expedition. Lord knows half the searches on google are probably for porn-related stuff, which the government could use damned lies and statistics to "prove" is bad for children. But the government has no right to demand this information.
You know what's really bad for children? A tyrannical government bent on taking away the rights and liberties of its citizens. Will a child born today even taste freedom after they reach age 18? The way things are going, I rather doubt it.
I hope Google fights this all the way and wins.
Electric Monkey Pants
So I guess dedicating some entire subnets to pornography is completely out of the question at this point. Though I think that if we've had a better planning of the Internet, we could have placed adult content on certain designated subnets, and then our constitutional rights would not be up for debate with millions of taxpayers dollars wasted yet again on some stupid trial.
It's too late for such a thing to happen now that the infrastructure is set up and pr0n sites are everywhere. As impracticle as placing adult content on designated subnets is (e.g. we sould have to have every country in the world on board, which just wouldn't happen. And even if it did happen, you would have to have some viable way of enforcing subnet restrictions to pr0n sites) it would make filtering out adult material a snap by setting up your own proxy server that blocks the entire subnet.
It's too bad that the world doesn't work this way, and that the pornography industry is far too powerful to ever agree to something like that, which would probably hurt their business.
...And then of course this whole debate could have been avoided in the first place, if we didn't elect such a moron into office. Constantly trying to overstep his bounds and combining church and state. *sigh* Just three more years...
"If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''"
Consumers should think twice anyway. The Government knows much more about you than any Internet search engine, and they will continue to for years to come.
Trusting a publicly traded corporation with certain information over a Government is pure stupidity.
for the canadian porn industry
as if anything washington did will do anything except just move all the business up to canada
remember? the internet/ arpanet was designed to route around damage in the event of a nuclear war?
well, washington's policies are just damage to route around as far as the internet is concerned
hello, pr0n.ca
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, we should believe that when the federal authorities are given access to something like 600 million Google searches per week indexed to specific IP addresses, they're only going to use that data for the specific purpose of fighting child pornography? That the NSA, for example, would decline to data mine that information?
Given that the current administration has shown that they're willing to spy on US citizens domestically without warrants, even though warrants are easy to get retroactively, why should we trust anything they say regarding 4th amendment rights?
This isn't a criminal investigation. No one can seize records from a private company in order to do a "study," right?
I think the Administration and their "base" really need to start thinking about that.
If I have a child that needs to be protected from porn, then he'll neeed to be protected from that violence and sex that's in the Bible.
Sorry if I'm interpreting your comment unnecessarily literally, but this isn't a real quote. Just wanted to point that out.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I am not a lawyer, but the government is making the request based on the fact that it will make it easier for them to prove their case. Since when are we responsible for making it easier for the government to prove their case?
I actually still hold on to the (perhaps naive) feeling that google's heart is in the right place for the most part, though seeing the billions of dollars in cash might sway things a little. If google loses though, millions of people's search histories, and perhaps, depending on the wording of the subpoena, demographics, if not names along with them.
Probably the best thing to do is to keep the computer in the family room where everyone can see the screen. Your kids will be much less likely to surf adult sites than if the computer were in their bedroom.
Chip H.
...beat a dead horse. Is protecting minors from unwanted and unintended exposure to pornography a good thing? Yes! Can the government mandate it? No! It goes back to the problem of parenting. If parents are giving their kids unfettered access to the Internet, they're going to see this stuff. It's no different that parents not watching what programs their kids see on TV. The US Government is trying to parent the nation's kids, when it can't even govern the country effectively (NOTE: this is not Bush-bashing; the Democrats are just as ineffectual as the Republicans).
It's good that Google has drawn the line. They aren't responsible for what their search engine turns up; the Internet is free territory and if you put up pornography or any other type of content someone finds objectionable, it may turn up. That doesn't make it Google's responsibility to police what its users are doing, anymore than it makes it the government's responsibility. At some point parents need to take back the power.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Lets say that the real question is wether or not Google, and other search engines, can be construed as being politically active? Say the Bush admin finds that 87% of all politically related searches wind up at some Democratic/leftist site. By extension they file suit that Google should be subject to political lobbying regulations. At that point, Google/searchengines could fight the case, or could agree to settle by simply not showing political oriented web pages in results.
The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
Considering that Bush has already shown that he is more than willing to spy on American citizens in the "homeland", and that he feels the rights accorded to him by the Patriot Act afford him anything he demands in the way of National Security, we should be warned. How long will it be before there is connection made, however farfetched, between terrorism and pornography that makes Google complicit in "giving aid and comfort to the enemey". Remember, if you're not with Bush & Co., you're with the terrorists.
I can't read the above without realizing how paranoid it sounds. Still doesn't make me any less apprehensive.
The Bush administration passed on the .XXX domain. And that would have made it far simpler to block 70% or more porn websites. If they passed a law requiring all porn sites to move to the new domain then they could all be blocked. Foreign sites would be unaffected of course, hence the 70%. But authorizing a XXX domain would have legitimized porn I guess. But do you need google's cache to prove people are looking up porn? I thought everyone knew in terms of traffic it goes Porn...spam...P2P...Star Trek. Maybe he wants to check both Internets :-)
For example, they could ask for the percentage of searches that returned results with adult material that got clicked on.
The fact that they're looking for raw data clearly indicates that they want to do something with it that they'd prefer others to not watch - which, incidentally, is the only reason that fits for why they decided to evade judicial oversight of domestic wiretaps.
A Nerd Looks At Politics www.blueworksbetter.com
I want it too. I want to see how many searches for pornography originated from White House and Congressional IPs my tax dollars are supporting.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The irony here is that they don't need Google's records. Nearly every Federal agency has a firewall or http proxy that keeps logs of its users' web requests. I helped operate one back in '97 and you'd be astonished by what folks search for when they think they're in the office alone. If the Bush administration wants a lower bound on pornagraphy searches, they need only search the records they already have of Federal employees' activity.
Of course, that would mean admitting that some Federal employees do this kind of thing on the taxpayers' dime.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Bushco using the emotive power of child pr0n to gain access to private information from Google. Who'd have thought? This meme has been floating about for quite a while.
My cynical side says this is already happening - it's not like the gov cares which rights they illegally trample on and they have already shown that with wiretapping.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
If this kind of behavior continues from the US government, there will be a point of no return. Eventually just link to http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/22/00 39208&tid=153 and do a find and replace China with US government. Easy enough. Will save a lot of typing.
saboola
I keep searching for Bush and all the results are about some worthless idiot who lives in Washington, DC. Where is the porn?
The problem with this country is that there are so many of GW's constituents that don't make a differentiation between the two and just read "for the children" and get in their pick-ups with their shotguns and ride to Washington to rally behind old Bushie because he's got their best interest at heart.
Buttons aren't toys.
... is right now thinking of every possible pr0n euphamism in order to get all relevent data for google. "hot teen co-eds?" - "check!" "busty ladies?" - "check!" "goatse?" - aaaarrrrgh!
-- "You never mentioned comets before, Mac. This opens up a whole new area of negotiation." - Gordon Urquart
All people that voted for Bush Jr. just didn't get it.
Bush Jr. a regular Chimp off the Ole Block.
Yeah, it's terrible. But why do all of the comments in this story have to be a contest to see who can jerk out the most clever spooge about Bush? Don't you guys ever get tired of being almost witty?
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
I'm starting to see the "Oooo, Clinton backed this too!" comments and I just don't see why it matters. This was a bad law when Clinton liked it, and it's still a bad law with Bush backing it. The only reason to link it to Bush more visibly now is because he actually *is* the President. Complaining to/about Clinton certainly isn't going to change it.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Either a website hosts illegal content or it doesnt. Dumping records from google doesnt provide any insight as to whether or not a site has illegal content. Everybody allready has free and open access to google's search results. The only way to determine if a site has illegal stuff is to visit the suspect site and take a look. Thats a detectives job. What they want here is to be able to harass people who goto gray area websites. Websites they cant take down because they technically arent doing anything illegal. .gov probably has a list of a few dozen perv sites theyd just love to trace down who's going there. Then they'd take thoes IP's down to the judge, get sopenas to hand to the ISP's and do some physical searches of peoples homes. They'd probably catch a good ammount of people doing anything from having illegal data on their machines to underage drinkin or busting guys for havin a bag of weed, you name it. Anything to get thoes felony convictions on people so they cant vote.
Eventually anybody who's ever gone to playboy.com or aljazerra's website will be a felon.
surf porn = sex offender
visit middle eastern news sites = terrorist
search for chemicals for your kids website = terrorist
buy clothes on line for your kids = child molestor
buy toys on line for your kids = child molestor
read phrack, visit security focus = hacker/terrorist/*
Ironic that the captcha reads "officers"
I dont agree with the government requesting this information and i use google everyday, but if the records are just search queries then there should be no personal data in it anyway. the only way i see it that it would be infringing on anyones rights is if it did contain personal info.
So the question is: is there personal information in these records and if so how is google protect our rights? wouldnt that be an infringement on our rights in itself?
... They want all the records? Okay, there's probably about a billion people on the net along, then add to that the fact that each one of those people probably search anywhere from one time to fifty times a day... that's a lot of responses.
Plus, I doubt any of the criminals the government is trying to catch will use google in the first place, unfortunately, criminals are smart (Or atleast, very witty.).
I doubt this will help anything, plus, every image search I've done on google has had one or two pornographic pictures (Even with safe-search on. So this is pretty moot, if you ask me.
At amazes me that the party which claims to be against Big Government is always trying to implement government controls in our lives. It also amazes me that the same party calls it's self conservative while it continues to rack up huge debts over the past 5 republican terms in office.
I very much doubt that google keep the results of every search query. Anyone know for sure? What would be the point? Knowing that 10 people searched for "foo bar" might be interesting, but is it any use to know that person 1 get pages a,b,c and person 2 got pages b,c,d, etc? So, if this results are not stored, then the information of common search terms is useless, as they have no indication of how often these led to dodgy sites over time.
It looks like a fishing tactic to me, get all the common search terms, and then require google to turn over all people who searched for unamerican keywords, as they "must be terrorists, surely"? It's possible Google will (or can) only do this if the request is specific, i.e. give us people who searched for X, Y or Z, and this is just a way of compiling the list of X, Y and Z, using "save the children" as the usual excuse.
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
...is information regarding the number of parents who are actually paying attention to the things their children are seeing on the net, rather than just using the computer as a babysitter. Why oh why does government insist on developing ways to help parents be lazier and less involved in their children's activities? Unfortunately in cases such as this, government refuses to put the blame where it belongs - on the stupid parents - because doing so does not help gather votes. Helping people be lazy, however, apparently does.
How long are we going to try and censor a picture of a breast before we accept that it is just a breast. Sex, and nudity is a fundemential part of being. Unless we plan to move the ways of creation into the lab (for all pregnancies) then the idea of censoring sex images is mindless. It is a fact of life. (Almost) none of us were created in a lab. Some were, that is understandable, but the vast majority of us were not delivered by the stork. Are you ready for this, our parents... HAD SEX. I know its a scarey thought, but its a fact. Once a child learns that it came from a man and a woman engaging is sexual intercourse, what is the harm in them seeing a depiction of it. We are arguing, essentialy, for this realization to be delayed 6-8 years. Why is some 10 year old seeing a picture, or even a movie, of a sex act so horrible. In the world we live in today there is no way to prevent this anyway. Lets say somehow, and it would have to be an act of god, they (bg brother) is able to prevent any minor from accessing a picture of anykind that depicts any sort of sex act, or nude body part; then what. This minor will simply look to another medium. This means no more cable TV, Playboys, Pinups, or R-rated movies for anyone. Becuase lets face it, there is no self destrucing mecanism on a playboy that will keep a minor from ever glancing over the pages.
Trying to restrict the internet is a loosing battle. Why not put the efforts twards educating our children about the truths of sex, and sexual images. Because has anyone ever held up a town because they saw a naked woman with a naked man having sex. The answer is no. A resounding no. Perhaps if there was no reason for a child to have to scour the web to see what all of his friends are talking about at school, he wouldnt.
But thats just my opinon
Let's start with the results we want and then work backwards toward the proof. And let's not forget to smear and intimidate anyone raising a reasonable objection in the process as a child molester and aiding and abetting the enemy. Okay, the last one doesn't really fit but it's always a crowd pleaser!
It's the Iraq invasion all over again.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Closing down all U.S. ISPs will be way more effective than any filters, and that seems to be what the government really wants, no matter the cost.
Here's a recent story by her concerning CP80, the latest attempt to make pornography go away: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/30342/. *Don't* *miss* the "educational" Flash video by CP80 about pr0n http://www.cp80.org/solutions/CP80-Flash-Overview. html , which is a contender for the title of "The 'Reefer Madness' of anti-porn propaganda". Anybody know of others?
Im more concerned about my childs intake of violent TV and movies over their access to nude women. If thats one thing I agree with Europeans about its their nonchalant attitude towards nudity, the body and sex is not a bad thing, its pornography that shows violence towards women or children that is the problem and its highly improbable that a google search will show something like that. Its much easier to explain sex and its consequences and the act to a young person than it is to teach them about violence or why people are so mean to each other.
No crime has been alleged. The government is merely trying to harvest
data to defend the law. This is a total misuse of the discovery process.
The funny thing here is that if the government offered to PAY Google
for this information, then Google may be more inclined to comply.
I suspect this isn't about privacy or trade secrets, but rather that
Google doesn't like being compelled to hand over information on searches,
in a non-criminal investigation, for free.
So does this mean the NSA (or some other branch of the government) doesn't already know whats going on? Have they shown their hand or are they being very sly poker players and making it seem that they don't know.
----
This is my 1000th comment on Slashdot!
Innocent of what? Are you ready to defend each and every search you've made against the discomfort it may cause some future Administration?
This has many layers to it, including; suspicous timing -- coming as it does on the heels of a.) Jack Abramoff's decision to sing like a canary and b.) the NSA-citizen-spying leak; anti-competitive behavior (recently disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's career was launched as an associate of Preston, Gates and Ellis, founded by Billg's daddy, and call me paranoid, but doesn't Bill have a thing about Google?); but most egregious is the chilling effect it may have on free inquiry and communication of every kind, including but not limited to dissent. Pardon me for screaming in print, but I FEAR THIS ADMINSTRATION like I never feared Reagan, or Nixon, or even Kruschev, and they had nukes on the ready!... targeted to prevent access to pornography by children ...
... way to combat child porn ...
wait a second... children looking at porn and child porn are two completely different things! do i even have to explain?
child porn is sick pornography - children being abused.
children looking at porn are not in any way abused or harmed (neither mentally nor physically). children usually learn a lot more about sex from looking at porn than they would ever learn from their parents (aka. TV). there are already more than enough age restrictions on porn to stop every single kid from looking at it. leave Google alone.
[SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS
Why not just build their own search engine and see what it returns? That actually seems cheaper than using a squad of government lawyers.
That's the logical fallacy of the sheep. Why is it so many people prefer to bury their heads in the sand, and refuse to learn?
Sir, please open your eyes. Millions of innocent people have been slaughtered throughout human history (often within their own laws) by various governments. As shocking and frightening as it must seem to you, being innocent is no safeguard. Indeed, innocence has nothing to do with it when government officials are granted vast, unchecked power.
The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment (or even death) is a thin, old piece of paper. And people's willingness to uphold the words written on it.
I suggest you acquaint yourself with it.
Or perhaps I should make it more simple. The Bush administration has shown itself willing to abuse the power it had before the Patriot Act was passed. The question now before us is what are the limits to its current power?
You may not like the answer. Your "rights" have been redefined, and so has the definition of "abuse".
Innocence isn't going to save you if you are currently viewed as the wrong type of person. Indeed, in such cases you no longer have a right to legal counsel, or to let other people know you have been detained. Or the right to a speedy trial.
Welcome the new world that your elected representatives have given you. But please don't be under the mistaken assumption that innocence will protect you, or that the government isn't abusing your legally defined rights.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
They grab power.
Give them the right to fight child porn "for the children", and the next thing they're doing is searching that data for "terrorists".
Give them the right to set up a retirement plane "for your security", and they take the money and the next thing you know the retirement plan is broke.
Give them the right to set up health care "for your health" and they ration the care and make you wait in line even if that means you're going to die.
Give them the right to set up a welfare system "to help the needy" and they set up a system that keeps you dependent upon government largess for the rest of your life.
Give them the right to spy on those that deserve to be spied on "to keep you safe" and they turn it around and use it on their citizens (and the US is by no means even close to being in the forefront on this issue, FWIW).
That's what governments do - they accumulate power. And in accumulating power that get it from somewhere else - from YOU.
And money is the lifeblood of any government's attempt to encroach your rights. And encroach them they will. Without money they can't pay for the "needed" programs that are nothing more than systems to entrench the powerful by giving them even more power.
Anyone who thinks he's for individual rights and doesn't support MASSIVE and IMMEDIATE tax cuts and locking debt limits in place to shackle the power-grabbing aspects of any government is a blithering idiot who doesn't understand what all governments do.
If the government wants to fight child porn so bad, why don't they just deal with having to go after those who produce it and swallow the fact that this is a hard problem?
"The Devil does not know a lot because He's the Devil, He knows a lot because he's old." -- unknown
Hey All, I was just thinking that Google has a reasonable case under the 4th amendment to block the seizure of this information. And just to make sure everyone who's reading this is on the same page, the 4th Amendment Reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searced, and the persons or things to be seized." My interpretation of the text is that the government can't seize your effects, which includes information, without substantial information that suggests that the information to be seized would help prosecute a crime, and after attaining the probable cause, a warrant must be issued. Now, what I don't know is how this would effect subpoenas, but this seems more like an seizure than compelling someone to appear in court. So, if Google argues that this information is the property of the end users and only held by Google with their consent, then the Government would need a warrant for each user's search data that they want to use. If the courts agree with this argument it would essentially make it impossible to obtain such information as the Government would not have probable cause to seize the effects of a random million or so people to make their case for the COPA law. The fact that they're not attempting to prosecute any of the people would make it even more difficult. Any real legal experts secretely trolling slashdot forums that want to comment?
Mod me down, but here is my opinion. George Bush has overstepped his role as the president, his oath he took with his hand on the Bible, his constitutional duty to follow the laws of the land. Even if he were impeached, he would ignore the results, as he is above the law. Supporting his lawless regime is supporting the overthrow of the constitution, the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people around the world, the jailing of innocent people without charges for indetermiment time periods. He uses the threat of terrorism to gain political power, and to break our constitutional laws. May Freedom stand! Stand up to tyranny!
The article states:
"The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches."
Why can't they just use the search engines and look at the results? How are they going to determine which results are "pornographic"? That's an awful lot of data to process to look for something as subjective as pornography. If they are just interested in the relationship between queries and results why are they requesting IPs?
The whole thing sounds like a fishing expedition for a bunch of porn related arrests. The whole thing stinks. I'm glad Google has the guts to stand up to them.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
The US government hopes to establish the precident that they can subpoena detailed web access information from Google or any other search engine any time they like, and, wisely, they've chosen to establish that precident by asking for something quite detailed about a subject that hardly anybody would even try to argue against -- the fight against child pornography (though the article obviously muddies the distinction between child access TO pornography versus child victimization *BY* child pornographers).
Should the government win, they can subpoena that same sort of valuable search information for anything else for which they feel the need is justified (even if it means circumventing the FISA court, potentially in complete secrecy and without judicial oversight, I suppose). Should Google win, they'll be painted (wrongly) with the accusation they're standing in the way of fighting child pornography. It's a brilliant move to try to justify this whole thing with an almost untouchable issue, but anyone with half a brain can see where this is probably going -- effectively, the outsourcing of detailed monitoring of web activities by private companies who will voluntarily do the job for the government at company expense, and then the government can subpoena what ever information they want.
Go Google.
Google could log the MD5 of the IP address, the MD5 of the cookie, and what was searched for.
When someone logs in, or provides their cookie, Google could continue to provide more targeted ads, because they can match the MD5 of your IP and cookie to their logs.
When you use GMail, Google could log the SHA-1 of your IP and cookie.
Later on, when Big "bush" Brother comes knocking, they can provide the logs. Niether the search engine nor gmail logs reveal your IP or cookie. The search and gmail logs cannot be correlated at a later time. (Thus any correlation analysis of your gmail for concepts relating to ads would need to be done "right away" before the original IP/cookie information is discarded. For any suitable definition of "right away".)
When Big "bush" Brother comes knocking on your individual door, they can retrieve your cookie and correlate you individually to your gmail and searches. (Note: It may be unnecessary to obtain a court order or have any judicial or congressional review, since, after all, you might be gmailing to or searching for... gasp... Nuculoor Weapons or Al-Queda, located in Iran, which needs to be "liberated".) Nevertheless, they might need to come to you to obtain your cookie individually, rather than just be able to massively sift through Google records.
In the end, it would be simipler if the government were our ISP's, and we all used government provided e-mail servers and search engines.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Anyway, this has nothing to do with protecting kids. This has everything to do with squeezing a strong emotional nerve to make the public jump and agree to invasive monitoring of everybody through yet another means. The government is not looking for molesters. They're looking for protesters.
The brownshirts are back.
-FL
If it isn't on the internet it doesn't mean it doesn't exist (the other way around goes just the same)
If it isn't googleable doesn't mean it isn't on the internet, nor does it mean it isn't out there in the real world. Although it would be a bit unrealistic for a whitehouse spokesperson to say such a thing. But then again, the US government, I believe it was a couple of years ago, that suggested that the pentagon should create an office for misinformation/propaganda. Of course there is nothing to find on that, too, but that could be that they are doing their job properly.
Whatever happened to government organizations conducting their own studies with their own data?
If they truly mean to do no harm, why do they need the public's search inquiries?
Google is open for research for christ's sake gentlemen, just type google.com...
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
That's the sort of naive, pre Januari 30 1933 talk...
Trust me, I work for the government.
Can I delete my search entries from the search history ?
Just the political value of the data -- to discredit or spy on enemies -- is so great that I can't imagine it will stay secret forever. With it, the Bush administration (or Putin or any other) can gather dirt on everyone, from congress to the dog catcher candidate. In fact, for censorship purposes it almost doesn't matter if it leaks: By merely seeking the data, the gov't raises legitimate questions in many minds and will have a 'chilling effect' on what they search for.
I think that, until now, most people looked on privacy as something that idealogues worried about and which had no practical significance. I think that attitude was only a lack of experience and foresight. Unfortunately, their information is already on Google's servers; there is no going back.
Google should simply anonymize the data: They can collect aggregate market research, or even person-by-person research, yet remove all identifying information. Until then, I would seriously consider avoiding using Google, or use an anonymizing proxy service to protect yourself. The standard of behavior in privacy matters must be raised.
They want to know everyone who is looking for Dick & Bush.
The more they advertise, the more revenue they make.
If google sells off logs of searches, I and probably just about everyone else on slashdot will move to Yahoo or something else. I don't want logs of my emails/searches being sent to the government. Do you?
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
Since no one has to sign into google to use it the only thing that the searches can be traced back to is the ip address which then can be linked to the isp and then to the users account which 99.99% of the time is going to be registered to someone 18+ years of age. So my question is how is this going to provide information of what children (under 18) are searching for on google. Real answer is that they are not concerned about children and just want to eliminate porn or any page that is not about jesus altogether by using the idea of it is "hurting the nations children".
Of course, this could be turned on its head with a good old fashioned Googlebombing. I humbly suggest a "Miserable Failure"-style operation with the term "Giant Cocks" pointing to whitehouse.gov, and, for extra points, a photo of President Bush and/or Alberto Gonzalez called "giantcock.jpg"
Again, the fascist Bush regime approaches another issue from the worst angle possible and intends to push as hard as it can for further raping of privacy. When will this certified feeble moron and his band of crony thugs get a fucking clue? Or when will Bush's puppet master get a fucking clue would be the more accurate question.
If you want children protected from anything, then have parents step up and once again be parents. Maybe there are other factors that complicate this, such as both parents needing to work to survive in a destroyed economy with an ever weakening dollar and decline in jobs that pay well and the ability of citizens to get what little of those jobs there are. But that is trying to find and address a root issue which may solve many other splinters caused by that root issue and we all know that the only way to solve things is to take away more freedom and privacy and introduce more worthless laws that accomplish nothing except justify the need for more guns and big Government force to get involved; See the failure of the border with Mexico. What do they really expect to accomplish?!?! Does this regime think that the Inernet will not interpret this as Censorship and act as it always does, evade and continue? I see a bit of potential for anonymizer services if this crap goes through. Until then the root problem, parents not being parents and that fact being ignored, will continue to cause the degeneration of American society and culture till we finally reach a breaking point and treat ourselves to another civil war. Protect my rights, protect my Constitution and protect the borders of this nation and that is ALL the Federal Government should be doing.
What MY children access from MY network is MY responsibility and MY solution to put in place including being a full parent to MY children. How dare this brain damaged neanderthal try to be a parent to MY children!!!
Maybe if the current wretched regime would focus on root issues, learn how to pronounce and perform compromise, respect our global neighbors, and introduce solutions instead of preaching their empty gospel they could then accomplish something aside from earning the title worst leadership of the United States ever and perhaps of any nation in the world including the Nazi germany supported by the Bush family. Corrupt sacks of shit with too much power to abuse and money to waste, it is really sickening. Just as sickening as hearing people complain about all the problems America has and faces yet they ignorantly keep voting Republican and Democrat thereby voting in the same people to create and support the failures already failing. Vote out *ALL* encumbents this year and vote Libertarian if you really want a change, otherwise please do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.
What about citizens from countries other than the US that use google?
That's fucking censorship! I'm sick to death of this administration taking liberties to protect me. If I choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and I die as a result from head injuries so be it.
I can understand them wanting to search for "child porn" but I fear this goes much deeper and that is just a guise to effectively censor all of it. Now you may think that this type of censorship is a good thing to protect the children, well I say bullshit. If you want you children protected get off your fat lazy ass, drop whatever your doing and monitor your childs online habits by watching them. Would you let them swim in the ocean without supervision? Hell NO! So why take a chance they may get to a pron site while online? Granted there are links that seem harmless, then blam GOATSE protect against that I can see. This will do nothing for the younger generation that is more computer savvy than ma and pa and who have secretly, hacked, or traded for a pron login pass for some site.
This is censorship of media, next it'll be the papers, oh wait those are censored.
Honestly folks, unless you want a few people in power telling you when to do this or that, what to eat, wear, where to work or live, then do nothing. Take no responability for raising your children. Above all continue to not vote, because there is no one worth voting for then bitch about how you have to make too many choices and life is so hard.
With archaic laws still on the books in many states, I wonder if this will open the door for people getting charged with breaking some antiquated law?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I think this is a stroke of genius on the part of the government. They need to get a tighter grip on the porn problem. As far as I'm concerned they should yank porn off any site they find it on ... it is probably not too hard. As for me, I never really think about it.
Solve both issues at once...create a separate domain for porn and be done with it. Block minor access by locking out the domain.
No need for records search (I think we all know what they would find anyway), and take care of child privacy at the same time.
...thats the logical solution, where no one suffers.
1001100 1100101 1100001 1110110 1100101 1001101 1111001 1000010 1101001 1110100 1110011 1000001 1101100 1101111 110111
just to have basics like ROMS, torrents, pr0n, and other important info, including legitimate info. Well, the only good that may come of this is a generation of 1337 h4x0rz. https://beijing999.com/ https://proxify.net/ https://pimpmyip.com/ proxyswitcher, etc. are your friends and filters are your enemy (because filters are freakishly ineffective at hitting their target, but good at getting everything else).
Can you really trust any studies that show up on TV or the newspaper anymore? Pr0n, weed, videogames, global warming, indooor pollution, and everything else under the sun are GOING TO KILL YOU or MAKE YOU KILL OTHERS. Jesus H. Christ! (as if people haven't killed in His name...) 40 years ago scientists were worried of global cooling. The Earth has naturally warmed and cooled many times in the past - and things died, but that's nature. We're still alive. Today's youth are, according to the FBI - the least violent generation in American history, maybe, maybe, because they are inside playing videogames? Oh, and now masturbation may prevent prostate cancer - that's what I call wanking now, cancer prevention. I really just wished people weren't so ready to believe _everything_ the media, a Nigerian email, or a politician (all parties, Libertarians too) tells them to. There's a reason what you watch on TV is called programming...
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
So, how is the government going to distinguish between queries for pr0n and a 12-year-old looking for fishing gear at Dick's Sporting Goods? What's your first inclination of what to type into a search engine and what do you think you'll get back?
Here in MN, Dick's just bought out Galyan's, another sporting/apparrel store and used the Dick's name. Idiots. Welcome to the now.
Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
We'll just need your passwords, e-mails, phone records, search terms, credit card purchases, library records, magaizine preferences and shoe size, along with computerized analylsis of all of the above.
Also, if you wouldn't mind, we'll need a copy of your house and car keys, too.
"No?"
Well, looks like you're going to a black site prison deep underground, never to be seen or heard from again.
God BLESS America!
They cry, but it is not about pr0n. And it is not about the children. It is about a huge database belonging to the new library (internet) and they wish to flag a few million books, allowing them to form complex profiles on most of the (connected) population.
|plastic....or gasoline?|
Google could log the MD5 of the IP address
Bad Idea!
A brute attack is trivial here. There are 2^32 IP addresses so building a complete inverse mapping for this data can be done on an ordinary PC in no time.
Good try.
In 2000, while we were all distracted with a few hundred chads, we ignored 50,000 African-Americans deliberately and erroneously miscategorized as felons, and rendered ineligible to vote. The vote problem in Florida wasn't a few hundred, it was thousands.
In 2004, exit polls in Ohio disagreed significantly from the actual votes, and in those polls Bush consistenly got fewer votes than the official talley. This didn't look like statistical sampling error.
In 2008, are you really sure we'll have a fair election?
Get your point across the passive-agressive way (cuz being aggressive-aggressive in this day and age gets you a one-way trip to Guantanamo Bay). I, for one, am going to be running Google queries like "Fuck you, Bush!" or "Get your hands off me, you damned dirty ape!" or "I am the very model of a modern major general" (just to establish my insanity plea). I wonder how much porn will be returned by these searches and how many poor, innocent children will have their minds shattered as they somehow watch behind my back despite the fact that I don't associate with children.
Makes a lot of sense to me to look through all the queries for stuff like how to make a nuclear bomb or searches for the floor plans for the white house or other things that might point to research being done by terrorists. Google has everything you need to plan an attack on the United states... maps, satelite photos.... everything....
While they are "doing good" protecting the children from pr0n they will be sifting through other searches in the wars on drugs,terror,freedom of choice/religion/speech.
With Judge Alito's confirmation, the Supreme court will certainly back the right of the Federal Government to request Google's data. You should expect to see a number of such cases resurface once Alito is confirmed.
I doubt it is a coincidence that the Bush administration is bringing this up again.
Funny thing... I do not hear any complaints from Microsoft and their search engine... Do you think the feds forgot to ask Bill for his data?
But at least McCarthy was fighting something that needed to be fought.
No records -- no problems.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Definitely Evil, and definitely against their creed of Do no...
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It would be funny... if it were not true.
Thats the problem. Without context the searches would be meaningless. For example I post on other forums. One of those is political related (which is basically a pissing ground for who can one up the other on information on the net.. bit like
One of the rules of that forum is that you have to back everything up with a source. This means scouring the net numerous times with very colourful search terms. I have no doubt that a number of them would red flag if marked together. However would be benign if you knew the context of those searches.
Although with the right list of IP addresses they could corralate some nice information from the search results. I am surprised the US Administration don't just tap googles lines and monitor the results that way.
This is a common problem when dealing with people. They piously clamor for what they're supposed to want. Just imagine the improvement in governmental service if our legislative technimicians could see what people really want.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Here is something else you can see your tax dollars supporting.
Google: A Patriot's Letter
You could salt the hashes to increase cost. But you make a good point.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
I just hate the government that runs it.
Yes I have tried to fix it (by voting) the problem is that it is already "fixed".
It used to be great now it's ]CENSORED BY ORDER OF GEORGE W. BUSH SUPREAM PLANETARY COMMANDER[
I am. Lower your shields and power down your weapons, they are useless. Your biological and technological distinctivenes
Other than the privacay concerns what does the White House hope to prove? Even though it may be possible to identify a particular household (which is unlikely that google logs that much identifiable detail), all it will show is how many people on the internet both here and abrod are searching for porn. Theres no way in telling if those people are underage or not. So all you will see is a lot of people searching for porn. If I look at porn in the evening then later that day hang out with my little cousin will my looking at porn the night before going to somehow "taint" the boy? Maybe if I told him what I saw, yeah, but not otherwise. This sounds ridicilous and I find it dubious that porn searches are what the white house is really after.
After all, the current administraton has shown that it has no problems lying to the publics face about what its doing in order to break the constiution. Why would this be any different?
Get a blow job, get impeached.
Break the consitution and invade civil liberties, get a raise in the polls.
Im so confused.
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
Its called 'Parenting'.
A wise man once said that true patriotism is loving your country and hating your government. This is true for all men, of all nations, of all ages.
The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
4 of the top results from last year were Janet Jackson, Britney Spears, Brad Pitt, and Angelina Jolie; how do we separate searches for the digs on these celebrities from people trying to see nude pictures of them?
From the weekly Zeitgeist results, it looks like people are definitely already looking for a lot of porn, if you want to construe it that way:
1. joe pichler
2. golden globes
3. james franco
4. james frey
5. angelina jolie pregnant
6. martin luther king
7. kim mathers
8. sasha cohen
9. smoking gun
10. denver broncos
11. naked news
12. hoodwinked
13. michelle wie
14. seahawks
15. friday the 13th
We have it all covered there: celebrities, wives/ex-wives/wives of celebrities, horror porn, and pregnant women....
where the hell are these kids' parents??? and why aren't they doing anything??? i really hate when the law gets involved with this kinda shit.. because it all winds back down to the parents who are too fucking lazy.. its not hard to regulate what your kids do on a computer, and or its not hard to hire someone knowledgable to set up the security you want.. do your damn jobs as parents..
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Comment removed based on user account deletion
..because that means you are going to be screwed, one way or the another.
In my country the goverment gave the ISPs a long list of "child porn hosting" IP addresses to blackhole (=block without showing any message that the address exists but is intentionally blocked). All had to comply or cease their operations and not surprisingly all complied, starting 2006/01/01.
What I can't figure is why is that list still classified?
I mean, all the "nasty sites" are blocked by our new national firewall so I can't view the "nasty stuff" even if I know the IP addresses, do I?
All I know is that a politician waved a large pile of papers in front of TV cameras and said that now children are safer from molestation and the next day the few newspapers that covered this praised the goverment's action without the slightest hint of critique or demands for openness.
But then, who would demand to see what was blocked except a child pornographer?
Next in line is a law to make all digital cameras, both standalone and integrated, to make three loud warning beeps and flash a red light in 1-second intervals before taking the picture - to PROTECT THE CHILDREN from child pornographers!
I quess this one will also pass without opposition.
So, does any industrialized country, with no native Muslim population nor immigration, still exist where I could make TCP/IP connections to any host *I* wish, without anyone watching over my shoulder or recording my actions?
I would prefer a one where I could own and operate a camera too without giving a DNA sample and waiting for the mandatory TLA picture previewers to approve my pictures.
Capitalization is the difference between "Helping your uncle jack off a horse" and "Helping your uncle Jack off a horse"
It was ok when Elvis did it. In the era of family values. It was uncommon, but not unheard of, in America at least, for people to marry, and then presumably fuck 13 year old cousins. If it was good enough for the God fearing Greatest Generation, it should be good enough for us. (Assuming we're horrible bastards and infatuated with the idea of ruining someone's life for fleeting physcial gratification.) I say we need to return to the good old days when a man was allowed to fuck children, particularly if he was famous or a bumpkin. I'm sure all the hick^H^H^H^Hsoutherners are with me on this. Children deserve to have the kind of innocent childhood our parents and grandparents had, where children were fucked, more often than they are today no doubt, but people were polite enough to neither speak of nor be concerned about it.
So to recap:
Soul and songs about leaving Jamaca while drunk == EVIL
Fucking children == Family Values
Google and the NSA have been sharing information for four years already. This legal move is just ex post facto strategy to make things look kosher.
Will a child born today even taste freedom after they reach age 18?
They'll likely have a better chance in Russia than here. Sadly, there is no joke.
Just have your browser block all sites ending with .xxx domains.
Oh, wait...
A filter will stop some reasonable percentage of this material right at the computer, provided that the kids don't know more about computers than their parents do. Do the filtering at a family-friendly ISP and it will be rather hard to work around.
A law stops nothing. It only attempts to prevent availability by the threat of punishing such behavior otherwise. For search engines outside the law's reach (e.g. other countries) it is likely ineffective, unless combined with filter software to prevent access to foreign sources.
A reasonable compromise IMHO (IANAL or Congresscritter) is a law requiring Truth in Labeling of Porn to make filters more effective for those who choose to use them. Porn stays available without punishment (the likely secret agenda of laws like the original one is to punish porn), filters are more effective, consumers have more choice, and things work better.
So I'd prefer this approach to trying to make the original law work.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Google should put one of those annoying Paypal tip boxes on its site: "donate to help our legal defense". They'd make billions.
The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh against what it considered to be government intrusion into his medical records -- you recall his Oxycontin "doctor shopping" case. They've represented unpopular opinions at most points on the political spectrum.
Yes, it's a group that operates according to principle and not partisan positioning. That earns it the eternal enmity of those whose real credo is maintaining the status quo in order to keep a grip on power. (Let's all take a moment to consider which of our two parties essentially supports the ACLU, and which made being a "card carrying member" of the ACLU a dirty epithet in the 1988 election cycle.)
(The parent poster missed the distinction between the law that was passed and the overreaching attempt to get Google's records, of course.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
What if I only want them to experience my religious ideas; not the ideas of another religion? What if I want them to avoid all references to a world that is not Muslim? What if I never want them to hear about Christianity? What if I want to shelter them from Britney Spears, or the Backstreet Boys, or gangster rap? What if I *want* my children to be exposed to sexual imagery, so that I can frame it in a rational, responsible adult context?
What law is the government going to pass to ensure that my children are never exposed to the evils of, say, Christianity while browsing the Internet? [1]
Unless and until the government can answer these questions, it has *NO* basis for proceding with it's COPA legislation.
--
AC
[1] Christian mythology is as dangerous any any. As a child of 12, I very nearly decided to "sacrifice" my father while he was sleeping, after being preached a lesson about Abraham's call to sacrice his son, Issac. After all, I "knew" that it was God, and not my imagination speaking because I knew that he spoke to little kids in voices adults couldn't hear, like he did to the prophet Samuel. And I "knew" that God issued "tests of faith" that seemed unethical, but that loyalty to God was always rewarded -- perhaps he would save my father at the last minute, like he did Issac.
Fortunately for my father, my fear of hurting him was greater than my faith. Well, that and the fear he'ld wake up and kick the snot out of me: and realization that all this religion stuff was starting to sound really crazy, even to me. I'm now either a failed prophet turned from God by Satan, or a rational atheist, depending on your religious views, I guess.
This would be a good little example of how the ends don't justify the means -- a point W. Bush and company seem to be particularly vague about. I don't seem to recall Clinton authorizing extraconstitutional NSA activities, either, come to think of it. Funny thing.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
ip correlation a hideously bad idea. because many people have DHCP ip addresses, your ip address will be the same as the ip address of the people that previously had it! my ip address changes about every 3 months, making it stable enough for people to assume that it might be static. a lazy investigator might assume that just because an ip correlation shows up with X as the current address that all logs with that ip are probably the same person. and even in the case where you can prove that this is not the case (say, you can prove when you acquired that address), you might still have to deal with the residual FUD of having the correlation at all.
Google Hacks : Tips & Tools for Smarter Searching (Hacks) (Paperback) by Rael Dornfest, Tara Calishain (51 customer reviews) List Price: $24.95 Price: $16.47 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $8.48 (34%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Staffer get's promoted for saving 34% and Justice Department Spokesperson says, "Based on new developments in our investigation we are ready to move forward with charges against several websites and their respective owners. We believe this whole case can be wrapped up in just a few weeks."Why just target Google?
What about Yahoo, Microsoft, Altavista, Hotbot, etc. - every other possible internet search tool?
Besides- you don't exactly need a search engine to find www.sex.com or
http://www.booble.com/
Will the Republicans now go on a witch hunt for other heritic ideas, such as: Evolution and Free Thought?
In Soviet Amerika, Bush indexes You!
I believe the Presidents Google searches should be public.
After all the whole Clinton/Monica thing was public, why not the current press as well.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
There is the also the fact that certain searches, local.google.com in particular, can rapidly identify a person, hashing of IP or no.
While there are technical solutions, we can't even begin to step down this path. I hope the feds get smacked down for this.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
But I just had visions of Sharks & Jets dancing in the streets.
:-)
It's 'livelihood'
You're new, aren't you?
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
In soviet america, Google searches YOU!
Okay, I'll risk asking the question. What evidence is there that viewing pornography is harmful to children? I suspect that the "save the children" aspect is simply being taken advantage of by anti-pornography groups seeking to push their agenda.
....How about if the government butts the hell out of our business and parents take control of their kids?! The root of the problem is the loser parents in this country, and the power hungry government is only helping to make things worse. It's not just with regard to child porn either, it's also education, teenage pregnancy, drugs, etc.
PGA (parent of four)
The gov't wants access to Google's search records. They are using porn as the excuse. Does anyone really believe that they will only use (and only want) access to the records for that reason?
"No sane man will dance." -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Dead on, but those of us that didn't vote for him are still screwed.
They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
I guess Google should consider moving their servers out of the reach of the US government. Maybe some tiny island that's outside the reach of most governments would be a good place to relocate.
This attempt by the Bush administration is just a nightmare scenario. If they win this, who is going to demand access next? Your local newspaper maybe to determine who searches for pornography in your area?
if the BushCo regime can scare enough tech companies away from US soil then he can be king of a country of peasants since EVERYTHING will be turned into a service sector job where many work for the rich few. Hmmm.... sounds like this has happened in history before!
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
Google: I'll make you a deal.
Gub'ment: O.K., let's hear it.
Google: You give me your request, and I give you the finger. You savvy?
Couldn't they just ring up the NSA or their international Echelon contacts? I guess a formal request looks better in Court documents. ;-D But seriously, to think that the NSA at the very least doesn't already have this information....
That's not what I meant.
it works for "worst president ever" too :)
First off what do you mean "roughly"? It's one, the other, both, or none...not a lot of wiggle room here for a wishy-washy term like "roughly".
Secondly, and this is why I am responding, as a young child, an attempt was made to abduct me. The would be abductor was neither friend nor relative. He (actually they, there were two of them) was a complete stranger. He first tried the "I'm a friend of your mother's and she told me to give you a ride home" approach. No need to go into detail beyond that but, fortunately , I was smart enough to stay out of his reach and run down the road screaming my head off to attract as much attention as I could.
Don't tell me that total strangers "barely figure as a risk".
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Privacy experts have warned about Google's non-expiring search cookie and indefinite search histories for ages. The company never listened. If it looses users as a result of having to turn over private data to government, that is well deserved in my opinion. Might teach Google and negligent companies like it a lesson or two about not taking people's privacy seriously.
Mandate that anyone under 13 use Yahooligans.
Were that I say, pancakes?
is to export google to a democratic country.
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.
So, we have a Republican administration arguing that a regulation, signed by a Democratic president they despise, is more effective than the market driven solution?
Do we need any more evidence that the folks in the WHite house aren't really Republicans?
Out of all my friends and all of the girls I've dated, I'm the only one I know of whose parents took an interest in teaching them about sex. Fortunately, for my friends, they had sex ed in school. This is, increasingly, no longer the case.
People need to realize-- teenagers will have sex whether you like it or not. Do you bury your head in the sand, or do you teach them the one thing that we know will make a difference? If anything, sex ed decreases promiscuity because girls are informed of the consequences. I just can't believe the kind of cultural 180 that has happened in this country in the last few years.
We all know that it is about goatse. The government is trying to protect his true identity.
The news story makes mention of other search engines that have complied with the court order. I want to know who these 4$$holes are!!!
My original point is, you said you wouldn't use google or gmail because of this(the cookies and the link to gmail). What do you use? Can you really trust any website? Correction, you said you block the google cookie. Do you use a google scraper? How do you know they are legit? My point is, I agree, but I'm paranoid enough as it is, so I take the "civil disobedience" course. Rosa Parks finally had enough, so she took her stand. I'm not comparing myself to Mrs. Parks in terms of magnitude. I'm not an evil person. I'm not actively plotting against the goverment. I hope that google destroys any records before they would be forced to turn them over to the government. Google has gotten big enough that they may actually be able to win this.
OK, an obvious question, what if Bush wants to look at other search records while he has them. Say Google searches about Iraq, Osama, or polical candidates? Does anyone really think this won't open up the door for more civil rights abuses? This could really hurt Google in the long run if they turn over there records, even if they show that they are putting up a fight. --my two cents.
>
> No, but the scary part is they can arrest who they choose too when everyone breaks the law.
Bingo.
This goes well beyond anti-Bush or anti-government concerns. It's only noted briefly in the article, but if this request succeeds, it begins to open the Google database for nearly any lawsuit. Let's say I'm suing you for Z. I could make a fairly good argument before the court that access to your search engine queries for the last year would be relevant to the case. Given IP address & cookie tracking, it should be possible to assimilate that information. The retroactivity of this is also tricky. People have looked for all kinds of stupid stuff essentialy assuming it was private.
This is a good example of "be careful what you ask for..."
google: please clear the records of my searches for anything with "naked" in the search.
slashdot: please clear the record of this post.
government: hello big brother
When I was using win95 and still wanted to see flash cartoons and find tools for windows and /everything/ on the internet was blinking and redirecting... and before I found the newsfeed porn I had to fight malicious cookies while leaving them enabled so I just replaced my cookies.txt with a blank one in my startup script. Cookies worked and the windows rebooting took care of itself.
I do not understand the overwhelming opposition to this request. They are requesting records of search queries and the results returned along with a random sample of web addresses indexed by the search engine. No identifying information at all. No user IPs, cookies, hashes or anything else. Just the query text and the returned results. What privacy concern is at issue here? Who's privacy is being violated? They aren't interested in linking up people to the searches. In so far as porn and child porn sites are revealed through the search results and are likely to be included in the random sample, that is not a violation of anyone's privacy; the results are of public information.
The opposition to this on user/citizen privacy rights makes no sense at all. Even if you object to the goal of trying to defend the law in question, this particular means violates no one's privacy. Claiming it does only weakens one's credibility when a genuine privacy violation is at issue.
What's more, Google isn't giving up anything of value by complying with this request. The random sample of sites is a drop in the bucket. It reveals nothing of Google's trade secrets (such as web crawling technologies or methodologies or algorithms). The search results are likewise of little worth without having the associated user identifications. Also, the real bread and butter of Google (as with any search engine) is in their advertising links and their search engine's speed and accuracy. Nothing about the technologies behind these will be revealed through the results themselves. At worst a comparitive analysis of the results from the cooperating search engine companies could reveal which is more accurate, which I suspect could only be a win for Google.
Nothing about the opposition to this makes any sense, unless it is just knee jerk reaction to cooperation with a government request of any sort or similar reaction to the goal of resurrecting the law in question... or simple hatred of and/or opposition to this administration.
if they could read, don't you think they would have noticed the "thou shalt not kill" bit in that other text?
personally I think that is the one that needs the stated addendum...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
You would need to encrypt both the IP and the cookie together at least. Anyway, let's just fight this legally for a little longer :)
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
if Google provided the administration with an API for them to search the records. Any search term could at leasy be logged and made publicly available. Why would they say no? Because obviously it isn't their intent to look for "tits". -Just my 2 cents.
what a load of santorum...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Did you mean: " Teenage Tit Freaks"
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
There is legal precedent for a recipient standard which causes the most easily offended micro-minority's sensabilities to rule. Take for instance the "Hostile Environment" standard in sexual and racial harrassment cases. According to the law, no obscene or offensive intent is required. If the most easily offended receipient or observer in a work environment decides that something is offensive, then by law, it is. Of course, this has a chilling effect on speech. But then again, that is the point. The feminist and civil rights lobbies (who
Of course, any suggestion to roll back the draconian restrictions on free expression are instantly labled "racist, sexist, reactionary, etc, etc, etc." Seems that a lot of people who have problems with the standard applied to porn have absolutely no problem applying the standard to other things.
It's the right thing for Google to refuse. Politicans are taking the easy way out and using non-social methods for social control (i.e. teaching your kids and parent ABOUT the internet is a more effective route).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's a very funny story! I've submitted it to Seen On Slash.
Developers: We can use your help.
The .us gov just want to take over the internet, have complete control
Ignorance Can Be Frowned Upon
If Google logs the MD5 of your IP and cookie, then the government can look at your computer, get your IP and cookie, and MD5 it, then go to Google. There's no protection from hashing unless it's in a way that makes it useless to Google as well.
They used their connections with Bush (C'MON, guys, ever heard of "Preston Gates" and how many people connected with the Abramoff scandal used to work there?!) to have the DoJ come down on Google with this obviously nonsensical concept of defending their law by comparing it to filters.
It's a fucking fishing expedition and a cover story, nothing more.
Then Google defends itself, and Microsoft can spread rumors about "Google defending child porn".
This is totally fucking sleazy = and totally something Bill Gates would do.
Which is why it's virtually guaranteed that he's behind it. He might as well hang a sign on himself saying so.
Microsoft is a company that couldn't compete with a five-year-old without resorting to illegal and sleazy tactics.
Microsoft is on a par with Enron - it needs to be put completely out of business for the benefit of the IT industry, the advancement of computer science, and the entire world.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
To add to your list--
"Today I am giving formal notice to Russia that the United States of America is withdrawing from this almost 30-year-old treaty," Bush said in the White House Rose Garden. "I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government's ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks."
President GW Bush, December 14, 2001
Unilaterally abandoning a treaty when it suits the interests of a country doesn't instill trust within members of the international community. It also puts us in the position of a hypocrit when complaining about Iran violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty it has signed.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The German people gave Hitler an inch.
The world gave Hitler an inch.
Then, Prescott Bush was financing the 3rd Reich and the whole world was facing being conquered and WWII had to happen.
But it was just an inch.
Another example: Iran. They let a government become too powerful, mixed up with religion and the little things turned into a fascist regime that continues to care less about liberty, rights and freedoms. The funny thing and root issue is just below the obvious that a toddler taught to recognize patterns would see. This is about the Government trying to be a parent and further overpowering itself and overstepping it's bounds. This is acceptable to NeoCons as they tend to not possess the intelligence to not have herd mentality, but to the rest who do we see where this is heading again and it still is not right. The Government does not need this power now nor ever, it is not it's job nor it's duty that is the sole responsibility of the parents. The Government should try protecting my rights and freedoms, my Constitution and the sovereignity of the United States instead of destroying all of the above and pretending they can do a better job than me with their dismal record of failure, waste, corruption and illegal and unjust international aggression.
The moral of the posting is: Feed a monster long enough, even if just a little at a time, that monster will still grow large enough to eat you next.
A little gizmo that tells you whether other Firefox users think the site you are browsing takes user privacy seriously or not. Could be abused but it could also make some sites think twice about their lacking privacy protections.
...and we all laughed when France said they had a need to develop their own search engine.
We might as well learn Chinesse and use Baidu from now on.
The pr0n angle is a smokescreen.
I know it's not a new concept, but.. how about we let PARENTS be responsible for their children. I wish we could stop trying to run everyone else's lives. That's why there's a thing we refer to in english as a "repercussion". You do something you are not supposed to, you get punished. It's insane to think that we should take away rights in exchange for safety. A man has a right murder people. His peers then have a right to punish him in a way that makes it... very unfavorable for anyone else to decide murder is a good idea!
Children have a right to seek out sex and pornography, and their parents have a right to decide how to punish them. I for one would rather my son watch a softcore porn than something like Doom. It is however, my responsibility to make sure that he doesn't watch either of those before he's mature enough to.
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
following my instincts not a trend...
Where the hell are all the good assassins when you need one...
More Alleged Humour
Just goes to show you how limited their imagination is.
Filtering is a straw man. It's less effective than anything else.
The strange thing is that its actually Bush who proposes this... I think they just want to find the best pr0n sites themselves..
anyway why don't they just try to make it so that kid's cant call from telephones too? How would they know who is surfing.. the kid or the dad? neither of them is going to admit it... (well someone will in the end, but thats a court case..).
http://naerey.switch-case.org
I just reset my Google cookies and logged back into gmail and all cookies set expire at end of session. After I "logged out" of gmail a few were left - S,TZ.GMAIL_RTT from google.com, and GMAIL_LOGIN from mail.google.com - all still set to expire at end of session. I'l lhave to exit this browser to figure out where those go away when I exit Firefox.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Look, if you go to images.google.com or just www.google.com and search for "tits" - it returns fairly tame stuff. If you click "Preferences", and then turn the damn safe surfing thing off, then re-run the search you get some good stuff returned!
That said - it's my fucking business that I'm searching for tits - no one else's, and esp. not the governments. Fuck their moral imperative and judgment when it comes to my sex life (or lack thereof as the case may be)...
Now if I'm searching for "12 yr old nekkid gurls", I deserve to be arrested. If the government is concerned about sexual exploitation of underage children, then investigate those who are commiting criminal acts, make and prove your case against them, and toss 'em in jail... But they ought not to be able to go on a fishing expedition thru the records of some search engine just to make it easier to do so, I'm not willing to give up my privacy or subject myself to the risk of being mistakenly accused because I asked for "naked gurls", and mistakenly hit the "u" instead of the "i" and got some search results that I wasn't interested in... I shouldn't have to explain that to anyone, esp the goverment.
What the government ought to do is say "hey, you know Google|Yahoo|Altavista|Dogpile, there's some real schmucks out on the NEt who are searching for and trading child porn. We'd like you to make certain that you don't index any of the following child porn search phrases...". Then YES, the government is becoming a censor of speech, but it is extremely limited in scope, and directly related to a function of the government - mainly their duty to protect and defend, so it should pass muster...
So y'all can give the tinfoil hat a break, at least if you remember to sign out and exit your browser. Not easy. I think IE doesn't even write these cookies to disk.
And what buggy old browser are you using that lets the CIA read Google's cookies on your machine?
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
SOURCE
You might want to take a step back and reconsider who you trust. Clinton's administration abided by the law as set forth by congress, and when outrage was expressed that Clinton used warentless physical searches, which were not forbidden at the time by FISA, he signed a bill that extended FISA to also forbid warrentless physical searches. Bush on the other hand, has directly violated FISA, and he doesn't deny that fact either. The Bush administration claims that his executive powers give him the ability to ignore laws passed by congress. Now you can continue to repeat partisan lies, or you can think for yourself. The president is not above the law, and if the law prevents him from doing his job, he can lobby congress (and the public), to have the law changed.
Why don't you tell us how many abducted/exploited children constitute an acceptable risk level for you?
A goal is a dream with a deadline
It's that simple.
How about instead of trying to prevent children from being able to access material that the government (not society or the parents) deems inappropriate, perhaps they should consider funding a program to teach parents how to talk with (not just lecture) their kids, and perhaps monitor what they are doing online. My child will definitely not have unrestricted access to the internet when she is old enough to use the computer on her own. This will be for her protection, for my (computer's) protection, and for my whole family's protection. She is 4 years old, and she knows our address, our phone number, and the name of our city and state. (The problem with this is that she does not yet realize there are people who she should not give this information to.)
This has been said over and over again. Instead of relying on the religiously-minded government (can this really even be denied?) to TRY to prevent inappropriate material from being seen by children, lets get the parents to take on the responsibility that they should have had from the start. Should you blame HBO or one of the other uncensored premium channels because you let your 8-year old watch "Casino" on TV and now they're cursing like Nicky Santoro? Do we really need the government to decide what is appropriate? Would they have said I shouldn't have been allowed to watch Friday the 13th when I was young? My parents thought I was mature enough for it, and considering how I am 2 decades later, I'm inclined to agree with them. Granted every child is different, which is exactly why it should be left up to the parents. If the parents don't/can't/won't take on this responsibility, they should have thought about that before having children. Unplanned pregnancy you argue? Grow the hell up and deal with it. Its the parents responsibility to decide whats good for their kids and what isn't. Some laws exist to protect children because of stupid or ignorant parents. We don't need Mr. Bush telling my child that she can't watch Spongebob Squarepants on TV because some fundamentalist group said he was homosexual. That's not the issue here, but how much farther would it have to go to get there? Not very far.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Yea, it's fascinating how quickly they changed from being "small government/states rights" people to wanting more or less total control over everything.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I think Google should absolutely give the US government this list, however I have one slight change I think they should make. Instead of releasing how often porn turns up in results how about Google somehow gets the ages of users and compiles a statistic of how many times under-18's search for porn! I think its important to let Bush know that 99% of teenagers are only too pleased when porn comes up in search results.
On the other hand when I read the headline I assumed this was terrorism related, now I think about it im outraged that Bush is wasting time on pornography with the world where its at today! Not that I would want the US government looking at search queries.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
We don't protect children from pornography. Instead we try to protect parents from the irrational anxiety and fear that comes from knowing their children might see pornography. Children cannot be protected from porn. In order to protect someone from something, that thing must be dangerous or harmful to begin with, which porn is not.
Imagine if people had the same attitude towards food that many do towards sex. Can you imagine cookbooks being published? What about the food channel? Rachel Ray would be as infamous as Xaveria Hollander and Emeril would be Hugh Heffner.
The truth is that porn is not something anyone needs to be protected from. Porn is harmless, and while I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to show kids porn (I think porn is tastless when not repugnant), neither do I lose any sleep over the fact that most of them do in fact see it. I can in fact prove that porn is not harmful. If it were harmful then we would be a nation of damaged people since there are very few minors who manage to make it all the way to their 18th birthday WITHOUT seeing porn. Most adolescent guys seek it out. I saw my fair share between the ages of 13 and 18. If it had actually harmed me in some way I think I would know it.
The whole business of protecting society from porn is predicated on the lie that porn is harmful to society. Most of it is tasteless and even a bit insulting, but then so is most of what comes out of Hollywood nowadays. For every Braveheart there are hundreds of releases like "The Fog" or "Wing Commander." Tastless bullshit isn't harmful to anyone, even if it is annoying.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I have a feeling that one of Google's main competitors is behind this. If they can't win by outdoing Google technically, then the time has come to use PAID FOR governmental pressure to stymie them. This is completely ridiculous. Technology exists to better every person's life. READ THAT AGAIN: Technology exists to better EVERY person's life, not just some fat, balding "suit" in a Home-a-ramaville development. EVERYONE should benefit from technology and that's what Google has been really good about thus far. Google has helped people learn things. Google has helped people connect with others of a like mind. Google has provided some damn incredible services with no barrier to entry for anyone. (Yes, even those without access to their own computers can benefit from Google by going to their public libraries) Because Google can do this kind of thing and still be somewhat profitable, their competitors have it in for them. Why? Because they don't want to have to benefit anyone but their shareholders. Screw that!! Screw the people behind this too. And most of all screw George W. Bush, and his entire administration with skewer. Those assholes don't care about America or Americans like me. So I don't give a rat's ass about them either.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I can't remember - you don't remember your first meal, do you?
-- Waiting for the moment Unesco getting nailed for promoting exposure of breasts to children less than one day old.
Trust me, I work for the government.
IF the motherfuckers at the FBI can be believed, then the warrantless surveillance didn't uncover a single goddamned clue about where terrorists could be hiding in the US. They've gone way over the fucking line, and now we're supposed to acquiese to their "requests" for our search data? I'm sick and tired of this "terrorism" bullshit, but they can't even be bothered to connect this to terrorism! FUCK BUSH AND FUCK HIS ADMINISTRATION.
(note: I'm almost as angry because I can't seem to google for Nicole Wong to see if she's hot or not...)
[o]_O
Define Porn .....
Has anyone seen just what it is your congress defines as pornography?
I couldn't see if anyone else had asked this very basic question. I for one can get off on a well turned ankle as much as well defined cleavage. Which is porn and where does it begin? As a male I know where it ends for me :) (Is that statement porn for its imagery?)
Byeeee
"a plane ticket and the services of a 16 year old."
Dude -- that's pretty sick. Well, actually, that's Thailand.
An anonymous high ranking goverment official leaked word that Google has been incorporated into the Axis of Evil. "You are either with us or against us," the official said.
Of course.
I disabled cookies and disabled write access to where cookies are stored in Firefox. I also turned off Java. GMAIL STILL WORKS.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
As a parent ONE occurance is "statistically significant" regardless of whether it is friend of relative.
I am not challenging the statistical data I am challenging the charcterization of strangers representing an acceptable level of risk.
That it is a statistically smaller risk then relatives according to your data is beside the point, the risk is >0 and therefore significant. You are twisting my statement to suggest that I am "obsess[ing] about the former while ignoring the latter". I am doing no such thing.
The only statement I am making, which I will reiterate now, is that it is not reasonable to ignore the risk presented by strangers simply because it is smaller than some other group.
Therefore, my earlier question, "how many abducted/exploited children constitute an acceptable risk level to you?" is perfectly valid in this context.
Feel free to discuss this with anyone you know who has kids.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
See search engine watch for extensive
details, but the upshot is that the administration only asked search engines
for a week's worth of search terms data and the request didn't include
asking for anyone's personal data, just a list of terms and related search
frequency statistics. Almost all the other major search engines have
released the requested data and publicly stated that the data didn't include
anything personal or threatening to individual privacy. Google's refusal
probably has more to do with competitive reasons more than any privacy
issues.
Don't believe all the hype you might read in the Mercury News.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Perhaps they should just ask the NSA for what records they have of people searching Google..
And if you think they just want to look for porn searches, then you are fooling yourself. " all searches in a time period" sounds more like just porn fishing to me.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
teenagers will have sex whether you like it or not
You forgot to mention why. We start our sexual reproduction naturally (without social influence) around 13-14 years of age. Apparently society decided this was not old enough, so they deliberately went against our biological clocks and made it forbidden to partake in that act until 5-6 years after we start to become fertile.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
At the top of this sub-thread is the equation "risk = frequency*severity"
I ask him to quantify that risk value and that indicates misunderstanding? That I am "deliberately distorting his statement"?
Wow...
A goal is a dream with a deadline
So which is it? Children Accessing Porn or Porn Containing Children?
This is quite scary, but TFA is vague on details. For example;
As I said pretty scary and I hope Google fight it through the courts.
Thinking back to an article a few days ago... maybe it *is* a good idea to have an alternate search engine!
Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
I didn't know there were any children producing pR0n but hey, people are getting into things younger and younger these days. At this rate we'll have baby truck drivers soon.
If the most easily offended receipient or observer in a work environment decides that something is offensive, then by law, it is.
So why is this the fault of the 'feminist and civil rights lobbies' and not the fault of the all-too-easily-offended religious right groups (such as Focus on the Family) that are pushing for the 'War On Porn'?
In both cases, the problem seems to be with people who are too easily offended and would rather the government impose some sort of heavy handed 'morality' and/or 'equality'. When there's nothing 'moral' or 'equal' about the heavy handedness.
Neither is most anyone else; you and I, for instance. That concept -- class victimhood -- is dated as well.
You are confusing a search warrant with a subpoena. A search warrant authorizes a search for evidence in the presence of probable cause of a crime.
This is a subpoena, which requires the issuee to testify in a case before the court, or (as here) to provide evidence in his possession which is vital to correctly deciding a case before the court.
The gub'ment just sued them:
Gonzales v. Google Inc
bloomberg
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
This has nothing to do with porn and everything to do with the fact that I'm Feeling Lucky searches for the terms 'failure' and 'worst president ever' both turn up George W. Bush's Biography..
To some people (admittedly, they are in a minority), images of women crushing wine glasses while wearing high heels are pornographic. Others like automobile accident images. Where is the pornographic element? In the viewers mind! There are probably hundreds of variations on this same theme, that of images which to one person look odd at best, but to others bring about orgasmic excitement.
Let's look at this issue of pornography in a different manner. Why is it that (in America, at least), most people in our society think of nudity as tittlating, perhaps even pornographic? Why is it that nudity is frowned upon? Could it be because we aren't exposed to it enough?
Think about it: If you were exposed to nudity in a 24/7 context, what would be pornographic and frowned upon? Wearing clothing or otherwise covering up the body? Would such situations and images be considered pornographic by that hypothetical society?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
"Common sense tells you that our response to 9/11 is over blown."
If Bush had initiated after 9/11 an immediate nuclear strike against Tehran, Demascus, and Kabul with the consequent death of millions and the lingering effects of radiation poisoning for whole populations, then I would say that perhaps our response was overblown.
Heightened surveillance, incarceration, invasion, and occupation are American measured responses. How do you like them?
I have nothing against an armed citizenry in a stabalized nation, such as the United States. But in Iraq where Americans are getting killed/wounded by these weapons it is best to confiscate them, and foolish not to.
Ofcourse this post may be portrayed as an artful way to turn the juggernaut of nerdish scrutiny, that is slashdot, back towards the conservatives. Similar to how the above poster skewed the juggernauts scrutiny towards causes that are commonly associated with liberals (think feminism, civil rights, freedom, sci-fi, Linux, star trek, natalie portman, non-traditional Video games), in a story that critques the puritanical(American) nature of some of Bush's more conservative(think nobody is allowed to have sex for fun, Microsoft Windows, War in Iraq, Ashcroft covering up a artisitic statue to prevent the showing of the marble boobies, Corporate greed, SCO) policies.
Dont like it? Try voting for a different dude. Everything is as it should be. So sayeth the great Queen Spider.
Need I say more? :)
I finally get influence in the government!
... would I ever find someone who actually LIKES the ACLU. If you think that bullying organization is about standing up for the little man, you are living in a land so far from reality, that there is little hope to ever sway you from your ultra-liberal point of view.
>>>"Hostile Environment" standard in sexual and racial harrassment cases. According to the law, no obscene or offensive intent is required.>>Seems that a lot of people who have problems with the standard applied to porn have absolutely no problem applying the standard to other things.
I don't have any problem with the "Hostile Environment" standard being applied to sexual and racial harrassment and porn IN THE WORK PLACE. I do have a problem with the standard being applied to me IN MY OWN HOME.
There are a total of 2,819 US civilian fatalities as a result of the September 11th attacks. There were more than 50,000 Kurds killed by chemical agents and this is but one single instance of the price of Saddam's tyrannical rule. As of today there are a total of 2,222 US military fatalities in Iraq since the war began. You may now decide by the numbers. The rest of my article...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
the purpose of the second amendment is to make it possible for an armed rebellion to overthrow the government if it becomes to opressive, as such i believe that the second amendment SHOULD apply to anything up to and including military standard issue personal firearms. not explosives or mounted artillary, but the american citizen ought to have the right to be armed with the same weapons our military uses, and thus the meapns the military could one day use to opress the civillian population.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
FAILURE
-metric
First off, while there may be obvious pornographic search terms, the range of human fetishes is such that otherwise innocuous searches are actually searches for sexually oriented material (feet, smoking, chewing gum, darn near anything else I imagine). So, it would seem to me that it would be more productive to focus on which search results were actually followed.
:-)
Absolutely. I worked at a job once where I was supposed to find "stock photo" kinda images on the net relating to sports that happen in or around water. you know, "water sports". I was pretty surprised to see what was returned on my screen at work in a high-traffic area of the company.
Not that I didn't KNOW the "other" meaning, I did, but at work I just wasn't thinking that way, ya know?
Apparently, modern-day search engines don't return as many adult images for that phrase as they did 4 years ago, as I just did a check.
Yahoo and likely MSN already gave in to the government so the government probably has what it needs. Google has nothing to gain but a moral victory. In addition I do not think this is a Bush administration thing as much as it is the government. Echelon for example is part of a system that has been spying on people for decades. Republican or Democrat, that type of activity is will continue. Given the Bush seems to abuse power more than most administrations, the notion that the government can lawfully spy on anyone started long before Bush.
The Whitehouse
Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
who loves salt?
This is where utilization of the .xxx tld would be extremely useful. But of course Bush is against the red light TLD. Simple, readily available scripts could be utilized to turn off access to that TLD completely to children. The possibilities to control are many and all would be simply implemented.
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
Take for instance the "Hostile Environment" standard in sexual and racial harrassment cases. According to the law, no obscene or offensive intent is required. If the most easily offended receipient or observer in a work environment decides that something is offensive, then by law, it is.
,despite their protests about being oppressed, are really increadibly powerful political lobbies)
The way the law works is you can say anything in the workplace. Once a person complains to you or management with a legitimate complaint, you have to either respect their wishes, or fire them. You can fire someone who thinks your vulgar and sexist comments are inappropriate as long as it doesn't violate their contract. You can't fire them solely because of their sex or race (I'm not sure about religion or sexual orientation).
The feminist and civil rights lobbies (who
That's a load of crap. The biggest, most powerful "lobbies" in America are the corporate lobbies, and the rich and powerful families lobbies (think 'good old boy network'). The various civil rights lobbies are more powerful than you or I (which is to be expected, as you and I aren't lobbies), but they are extremely powerless compared to the lobbies that support the "rich white guys" (ie: status quo, business as usual).
And no, you aren't a rich white guy. You're probably a white guy, and probably an asshole, but you aren't the target of the civil rights/minorities lobbies. The rich white guys, however, love to make you think you are a target, because you'll stand up for them, falsely thinking you're standing up for yourself.
Of course, any suggestion to roll back the draconian restrictions on free expression are instantly labled "racist, sexist, reactionary, etc, etc, etc."
That's because it most likely is "racist, sexist [or] reactionary".
Seems that a lot of people who have problems with the standard applied to porn have absolutely no problem applying the standard to other things.
Pornography in the home is your call. Pornography in the workplace is your employer's call (and if someone has a problem with pornography in the workplace, that person can be fired quite legally, but the employer probably would rather have that worker more than have you viewing porn). I don't see how your comparison of the two makes any sense.
> ...it's hard to imagine that Germany would have lost WWII without a united America supporting the British...
Ah, but you are getting ahead of yourself in your what if scenarios. You first have to consider HOW the South would have managed a win and project forward. I see two realistic opportunities where Fortune could have flipped the other way.
1. Lee realized it wasn't a trap, Washington really could have been taken early on. This would have forced an early end with few total casualties. Reconcillation before the end of the century would have been possible. Even more probable would have been the territories preferring the CSA to join into. After all, it would have offered a pretty solid promise of preserving States Rights, having just put their money where their mouth was. They also had the bugfixed, version 2.0 if you will, Constituition correcting a half century's mistakes. (And of course adding a fresh new bug in explicitly instituitionizing the practice of Slavery. New versions always add some new bugs though, and an Amendment would have fixed that defect as Slavery ended naturally a few decades on.)
2. The Emancipation Proclamation could have failed in it's intended effect, namely putting the veneer of a high moral crusade on the North's venture in Empire such that France recognized the CSA. many historians believe France was on the verge of just such a recognition so this isnt too farfetched a notion. That would have brought a swift end to the North's blockade of Southern ports and given the Confederates a reasonable chance to either outright win or at least drag things out long enough for the growing anti-war faction in the North to force a negotiated solution on Lincoln. A win for the CSA after that much blood was spilled would have left both sides fairly weakened and too bitter to reconcile anytime soon, or to cooperate on much of anything, certainly not a war in Europe.
Now consider how either of these two scenarios would have impacted World War I and it is pretty clear that WWII would not have happened anything close to how it happened on our timeline, if it happened at all.
That is the problem with your sort of What If justification. Either the North's actions were correct or they were not, but either way you have to make your decision based solely on the events and the circumstances of that day.
Democrat delenda est
well while there at it, they ought to make a list and rate the sites for quality and quantity. I'd buy that list, probably would end up on ebay for $.49.
The .xxx top-level domain would have solved this problem quite simply and nicely. No chance of accidently hitting a "porn" site then. Every industry has some interest in self-regulation -- for example sex sites definitely don't want this level of publicity and have no need to waste bandwidth on people too young to legally pay for services. The White House opposed providing the .xxx domain instead to opt for a more invasive approach.
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas--- unless you looked it up on Yahoo.
We now have a permanent oppressed underclass who have been so successfully brainwashed that they think that tax cuts for the wealthy are the most important thing on the agenda. Public education funding is cut, social safety nets are removed, and the middle class is shrinking at an alarming rate. And 'class victimhood' is dated? I don't usually say it on a first introduction, sir, but you're either a totally oblivious dittohead or a part of the problem.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
As Police Officer I have infiltrated Usenet & they are BAD. TERRIBLE more accurate. USENET migrated to GOOGLE as no one would pay $9.95 monthly for that CRAP. Make complaints, for good of our nation. To get feel of problem, enter Drugs into google search bar. 3/4 of links are inactive, yet some e.g. Alt.Drug Rec.Drug etc are ILLEGAL DRUG PARADISE. Thru USENETS' own local Storefront law schools, they will even deliver ILLEGAL NARCOTICS to your door front, just pay man & its' your. Talk about corrupt & insane, they got it all. "HOW" you ask, USENETb is "MANDAN" tribe of indians from Mandan/Bismark North Dakota, THEY got rights too, ya know. Thanks & complain, Heres list of proposed UPDATES THAT hOTFIX called: WINDOWS SP3; to work with. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTO
From the article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4630694.stm
"The department first issued a request for the data last August.
It wants:
* A list of terms entered into the search engine during an unspecified single week, potentially tens of millions of queries
* A million randomly selected web addresses from various Google databases."
"Yahoo, said it had already complied with a similar government subpoena "on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information".
And Microsoft said in a statement that it "works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested".
"It is our policy to respond to legal requests in a very responsive and timely manner in full compliance with applicable law," it said."
"Google has also said that providing the data would make its users think it was willing to reveal personal information about them, as well as giving competitors access to trade secrets."
In case this does not get posted on the front page, I want to make sure people know about this.
This morning on the Fox News Channel, durning their morning show "Fox and Friends", a host of the show claimed that Google harbors child pornographers.
It was claimed that the issue at hand has to do with child pornography! She was outraged at Google's resistance to the government's subpoena, and seemed to think that Google is practically treachorous and near-criminal for refusing to give up their users' data.
This is true. I dare anyone to challenge it. I have no proof, but I'm sure SOMEONE out there saw this too.
Even though I agree with your view of having a necessary defense against the government. Having the same rifles the military uses is not effective enough against a modern military force. Iraq which is no where near as expansive as the United States has much more automatic rifles, inspite of them being banned by Saddam failed to stop the U.S. invasion. U.S. Troops invaded and took over a foreign country with little over a couple hundred initial casualties. Many semi-automatic rifles can be turned into fully automatic rifles with a few modifications, this is good because it prevents Joe PostalEmployee from buying and using one against his family/co-workers after things don't go his way. If push comes to shove, and the Constitution is further layed to the wayside by the republicans -- I'm hoping the sympathy of the military for killing fellow Americans in a civil war will prevent much bloodshed. However, this is not much to hope for as the Civil War was the bloodiest war in United States history.
Apparently society decided this was not old enough, so they deliberately went against our biological clocks and made it forbidden to partake in that act until 5-6 years after we start to become fertile.
I don't agree about the government protecting people against themselves in any instance, whether it be pornograhpy, drugs, music. IT'S NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS! However, I do think that it's important for kids today to put off having kids so they can at least finish high school. They should probably go to college too. These things can take a long time so lots of people don't even have kids til their thirties now.
"You gotta love Republicans. They want to make government so small that it fits in everyone's bedroom." - The West Wing
In some ways, you may be right about this. Without the feminists' support on banning nudity, the wacko-wing of Christians wouldn't be able to get this type of thing going...
[...]which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period
.gov domain.
:)
I'd just give them 1 million pages from the
And the search queries? 'where origin like '%fbi.gov%'.
Like to send a message loud and clear
--Stars & Stripes by KMFDM
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Sorry if someone has already commented on this, but I went to the Yahoo! privacy site, and clicked on the Contact Us link to comment on sending records to the DOJ. Low and behold the link is broken. Well, they've lost my business.
This rightly, and certainly not for the first time, brings up questions of Google's power and influence.
The London Review of Books has a fascinating discussion of this 'Global Id', that probably merits its own slashdot thread.
Why not use a non-US based version of google.
The US government would not have the right to collate responses from non-US based search engines.
So why not use www.google.co.uk, or www.msn.co.uk as your search engine of choice.
Then if the British Government decides to follow the American lead, then change again. Anyway I don't think the Goverenment will be able to report any searches from non-British connections and I think the amount of information they collect from the British ISPs will keep them occupied for quite a while, anyway.
Secondly, I'll assume your rant about "targeting" is a reference to racial politics and preferences. So lets talk about that, even if it is off-topic. You will probably note that its not the "rich white guys" kids that are getting refused admission to university or bussed across town to gang-ridden public schools (the rich send their kids to private schools or live in exclusive outer suburbs). It is working class people that are displaced by racial preferences in the university and who's kids are bussed accross town. The "rich white guys" at Harvard, Yale, and Ann Arbor are all too willing to agree to racial politics because it doesn't affect them (they get admitted anyway), it affects the working class kids who might be just above borderline, but who get displaced by somebody with even lower qualifications for no reason other than race.
Quite the opposite, the "rich white guys" get to sit back secure in their power while the poor fight it out amongst themselves. Did you ever hear of a saying that goes "Divide and Conquer"? Meanwhile, they can divert attention from themselves by saying "see all that we have done", while the basic power structure that keeps them rich and powerful remains intact.
Then she gets to file a "Hostile Work Environment" lawsuit using the legal framework put in place by socialist feminists, thereby imposing hefty civil penalties on free speech.
If that's a good reason to strike down a law, why are my DVDs still encrypted?
And another thing, aren't there privacy policies google would be forced to break by turning over the reports? Will the US government be willing to pay for the financial damages caused by this?
And finally, why not just get an xxx domain, cram all the stuff there, and porn filters would be insanely easy to write. I don't want to see porn, but I know others do, and it isn't my right to take that right from them. I do however, wish people would encourage their children to try hard in school and make something of themselves with half as much zeal as they put into protecting their internet porn rights.
"Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
I do have some advice for the shy guys. Strip clubs sometimes have a lot of shy customers, and they are usually first timers. They really fantasize about sex with an awesome Playboy-quality dancer, but they are just too damn self conscious. They think, "She would never talk to me!"
Worse, the shy guys think, "I will just settle for one of the many unattractive (sometimes, very unattractive) dancers. I'm a loser, and I always will be." Guys, that is just wrong thinking!
Here is some advice. That gorgeous Playboy-quality bunny will treat you just as nice as that unattractive dancer who just propositioned you. Unattracive dancers need to hustle to earn their money, so they are much more likely to go up to you and do sweet talking.
Guys, don't be so self conscious. You are in a strip club: if you have the money, then the Playboy-quality bunny has the time. There are 2 sure-fire ways to get a dance with the bunny. You do not need to settle for an unattractive dancer. Here's one way to catch that bunny.
1. Sit by the dance stage. When the bunny does her dance, drop $5.00.
2. Eventually, the bunny will pick up the $5.00 and ask, "Would you like a dance?" Then, go for it!
Here's the other way.
1. Walk up to the bunny.
2. Just say, "You look really nice. Could I buy a dance from you? Here's $30."
There you have it! After that, pay $300.00 to get what you really wanted all night -- hot sex with a beautiful Playboy-quality bunny.
After that, the bunny will always greet you when you come into the club. Like any person skilled in customer service, the bunny always remembers her customers. Next time, she will go up to you, give you a big hug, and say, "How are you doing, tiger? Would you like a dance?"
Fantasies do come true.
P.S.
By the way, there is nothing inherently wrong with buying a dance from an unattractive dancer, and the MBOT has a lot of unattractive dancers. But make sure that is what you really want. Many guys do buy dances from unattractive dancers because they provide sex on the cheap. As for the most unattractive dancers, it will cost 1/3 of what you pay to a Playboy-quality bunny. However, most guys who go to the world-famous MBOT are really thinking "Playboy-quality bunny", not "unattractive dancer".
>I have no problem with your categories. We all have
>personal preferences. Audry is on my hot list, however, I
>find it hard to go less than $150 with her including room,
>and the furthest she will go is CBJ.
What seems to be the problem? $150 for a covered blow job (CBJ) with maximum touching is somewhat expensive. Audrey Horne is a jane, and the most that she is worth is $200 for full service. Still, $150 is less than $200.
If you feel that $150 is too expensive for a CBJ, then upgrade to a bunny.
Here are the hard and fast rules.
1. Decide what service that you want.
2. Ask a dancer from each of the 5 categories: princess, bunny, jane, unattractive dancer, and very unattractive dancer.
3. If they all demand the same price, pick the princess. Doh!
Consider the following. Start with a dancer from the "very unattractive" category. Suppose that Esme won't do a covered blowjob for $60. Suppose that she demands $150. Make a note.
Upgrade to a dancer from the "unattractive" category. Suppose that you ask Serena and that she also demands $150. Make a note.
Then, upgrade, again, to a dancer from the "jane" category. Suppose that you ask Audrey. She demands $150. Make a note.
Then, ask one of the bunnies, say, Taylor Sterling. She also demands $150. Since all the dancers are demanding $150, who would you pick? Of course, you would pick the highest-quality dancer, a bunny. Go with Taylor Sterling.
By using the "upgrade" system and sticking to it, you will get your money's worth at the MBOT. Furthermore, the janes, the unattractive dancers, and the very unattractive dancers will learn their place -- quick. The janes, the unattractive dancers, and the very unattractive dancers will no longer overcharge.
You (and the rest of the guys) must remember to (1) stick to the pricing guidelines and (2) get the highest-quality dancer for the money.
I do have some advice for the shy guys. Strip clubs sometimes have a lot of shy customers, and they are usually first timers. They really fantasize about sex with an awesome Playboy-quality dancer, but they are just too damn self conscious. They think, "She would never talk to me!"
Worse, the shy guys think, "I will just settle for one of the many unattractive (sometimes, very unattractive) dancers. I'm a loser, and I always will be." Guys, that is just wrong thinking!
Here is some advice. That gorgeous Playboy-quality bunny will treat you just as nice as that unattractive dancer who just propositioned you. Unattracive dancers need to hustle to earn their money, so they are much more likely to go up to you and do sweet talking.
Guys, don't be so self conscious. You are in a strip club: if you have the money, then the Playboy-quality bunny has the time. There are 2 sure-fire ways to get a dance with the bunny. You do not need to settle for an unattractive dancer. Here's one way to catch that bunny.
1. Sit by the dance stage. When the bunny does her dance, drop $5.00.
2. Eventually, the bunny will pick up the $5.00 and ask, "Would you like a dance?" Then, go for it!
Here's the other way.
1. Walk up to the bunny.
2. Just say, "You look really nice. Could I buy a dance from you? Here's $30."
There you have it! After that, pay $300.00 to get what you really wanted all night -- hot sex with a beautiful Playboy-quality bunny.
After that, the bunny will always greet you when you come into the club. Like any person skilled in customer service, the bunny always remembers her customers. Next time, she will go up to you, give you a big hug, and say, "How are you doing, tiger? Would you like a dance?"
Fantasies do come true.
P.S.
By the way, there is nothing inherently wrong with buying a dance from an unattractive dancer, and the MBOT has a lot of unattractive dancers. But make sure that is what you really want. Many guys do buy dances from unattractive dancers because they provide sex on the cheap. As for the most unattractive dancers, it will cost 1/3 of what you pay to a Playboy-quality bunny. However, most guys who go to the world-famous MBOT are really thinking "Playboy-quality bunny", not "unattractive dancer".
DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with either myRedbook or the Mitchell
Brother's O'Farrell Theater (MBOT). I neither condemn
nor condone the prostitution that myRedbook facilitates
and that occurs at the MBOT. I am not attempting to sell
anything. I am simply directing you to some information
that appears at myRedbook or that is related to the MBOT,
and this information is strictly for academic study.
>I have no problem with your categories. We all have
>personal preferences. Audry is on my hot list, however, I
>find it hard to go less than $150 with her including room,
>and the furthest she will go is CBJ.
What seems to be the problem? $150 for a covered blow job (CBJ) with maximum touching is somewhat expensive. Audrey Horne is a jane, and the most that she is worth is $200 for full service. Still, $150 is less than $200.
If you feel that $150 is too expensive for a CBJ, then upgrade to a bunny.
Here are the hard and fast rules.
1. Decide what service that you want.
2. Ask a dancer from each of the 5 categories: princess, bunny, jane, unattractive dancer, and very unattractive dancer.
3. If they all demand the same price, pick the princess. Doh!
Consider the following. Start with a dancer from the "very unattractive" category. Suppose that Esme won't do a covered blowjob for $60. Suppose that she demands $150. Make a note.
Upgrade to a dancer from the "unattractive" category. Suppose that you ask Serena and that she also demands $150. Make a note.
Then, upgrade, again, to a dancer from the "jane" category. Suppose that you ask Audrey. She demands $150. Make a note.
Then, ask one of the bunnies, say, Taylor Sterling. She also demands $150. Since all the dancers are demanding $150, who would you pick? Of course, you would pick the highest-quality dancer, a bunny. Go with Taylor Sterling.
By using the "upgrade" system and sticking to it, you will get your money's worth at the MBOT. Furthermore, the janes, the unattractive dancers, and the very unattractive dancers will learn their place -- quick. The janes, the unattractive dancers, and the very unattractive dancers will no longer overcharge.
You (and the rest of the guys) must remember to (1) stick to the pricing guidelines and (2) get the highest-quality dancer for the money.
DISCLAIMER: I am not affiliated with either myRedbook or the Mitchell
Brother's O'Farrell Theater (MBOT). I neither condemn
nor condone the prostitution that myRedbook facilitates
and that occurs at the MBOT. I am not attempting to sell
anything. I am simply directing you to some information
that appears at myRedbook or that is related to the MBOT,
and this information is strictly for academic study.
teenagers will have sex whether you like it or not.
As a 17 year old male with a very willing girlfriend, will someone please tell this to my parents?!?!!
-Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
You use (and misuse) " a lot!
I don't like the way you portray civil rights and feminist lobbiest, who are mostly out to do good by advancing society.
So are the NRA lobbies you cite. Lots of people are out to do good and end up doing harm. This isn't a "Conservative vs. Liberal" issue, try to resist turning it into one. Government agencies that want to get all Google Search results and push this new censorship law are out to do good. Many believe, however, that their attempt to do good will actually result in harm.
This is the same way the parent poster feels about the feminist and civil rights lobbies. They have only the best of intentions when they try to pass laws restricting free speech, but the parent poster and I feel that the restrictions on free speech do more harm than good.
It's possible to disagree with some group's approach and be concerned at their level of influence and power without thinking them malicious.
Just kidding, man. You get caught or something?
Yes. And they took my car away!!
-Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
A lot of parents hold on tighter when they realize that they're losing control. I don't know their backgrounds-- maybe their parents did the same thing. What I suspect is that they're worried about you and-- this is the key thing-- they don't know what to do about it. Yelling and taking away your privileges worked when you were a kid. Unfortunately, it's not going to work now.
Just remember that no matter how much your parents piss you off, how many stupid things they do to shelter you, they're doing it because they care. You'll be on your own in no time at all, and when you are, you'll want a good relationship with your parents. A close family is a source of strength, and you'll need it to be self-reliant.
As for your girlfriend-- congratulations, you're a man now. Be respectful, take responsiblity. Do the right thing, but have fun, too. The women I've met have been the best part of my life, hands down.