DoJ search requests: Yahoo, AOL, MSN said "Yes"

d2viant writes "Elaborating on a previous article on Slashdot, it appears that the search engines which complied for Department of Justice requests for logs were apparently AOL, MSN, and Yahoo. According to the article, Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound."

Comments

Sore Thumb

[biocute]

Does that make Google the sore thumb now?

If DoJ is truly interested in porn, especially child porn, will Google surrender all releated searches?

Re:Sore Thumb

[Sinryc]

I hope not. I hate child porn and all that, but that doesn't mean that big brother should be watching everything.

Re:Sore Thumb

[takeya]

Hopefully not. Hopefully google will maintain that they are unbiased in their database, but those logs, their formatting, etc, contain valuable trade secrets AND private customer information. Hopefully they can fight it, either until Bush is out of office (which may come sooner than 3 years, it seems...), or until they give up.

Why not search google for child porn and bust the sites you can find? I doubt that anywhere near 10% of all child porn is on websites, indexed by google. And of that 10% of it, 9% is probably post-pubescents, so it's not even identifiable as child porn.

Re:Sore Thumb

[RedNovember]

The issue is not about child porn. It is about kids watching porn, which frankly makes a nice excuse.

Re:Sore Thumb

[Anonymous Coward]

...until Bush is out of office (which may come sooner than 3 years, it seems...)

Says who? The man could strangle a puppy on national television and keep his position. The only impeachable offense around here is a blow job, apparently, and I don't see him getting one any time soon.

Re:Sore Thumb

['nother poster]

Well, the puppy was a terrorist.

Re:Sore Thumb

[WindBourne]

• Iraq has WMD and we have proof (being that Iraq is trying to procur plutonium in nigeria but disproved by the NSA AND the CIA).
• The patriot act will only be used against terrorist.
• We would only operate within the confines of the patriot act.
• We will balance the budget.
• We will lower the defict.
• We only spy on terrorist and only with warrents.
• I will fire any traitor in the white house (one has been caught, and he quit; more to come).
• Sibel Edmunds is a security risk (well, at this time, we still do not know.
• Global warming is not happening.
• Ok, global warming is occuring, but it is natural and man can not influence it.
• We will catch OBL.
• The war in Iraq is over.
• The war in afghanastan is over.
• No information was obtained from the airlines.
• The information from the one airline did not go into TIA.

Now, trust us that this info will go into protecting children. These are the same "no child left behind" that was not funded.

Hummmmm.

Re:Sore Thumb

[Jeremi]

yeah and what about 17 year olds like myself? I'd like to have more options than 30 year olds screwing. Im an ephebophile, not a pedophile.

Legally speaking, U.S. people under 18 aren't supposed to be looking at any kind of porn. They aren't legally allowed to drink, smoke, or vote, either.

Re:Sore Thumb

[Oldsmobile]

It really is worrisome, that a president can break the law but is not immediately sitting in court. I think this is telling. The political system in the US is not set up for rule of law or democracy, but power.

I'm telling you, things are getting worse. Welcome to fachist America, folks!

Re:Sore Thumb

[ciroknight]

Why not? Microsoft (though bigger and older), stands up to the DOJ all of the time, often playing Jedi Mind Tricks to pass off things that are knowingly wrong as correct.

Meanwhile, Google is in full compliance with the law, and believes that certain lawyers are overstepping their constitutional boundries by requesting data that they believe is not only a trade secret, but also an infringment of privacy. Sure, lawyers can sue them all they like, but Google has a very good shot at winning the case.

This also could bring up the question of constitutionality of releasing ISP records as well, and maybe finally companies will stop pussing out on the people that feed them and attempt to stand up for their customers.

Or maybe it's all just a pipedream and Google's just delaying the inevitable. Either way I commend them for standing up for my privacy.

Re:Sore Thumb

[Skye16]

Uhm...

I just looked at the Budget for 1999 and 2005. 1998's actual spending on everything education-like was ~ 46,700,000,000. 2004's actual spending on everything education-like was ~ 52,542,000,000. That's not an increase of 86%. 46.7b is around 86% of 52.5b, true. But that isn't an 86% increase. Sorry.

Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/browse.html

Re:Sore Thumb

[op12]

You should really use The Patriot Search. Read their mission for more information: "Instead of letting the government waste tax money by going through complicated procedures to get user and search data from Yahoo, MSN, Ask Jeeves or Google, users of Patriot Search make sure their queries end up right where they belong - in the databases of the government and its various agencies."

Re:Sore Thumb

[Walkiry]

And because I like being an asshole, I just grabbed one of those cute "time currency conversors" and checked how much $46.7 billion in 1998 would be in 2005's dollars. The number: 55,753,496,932.

Re:Sore Thumb

[DrSkwid]

I expect they would
categorize the terms
aggregate the terms via cookie data
profile the cookie owner
correlate the search terms against profiles

and then make inferences that profile A has a X% chance of being a male aged 10-12 and that Y% of people with profile A search for porn

Once they have found politically suitable figures for X and Y for N child like profiles they will announce that this is proof that Something Must Be Done and oh look,, this Bill here will do nicely

What did they find?

[Quaoar]

The giraffe video?

Giraffes. Who couldn't appreciate those long necks? So slender .

Why confront me? It's obvious.

She's stalling until the police arrive.

"Nothing you saw was illegal - in the countries it was filmed. "

So appropriate.

If not in size...

[Suhas]

....then at least in balls to stand up against , google wins by a tremendously big margin.

Re:If not in size...

[2674]

Hear, Hear. In my book google just went from [Do No Evil] to [Do Good] and [Kick the motherfuckers who want to deprive me of my constitutionally given rights in the teeth].Long Live Google.

Amen

Re:If not in size...

[GoofyBoy]

And by your reasoning how big are MS's?

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/22/13 25258
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/08/31/12 49231

Re:If not in size...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called the 4th Amendment:

"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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It has been interpreted by the judicial system as a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy on more than one occasion.

Re:If not in size...

[TheSpoom]

While I'm one of those people who sees a lot of value in the UN, I have to point out that the US is on the UN Security Council, and can thus veto practically any UN proposal. So I really wouldn't say that they're bound to anything the UN says...

Re:If not in size...

[morgan_greywolf]

Have you ever considered that Google didn't comply because it is in Google's best monetary and marketing interests not to?

Re:If not in size...

[Stealth Potato]

sure bear arms. sure, if you are part of a state millitia.

I usually don't like to debate the Second amendment with people on the Internet, but sometimes I just feel like sayin' stuff, you know? :-P

Let's disregard for the moment the fact that the Second Amendment does not explicitly restrict the right to bear arms to members of the militia. Let's forget the fact that the Department of Justice has specifically asserted that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, not a collective one. Let's assume that only members of the militia are authorized by the Constitution to bear arms.

Okay?

Okay.

Well, there's still the fact that every male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia of the United States of America. You're probably a member yourself (making some assumptions about members of this site's typical demographic). It's law. See 10 USC 13, S.311.

More on topic, what part of "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" does not imply some right to privacy? But then, maybe you're right. If the protection we have is too vague and too easy to circumvent, then maybe what we need is a much more clear and defensive protection of the privacy of citizens, perhaps as a Constitutional amendment.

Re:If not in size...

[Halo1]

I don't remember the US vetoing the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights when it was signed. In fact, it was drawn up by a committee chaired by by Eleanor Roosevelt.

Re:If not in size...

[Beowabbit]

hile I'm one of those people who sees a lot of value in the UN, I have to point out that the US is on the UN Security Council, and can thus veto practically any UN proposal. So I really wouldn't say that they're bound to anything the UN says...

Well, not entirely. The US can veto anything voted on at the Security Council, but the Security Council isn't the only bit of the UN with teeth. To take a concrete example, when the UN was set up, the Republic of China (controlled by the Kuomintang/Guomindang party) was given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council with a veto just like the US. In relatively short order, it was defeated on the Chinese mainland and forced to retreat to Taiwan, but it retained its seat as China on the Security Council. After a couple decades or so, though, it was stripped of its recognition as the legitimate government of (all) China, and its seat in the Security Council was given to the People's Republic of China, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. You can bet the ROC government would have vetoed that if it could, but since it was a credentialling issue rather than a Security Council resolution it never came before the Security Council.

Less unusual examples would involve the day-to-day workings of various UN administrative bodies. Once the IAEA has a mandate to look for nukes in Canada, for instance, the US (or Russia) would not be able to stop the IAEA if we didn't like how they were going about it. Even though the US has a veto on the Security Council, that doesn't let it micromanage day-to-day activities of UN agencies.

(-: Score:5, Offtopic :-)

Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[CyricZ]

Time and time again we hear about privacy, freedoms and liberties in the US being restricted in favour of "security". This is just one small example in a field of many. Now I ask a question to all Americans: do you actually feel any safer? If you do, please explain.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[starwed]

While I personally don't like what the US goverment has done in the name of "security" , this has nothing to do with this particular case.

1. The request wasn't for any personal information. None. There's no association with IP address or individual profiles or anything like that.
2. Google didn't necessarily turn it down out of privacy concerns (as there really aren't any.) Rather, they just didn't think they should have to worry about gathering the logs...

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[jlarocco]

I can't speak for anyone else, but with a lot of the stuff the U.S. government is doing lately, I'm more scared of it than I am of any terrorists.

I would never support a lot of the stuff they're doing, but it would seem a bit more legitimate if they could show any of this stuff was actually having an effect. So far they've cut back our freedom quite a bit, but to my knowledge they haven't prevented a single attack. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa tells Homer she has a rock that keeps tigers away.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[x_man]

A few weeks ago I submitted an Ask Slashdot question to the editors about creating a Slashdot Political Action Network. My question still shows pending, but maybe this latest outrage is a good time for me to post my idea to the public forum. Here's my idea:

Why not set up a method in Slasdhot whereby YRO and related articles have a link that allows a registered user to forward his forum comments to his/her appropriate representative(s) in their district? Non-profits are doing this now with great effect. Instead of preaching to the choir, shouldn't our +5 Insightful comments be forwarded to our representatives and news agencies. Can you just imagine the effect we could have by Slashdotting Congress!!!

A lot of people will say that nobody in Congress reads email, but that's not entirely true. Your opinions are put in For and Against piles and some are even read; I know this from personal experience. By hitting Congress and the news agencies we also generate awareness for many issues that go largely unreported like black box voting, DMCA, and so on.

So Slashdot editors, how about it?

X

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[MP3Chuck]

"There's no association with IP address or individual profiles or anything like that."

Regardless! There is no need for the government to monitor search logs. None. Whether they're aggregated, impersonal, or not.

It may be simple aggregation now ... but what happens when suddenly search engines need to submit weekly reports? What happens when suddenly the gov't starts saying "Well ... we're going to need the IP's of whoever searched for _____ and ____"??

Maybe I'm overreacting ... maybe it's just slippery slope hyperbole. But it all seems very unnecessary. Especially when the goal is to revive a law that was alredy struck down as unconstitutional.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[mrchaotica]

I can't speak for anyone else, but...

Yeah, you can -- in this case, you can speak for me too.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[GoofyBoy]

Dear Mr. Bennett

One of citizens of your state, x_man, would like you to inform you about an important issue regarding "EU Sofware Patent Argument to Reopen"

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174228&cid =14492792

Please note that we consider this post important becuase it was voted by at least 5 people who may or may not be American citizens, may or may not vote in your state and may or may not be some 12-year old kid who should really be studying for his test tomorrow.

Thank you for your attention.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[jmorris42]

> In this case, the evidence would be a bunch of search engine logs, which (the DOJ hopes) would support the case they are trying to make.

More to the point, if this were some grad student doing 'serious' research as opposed to the Justice Dept trying to, horrors of horrors, obtain some actual numbers to support a position in court I seriously doubt there would be all this hullaballoo. Of course I doubt Google would have assisted a grad student either, but Yahoo! or MSN might have. Google didn't help here for the same reason they never release ANY information regarding their search engine, Google is a big opaque blob because that is the way they want it. It isn't good or bad, it just is how they do business.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[Red Flayer]

"I would never support a lot of the stuff they're doing, but it would seem a bit more legitimate if they could show any of this stuff was actually having an effect."

To me, that's the scary part. Perceived legitimacy means that we'll be saddled with more and more BS like we've been getting.

I don't want to see effectiveness -- I want to see CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER.

Until then, get out and stay out, Uncle Sam.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[Saanvik]

Google's logs can't prove what they want to prove. They can show that innocent seeming searches can return adult content, but they cannot show that filters don't block that content by using those logs.

If they are trying to prove it, hook up a computer in front of the SCOTUS and show them. Then show them with filters in place. If the filters aren't doing the job, then the SCOTUS might reopen the case.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[hondo77]

Go away, little troll.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[quarkscat]

Yet again I am reminded that a terrorist that originated in a repressive religious fundamentalist oil-rich country engaged in domestic terrorist actions against a secular amoral country, resulting in the emergence of a repressive religious fundamentalsit government siezing power in an oil-dependent country.

This very same oil-dependent country whose regime currently in power has never brought to justice those persons who engaged in an anthrax attack (domestic WMD attack) against the liberal press and liberal political opposition, which has trampled the Constitution and Bill of Rights all in the name of national security.

The very same oil-dependent country whose regime currently in power has waged an illegal and immoral war against a secular amoral but oil-rich country that dared to threaten with military force against that very same repressive religious fundamentalist oil-rich country.

The very same oil-dependent country whose regime currently in power has spent (or committed to spend) a half-trillion dollars in a foreign war while failing to provide the most basic border security, seaport security, or air cargo security all in the name of preserving their mantra of a smaller federal government

The very same oil-dependent country whose regime currently in power has launched their very own "religious thought police" to crush any immoral behaviour amongst it's population that might offend either corporate special interests or the moral fiber of the religious fundamentalist oligarcy that now runs the country, to the extent of shredding the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and any semblance of personal privacy.

And now, that very same terrorist (whom our feckless/fearless leader deemed inconsequential in the war on terror) that originated in a repressive religious fundamentalist oil-rich country has publically announced that that very same oil-dependent country (the USA) whose regime currently in power has done little/nothing to thwart another domestic terrorist attack, but only a matter of planning and logistics.

One is reminded that a period of 8-1/2 years elapsed between this terrorist's first unsucessful attack upon the NYC World Trade Center and the second far more spectacular and successful attempt. Does the phrase "the emperor has no clothes" not draw a parallel thought process that every measure the regime currently in power has engaged in to fight the "war on terror" has done everything to eviserate the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and every last vestige of personal privacy without actually doing anything to effectively counter new acts of domestic terrorism?

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[iamwahoo2]

Well, you have hit the nail on the head. A lot of users are concerned about privacy, which is really not what this is about. The desired information can be turned over without disclosing personal information. I think Google's perspective on this is that they are not involved in this case and therefore should not be subpoenaed to provide research data at no cost. Personally, I think they are 100% correct in this. If you allow this, then the door is opened for lawyers to subpoena any source or expert for any case. Since search engines are such a good source of information for gathering statistics on what people search for, the court system could put a very large burden on their business.

Google is going to win this, because they are right. There are a large number of subject matter experts in the world that are paid to give their opinions on things like accident investigations. If the White House wants research and information, then they should contract with a company that can supply them this research and information.

Why do they need to give that information?

[bcarl314]

Is there a reason that the DoJ needs information from all of the search engines? At some point, can't we make a statistical comparison and say that since x% of results in AOL / MSN / Yahoo were for this subject, that google most likely is in the same area?

I mean are the users of google search that much different than AOL / MSN / Yahoo???

Does the DoJ need a complete analysis? If so, let's hand this over to the US Census bureau.

Re:Why do they need to give that information?

[dark_requiem]

You miss the point entirely. First of all, the US Census bureau is constitutionally entitled to collect statistical information regarding the number of people in each state. It has no authority to collect any other data, and regardless of what any court might rule, without an ammendment, the constitution does not authorize it to collect any other data. For those unfamiliar, the constitution actually states that the federal government may not perform any functions not specifically granted to it by the constitution, not that any government agency actually obeys the constitution. A perfect example of how the political state naturally devolves to restrictive tyranny, regardless of it's founders' intent.

That is, of course, entirely beside the point. Constitutional restrictions on the government, both state and federal, were put in place because government powers, no matter how seemingly innocuous they appear to the general public (such as, for example, demanding search logs from a private enterprise), are prone to abuse to the point that, in the long run, abuse is the rule rather than the exception. That is specifically why the federal government was so severely restricted when it was actually bound by the constitution (no government can be restricted to respecting civil liberties in the long run, as all forms of government are subject to corruption, but that is an entirely different discussion).

This isn't news!

[syousef]

People. Get a grip. Most companies will comply with government subponeas. Don't get your hopes too high that Google will hold it's ground either. In fact I think they're playing with fire.

The ONLY way to protect against this sort of information being used by law enforcement is to never collect it in the first place. Only collect statistical obfuscated data and you won't have these problems - how valid and accurate your statistics based on aggregate data will be is another matter though.

Re:This isn't news!

[interiot]

The ONLY OTHER way is to comply, then go tell a newspaper right away. That is, if you can find any actual honest-to-god journalists hanging around anymore these days.

People. Get a grip.

The grip-losing isn't about primarily about companies... if George Bush knocked on my door and demanded something, I don't think anybody would hold it against me if I gave him what he wanted. The issue is still the knocking on the door and demanding stuff, that should never have happened.

Re:This isn't news!

[Darth Liberus]

Most companies will comply in a criminal investigation, as they should. This is different; this is the Justice Department abusing the court system to push their agenda. Google stands a good chance of winning this one; even if they don't it's still a huge PR win for them.

Re:This isn't news!

[belmolis]

The Mercury News article explictly says that DOJ is asking for a court order because Google declined to comply with a subpoena.

Re:This isn't news!

[LurkerXXX]

No one knows, because apparently MSN, Yahoo, etc, just gave away all our info without a fight. Maybe a judge would never give the order on such weak grounds.

Re:This isn't news!

[ScrewMaster]

Well, I tend to disagree with you. Simply rolling over and playing dead for the DoJ is hardly the answer. I will give Google credit for sticking to its guns for the moment. Google is taking the correct stance, which is to say "nope, we aren't in the business of serving as a political tool, and if you want access to our files you'd better have a damned good reason." Lawfully issued subpoenas for the purpose of investigating specific crimes are one thing, raiding a corporate database en-masse because you want evidence to support a law which multiple Federal courts have already struck down is something else entirely. Our government is becoming entirely too cavalier with our privacy (the Department of Justice almost seems to feel entitled to find out anything it wants about us) and I wish more companies had the kind of cojones that Google has put on display.

Even if Google (or any other database outfit) decides not to collect personally identifiable data, the government (which has found mining of private databases very rewarding) will simply mandate that such collection occur. This is already happening in Europe, with new data retention laws. In the EU, not collecting such information is not an option, and I'd much rather such nonsense didn't propagate to the United States. Simply allowing the government to steamroller what remains of our ability to keep our stuff private is playing with fire on an even greater scale.

IANAL, but...

[ScaryMonkey]

Aren't subpoenas supposed to be reserved for matters where there is some kind of trial involved? Surely the government can't just subpoena information for research purposes.

Re:IANAL, but...

[ari_j]

For an article on "administrative subpoenas," see here (linked to from here). I have not read the entire article, so I don't know if it's biased or not in its facts, but it does discuss some situations in which there doesn't need to be a trial to have subpoenas.

Re:IANAL, but...

[plantman-the-womb-st]

I work for an attorney, though I myself am not a lawyer, and our firm handles what are know as section 1983 cases. Section 1983 deals with police misconduct. One of our current endeavors (pardon the the lack of details, too much info would reveal the client) involves a person who had an arrest warrant issued on them as part of a civil case. Such an issuing is illegal. There was a case pending but, given that it was civil and not criminal an arrest warrant being issued became grounds for liability on the part of the county the warrant was issued from. That being known, I would think (this is in no way to be taken as legal advise) that issuing a subpoena when no case is pending would be a gross violation of the 4th Amendment which states:

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 searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, in this case I would think Google has a good leg to stand on. They are being asked to hand over information with no probable cause.

But I guess it's up to the courts to decide.

Re:IANAL, but...

[VGPowerlord]

The internet is a public place. Just like when you go outside, people can see what you are doing as you walk down the street or hang out in a park. The internet is not a private network, it is a public exchange. There are no guarantees that your email packet won't pass through my router enroute to a destination, so why can't I sneak a peak at your packets?

There's a slight problem with your logic: The DoJ isn't monitoring Google's upstream service provider. Instead, they're asking Google for log files, stored on Google servers, which are Google's private property.

Scariest part

[Teppy]

Why would MSN, Yahoo, and AOL be so eager to cooperate? I can't believe that these corporations care one way or the other about people viewing porn. So what is it? Are they hoping that by cooperating they get some special favors later, or do they fear recrimination by the Bush administration if they refuse?

Re:Scariest part

[ScentCone]

God, not another one!

I'll see your God, not another one! and raise you one!

Outside of the ban were all sorts of guns just as devastating, just as able to be used by a crazy in the pursuit of mayhem, and only off the list because of absurd cosmetic differences. The people who go out to procure an auto-loading gun expressly to then go and shoot people with it are already beyond the reach of our ethics or regulations. If they did want to make a purchase within the ban's rules, all they had to do was purchase any of a number of similar weapons that didn't happen to have a bayonet mount, or a flash suppressor, or other features that have absolutely no bearing on the crime-worthiness or lethality of the weapon. A bolt-action gun would have suited the DC-area "snipers" just as well as any other gun, and I haven't heard about rashes of drive-by bayonettings. The height of this sort of absurdity was neatly on display during the last presidential campaign, when Kerry was vocally on board with a particular gun control measure, and then did a photo-op/campaign stop with some good old boys in the midwest, and spent some time in front of news cameras shooting at clay pigeons with an auto-loading shotgun that the legislation he was backing would have made illegal. Of course, he didn't want to ruin the photo op, and not only didn't make note of that little detail, but also spent the time shooting without eye or ear protection. Save us from such idiocy.

As for worrying about gun-saturation in the society, please note that it's the society, not the guns. Murder is actually down from recent years past, but it's definitely up from decades ago (when you could mail-order guns from Sears). But the real thing to watch is the recently changed demographics. Florida: the addition of right-to-carry laws has reduced killings. Australia: the essentially complete ban on personally owned guns (right through to confiscation) has been met with a huge leap in assaults and murders. Basically, worrying about your personal freedom (as it relates to threats to your life and limbs by criminals) has way, way less to do with whether someone can buy a repearing rifle and more to do with whether local law enforcement is doing catch-and-release with violent criminals. Study after study of actual violent felons shows that they actually say that the one thing that deters them from accosting someone or breaking into a house is not knowing whether or not their potential victim may be armed. In areas where they know that's not possible, they act without concern (i.e., Australia, and now Scotland, etc.).

saying that the assault weapons ban was ineffective is really just flamebait

But it's not, because the ban was ineffective. The National Institute of Justice (a non-partisan piece of the DoJ) provided grants for the independent academic study of exactly this question. They concluded that "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence" [during the ban's existence]. "It is thus premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun violence. Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement" and so on.

A more realistic question would be why groups like the Brady Campaign aren't screaming from the mountains about arresting and prosecuting those that illegally attempt to purchase guns (a felony!) when, during the required background check, they are shown to be disallowed for criminal history reasons. Thousands of felons are turned away from weapons purchases, and just walk away. These are the ones that are so dumb that they're willing to try a "legit" puchase over the counter, and we know who they are (they present ID!), and yet they just walk away... no doubt to go ahead and make an illegal purchase anyway. Those

an example of "doing no evil"?

[Bananatree3]

It is interesting how many of the other search engines outside of google bowed down to this. The reason for the search engine logs seems quite shady to me, and seems like a ruse just to get access for some other purpose. I have a feeling Google probaby detected this and has decided that the intent of the log request is much deeper and shadier than it looks.

Re:an example of "doing no evil"?

[shawb]

It's more like the police come to your door and demand that they be allowed to search your house, since they think someone somewhere might be commiting a crime (but they don't actually have any evidence of specific crimes)

Re:an example of "doing no evil"?

[dark_requiem]

Never underestimate the willingness of supposedly private enterprises to roll over and lap up potential political favors. Google need not have detected any deep, hidden conspiracy (the dangers of massive personal information databases in the hands of a political agency, and especially a political agency whose rulers change regularly, should be readily apparent). The other search engines quite possibly (and quite probably) rolled over in the hopes of obtaining future favorable political actions.

Re:an example of "doing no evil"?

[AK Marc]

So you wouldn't give them tape of your security camera that you had on 24/7?

If they came to me and told me that they needed my tape, but they didn't have a reason why, I wouldn't give it over.

If I didn't, is that not doing evil?

It is not. They aren't asking for the tape to solve a crime. They are asking for it to see if maybe a crime could have been committed. That is evil. Failing to turn over your tape, when it is known that they know of no crime committed, can not be an evil action. This isn't an issue of them investigating a crime. This is a case of them looking to find if there might be a crime. It is no different than them asking to mount a camera in your bedroom, and another in your bathroom to watch 24/7 just in case someone breaks in, but they'll keep all the tape of you anyway beacause they can. The government is not allowed to subpoena companies on fishing expeditions when they don't know of a crime. Google is the only one to recognize that and spend the money to fight the government to remind them.

Thats my only point.

I believe your point was understood and, well, presumed to be irrelevant because it isn't a close enough analogy. You presume they are investigating a crime. They are not. They are just apparently randomly collecting data they have no legal right to demand.

not only that

[JeanBaptiste]

I accidentally found out one day that its possible for not-so-legal images to show up on a google image search. (i was searching for something unrelated which happened to be close to the name of a magazine which isn't so nice. a european publication.) I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you could find worse stuff through GIS (images.google.com)

The thumbnails are stored at a google location.

Does that mean that Google itself is hosting illegal files?

Re:not only that

[JeanBaptiste]

Just asking, I dont really know... Wouldn't the DMCA only cover copywrighted material, ie music files and movie files and such?

I think the kiddy porn is a little different, criminal-wise...

I don't think they're after child pornographers or terrorists... of course I don't know, but that doesn't stop me from posting it on slashdot...

Re:not only that

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

"Does that mean that Google itself is hosting illegal files?"

Yep, and so do you in your cache. Whats really fun is a 17 year old with a webcam that doesnt like you and knows you have {autoaccept | web based upload stuff | ftp | whatever}.

Kiddieporn laws badly need reformed. Why is legal to jerk it to movies of 18 year olds that are late bloomers+made up to look even younger, being simulated-kidnap and raped.. Yet its illegal for your beach vacation pictures to have a 16 year old topless in the background?

It makes about as much sense as chewbakka living on endor.

Re:not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

Pictures of the naked body, no matter what age is not illegal. It's the acts that are protrayed in some pictures that cross the line and make it illegal.

Re:not only that

[loraksus]

Yet, at the same time, the 16 year old (hell, 14 year old) is old enough and mature enough to be tried as an adult and sentenced as an adult.
Cool eh?

Re:not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

However, in US v. Knox, a man got convicted of possessing kiddy pr0n for a videotape which showed underage girls who were fully clothed dancing.

No sexual acts + no nudity = child pr0n

It's a lot worse than you think.

Re:not only that

[Jeremi]

Yep, and so do you in your cache. Whats really fun is a 17 year old with a webcam that doesnt like you and knows you have {autoaccept | web based upload stuff | ftp | whatever}.

Hell, it's a lot easier than that. If you have an email account, anyone can make you a criminal by emailing you some kiddie porn and then calling the authorities to report its presence on your computer. Even if you delete it as soon as you realize what it is, you stilled viewed it, you still posessed it, and the incriminating evidence is still on your hard drive...

Re:not only that

[flyingsquid]

More to the point, why is it perfectly legal for me (in this state at least) to bend a 16-year-old girl over the back of a chair and fuck her brains out... but God forbid I take a nude picture of her?

Oh please, your question is purely hypothetical, and has no real bearing on reality. I mean, if you or I had a chance in hell of doing either of those things, would we be posting on /.?

Re:not only that

[bitt3n]

So how long is it before a 14 year old girl will get tried as an adult for posting naked pictures of herself as a minor?

Re:not only that

[oldwolf13]

>> Won't someone please think of the children?

I believe that's what got us into this mess in the first place!

Re:not only that

[Mr2001]

Those kids broke serious laws, and are being tried as adults usually because they did something extremely bad (or something not so bad, many times). Their own bad choice is what makes them criminals.

Criminals, yes, but it doesn't make them adults. What kind of message does that send, when the only way to be treated as an adult is to do something extremely bad?

If they're mature enough to take full responsibility for their choices, then let them choose a candidate in elections. Let them choose to put their own health in jeopardy with alcohol and tobacco. Let them choose to sign contracts, seek employment, and appear in porn.

On the other hand, if they're not mature enough... if they can't be allowed to make their own choices because they lack knowledge or experience or whatever else you think they need... then don't hold them to the same standard as adults. Don't tell them that the only way to be taken seriously is to become a criminal.

Useless information

[StringBlade]

The article makes the good point that all this data collecting is really useless. So the government finds out that millions of searches for porn takes place every 10 minutes. All that really says is that the porn industry is alive and well.

Unless they're planning on using this data to push anti-porn decency laws (which would be an abuse of power to say the least) the data doesn't suggest in the slightest the context in which the searches were made.

It's also unclear as to whether or not they were after information about percent of porn results in a non-porn search (for example: "breast cancer" as two unquoted words) or just the searches explicitly for porn or child pornography. What about people researching child pornography for a class? It's all so useless that this entire exercise is a waste of money and time at every level.

Re:Useless information

[CyricZ]

It's all so useless that this entire exercise is a waste of money and time at every level.

Indeed. This is a point that true conservatives should pick up on. I'm not talking about Republican conservatives, of course. I'm talking about the truly patriotic conservatives, who love America with all of their heart. They're the kind of people who have a true respect for responsibility, especially fiscal responsibility.

As unlikely as it may sound now, it may be time for those true conservatives to realize that their party (the Republican party) has been hijacked. It may even be time for the real conservatives in the US to stand together, members of a new party willing to fight for what conservatives truly stand for: responsibility, honesty, peace, prosperity and liberty.

Re:Useless information

[Cattywampus]

Unless they're planning on using this data to push anti-porn decency laws (which would be an abuse of power to say the least)...

From the Google has been sued link in a previous comment:

"A motion to compel compliance with a subpoena, filed yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California, said the government seeks the data to enforce the Child Online Protection Act, designed to protect minors from pornography."

The Feds are not after this data in the matter of a criminal case. They are not after the data because they want to know how many people are searching for porn. They're after the data because they want to use it to bolster their case for the Child Online Protection Act, an act which is a thinly veiled attempt to push anti-porn decency laws.

So, yeah, you might want to think of it as an abuse of power. Whether it's a legitimate abuse of power or not will probably become a matter for the courts very soon.

If they can, then why can't I?

[ChadL]

If the DOJ are not doing a criminal investigation, why do they have more rights to get the information that they want, when if I were to jump up and down asking for access from MSN, AOL, or Yahoo, I would just be told to go away?

I do not have a problem with them having access, as long as I can have access too. If they get away with this, next time I am left doing a research paper on the popular searching trends of people, I want them to open there databases up to me, too. That is the extent of what they are doing from what I see, just a research paper to prove a point.

Big Brother

[br00tus]

First we hear about how the NSA is tapping into Americans talking with people overseas, and now the government wants to see what we're searching for on Google. I see so many articles on Slashdot about what the Chinese government is doing (which of course they shouldn't be doing), but how about what the US government is doing?

And if we go back a few years, we can see all of this COINTELPRO data wasn't to stop foreigners, or even people doing illegal things, but to harrass people like Martin Luther King, or breakins to the Watergate hotel to bug the Democrats. Not like the Democrats have rolled this stuff back when they got into office, Clinton's staff was over-requesting FBI files of people during "filegate".

And we're told it's because of the "War on Terror", which is a war which they never say when it will end. It reminds me of Orwell's 1984, when the government is in a state of permanent war, or war preparation anyhow. I may be older than some Slashdotters, but when I grew up I was told the US only had foreign military bases because of the USSR, and if they weren't targets of attack by Moscow, we wouldn't have them there. A decade and a half after the fall of the Berlin wall, I'm now told we are in a new state of permanent war - the cold war has become the war on terror. American military bases still circle the globe - in fact they've expanded, especially in countries south of Russia and west of China. The Russians used to say America had bases all over the world not because of Russia, but because of American imperialism. I was always told this was false, the bases were there because of the possibility of Russian attack. A decade and a half later, what the Russians used to say rings truer than what the US used to say. In fact, the government has now changed its story, and wants us to forget they used to say that, and have us all concentrate on their new permanent war.

Re:Big Brother

[cDarwin]

You know what I'm starting to think more and more?

Fuck this!

• Increasing intrusion into my privacy
• An $8 trillion federal debt due to insane tax cuts without offsets ($27,447.62 per American, at this moment)
• Suspension of habeus corpus whenever they feel like it
• A promise of war without end
• A farcical "No child left behind" policy that produces armies of highschool graduates who can't write a five paragraph form essay, or do basic algebra
• Et cetera, et cetera

The Republic I grew up loving is on life support, at best.

Is this really worth sticking around for? I didn't create all of these problems. Why should I pick up the tab? Plenty of very nice countries would love to have me (and my skills) and my wife (and her skills) and our kids (they can write essays and do math.) I'm keeping my passport current. If a majority of the American people are crazy and stupid enough to keep these nutjobs in power in November, I may just take my marbles and move on.

Re:whats the usage

[StikyPad]

As of July, 2005:

Google: 36.5%
Yahoo: 30.5%
MSN: 15.5%
AOL: 9.9%
Ask: 6.1%
InfoSpace: 0.9%
Others: 0.6%

Soure: http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2 156431

Probably more recent numbers around, but I doubt anything's changed dramatically in the past 6 months.

Re:Sore Thumb -- Google Sued!

[skaet]

Google has been sued for not releasing the requested information.

wrong people, bad law

[globaljustin]

The COPA is a bad law. Bad in the sense that it is not doing what it truly seeks to do: curb child exploitation on the internet.

The DOJ is trying to go after child pornographers, but they are making laws for service providers.

This discrepancy is typical of old-school thinking. Stop the profitablility of such activity by going after the people making money in the process, but, especially on the internet, this only servers to inhibit legal providers of porn.

Saulte the Fearless Leader

[abscissa]

Isn't this just wonderful? First, the government decides it is going to read e-mails and bug phone calls without warrants.

So is Google supposed to feel guilty now?

What's next: the rewards from the government if you "turn in" your neighbours for being Jewish?

AOL/Yahoo Misinformation...

[NullProg]

Quotes from the article here: http://news.com.com/Feds+take+porn+fight+to+Google /2100-1030_3-6028701.html?tag=nefd.lede

AOL response...

AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein confirmed that the company received a subpoena from the DOJ but said the information from the ACLU was not accurate.
"We did not and would not comply with such a subpoena. We gave (the DOJ) a generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly one day period. There were absolutely no privacy implications," Weinstein said. "There was no way to tie those search terms to individuals or to search results." He declined to elaborate.

Yahoo response...

Yahoo acknowledged on Thursday that it complied with the Justice Department's request but said no personally identifiable information was handed over. "We are vigorous defenders of our users' privacy," said Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako. "We did not provide any personal information in response to the Justice Department's subpoena. In our opinion this is not a privacy issue."

MSN response.... ?????

Please don't let the details hit you in the ass in reguards to AOL/Yahoo.
Enjoy,

Re:AOL/Yahoo Misinformation...

[afree87]

MSN response (from the same article):

A Microsoft representative said: "MSN 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." The company would not confirm or deny whether it complied with the Justice Department's subpoena.

Re:AOL/Yahoo Misinformation...

[dark_requiem]

Suppose they really did not provide any personally identifiable information. There is still the fact that the government has the clout to demand information from some of the nation's largest companies and they are willing to provide it without a warrant or a fight. It sets a very bad precident. Powers the government may use are powers that it may abuse.

Re:Why is this so bad?

[draxbear]

Because the motive stated, isn't always the real motive?

Because the administration appears to be getting away with removing all sorts of freedoms from their citizens using reasons such as this?

I agree completely with you that something should be done to crack down on Child Porn, is this really what they are after? Is the bill they are pushing through really going to help?

There have been so many reasons not to trust what they say at face value, is this yet another?

Constitutionally sound?

[Feanturi]

I'm not getting it. How do random anonymous search results of any kind assist in determining whether something is constitutionally sound? I take it that they want to make sure the Act is not trampling on anybody's constitutional rights, correct? I'm trying to imagine what you could possibly learn with regards to that, from search results. You can see percentages of people searching for particular things and what they wind up getting as a result. Ok, so you know roughly what random people of unknown ages are searching for, and you have a rough idea of where they might choose to land. I can't find the link to constitutional issues here, so I just have to say: wtf?

Re:Constitutionally sound?

[Jeremi]

I can't find the link to constitutional issues here, so I just have to say: wtf?

Apparently the better Google is at filtering out porn from search results that didn't request porn, the more constitutional rights we have.

(That was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think it is essentially the argument that the DoJ wants to use: if they can show evidence that the Internet is more like, say, broadcast TV, in that anything broadcast goes to everyone, then they will have a better chance of being able to censor the Internet than if the Internet is shown to be more like a collection of bookstores, where the only people who see porn are those who actively look for porn. Personally, I don't think they have a case on those grounds, but you never know)

Good Morning America !

[da5idnetlimit.com]

"Following the incredible reversal in the "Google vs DoJ" case, the Supreme court confirmed that kids watching porn is all right as long as it is kids porn.

Sesame Street is the first to react with the DVD (thought lost) title "Frogs'n Sow - Peggy Gets It !"

On other news, the pope died of a heart attack while watching what he thought were Sesame Streets Re-run, and GW Bush commited seppuku with a preztel on seeing the show.

Now the Dow-Jones, with the barrel @ 199$, the Emirates decided to buy the US of A..."

Do I really need to put a "/laugh, it's funny" marker ? 8p

I hate children.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I really hate children. The war against adulthood has forced me to make a choice, and that is... I hate children. More importantly... I hate the parents of children who think they have any more right than the rest of us.

Ok, I dont really hate children, but you can see my frustration with this and the arguement "its for the good of the children"

People dont even use the V-chip, and those same people will lobby our government with hopes of ridding the planet of porn.

Microsoft and Apple should just build in a complete censorship layer into their OS that can be attributed to a certain user level account.

That way if your child searches breast... and finds a sweet pair of titties... its your own dam fault and not googles.

Re:I hate children.

[MP3Chuck]

OR ... they could not build a complete censorship layer into their OS. And if your child searches 'breast" ... and finds a sweet pair of titties ... it's your own damn fault for not monitoring their internet usage, not Google's. ;)

Re:I hate children.

[Julian Morrison]

"if your child searches breast... and finds a sweet pair of titties" - it's liable to make him think "milk please".

Seriously, the people panicking over sex aren't the kids. They could see it, snicker at how gross and icky it all is, and oh my god that's sure to give him cooties, eww - but at the end of the day they probably care a whole lot more about football. It's the adults who are going nuts here. Or at least, people who ought to be adults.

Re:I hate children.

[typical]

And if your child searches 'breast" ... and finds a sweet pair of titties ... it's your own damn fault for not monitoring their internet usage, not Google's.

Why is it that humanity once, when we were sitting around nude in caves, had the maturity to see breasts, but no longer does?

If you didn't vote Libertarian, you ASKED for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who voted Republicrat or Democan, shut up and go sit on the sidelines.

You've already demonstrated that you want an intrusive, activist government, you have no room to complain now. You ASKED FOR THIS.

______________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself

About time!

[gentlemen_loser]

To be honest - I've been skeptical about Google for some time. I was not sure how I felt about a company who's sole purpose in life was to perform the same services as Yahoo! but market it as "not evil". Sucessfully so, I might add. I honestly doubted their "Don't be evil" mission.

After reading up about the other companies quietly folding under White House pressure, I am honestly relieved to see SOMEONE finally standing up for the rights of our citizens. Rights are NEVER erroded all at once. The day will never come when we wake up and the amendment about free speech is removed from the Consitution. The day WILL come, however, when we wake up and the free speech amendment means nothing because several iterations of the "Patriot Act" have erroded what it really means.

People in this country need to seriously wake the fuck up. We've been through several iterations of errosion of our rights under this white house. Allow me to sum up: 1) Plame's identity leaked (treason according to the law - I eagerly await the hangings), 2) The Patriot Act (need I say more?), 3) CIA spying on US citizens (notice how quickly W. moved on catching the traitors that leaked that), and 4) This request for search records. The day is rapidly approaching when we wake up and our rights will not mean anything ALL IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING US FROM [insert irrational fear here].

Today, I for one, take my hat off to Google. At the least, even if they are required to acquiese in the end, it garned media attention on the shifty White House request. It will be a long time before I doubt "Don't be evil." again.

Re:About time!

[cazbar]

"The day is rapidly approaching when we wake up and our rights will not mean anything ALL IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING US FROM [insert irrational fear here]."

Rapidly approaching? I thought that day was a couple years ago.

Re:About time!

[LegendLength]

The day is rapidly approaching when we wake up and our rights will not mean anything ALL IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING US FROM [insert irrational fear here].

When you will people educate yourselves that there is a very strong republican voting block that:

  a) Are agnostic/atheist.
  b) Believe very strongly in personal freedom and privacy.

Our rights will never be restricted beyond reason because this voting block (libertarians mainly), will not stand for it. The US still has virtually unlimited freedom, especially compared to most other countries. Most often you will find the constant complaints about loss of freedoms come from the same *subset* of left-leaning voters who generaize the republicans to be a group of religous hicks etc.. (How often do you see the reverse, trolls generalizing democrats as union thugs or communists. It is much more rare, and just as untrue).

Read some recent history (WW2 etc.) and you will see that our country has come a long way from many of the atrocities that have affected humanity throughout the world. Try visiting many of the socialist countries and see if your rights are still 'going down the toilet' in the US. People aren't idiots, and will never allow basic rights to be taken away. It is just fear (often political scaremongering) to think that people will allow rights to be taken away *unreasonably* (and yes 'unreasonable' is not as subjective as you may think, here).

Ummm...right.

[Kythe]

Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound."

Sure they aren't. And NSA is only wiretapping terrorists.

I think Google should comply with the request...

[tlambert]

I think Google should comply with the request... ...by running it through something like CAPTCHA and providing the information as hard copy.

-- Terry

A perfect layperson's recation

[halr9000]

I just asked my wife what she thought and her immediate response was, "That's ok, I use Google". :)

Re:A perfect layperson's recation

[GoofyBoy]

Dude, your wife surfs for kiddie-pr0n?

And i almost forgot

[DigDuality]

Yes you too can be a true Patriot and give your information freely using Patriot Search http://blog.outer-court.com/patriot/

And do you really think this is going to help?

[guruevi]

Do you really think that real child pornographers are going to look for things through Google without any kind of redirection?

What do they think, that we criminals are stupid? Anyone heard of proxies, remembering/bookmarking URL's, non-USA search engines?

This is really a stupid thing going on. This government and laws passing in the "great" United States of America makes me remember of the witchhunt for "communists" about 50y ago. It's happening all over again but now you just have to accuse that neighbour you don't like of filesharing, terrorism or kiddie-porn-searches. And anyone remembers those commies from half a decade ago? No, media, government and agency's are all trying to cover it up as if it never happened or that 'it wasn't that bad'.

Benjamin Franklin said it...

[Evil Shabazz]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

A related story

[Weaselmancer]

A friend of mine is a chef and found out the hard way...do NOT google for a "loose meat sandwich"!!!

Re:A related story

[Pseudonym]

I hear you. I once tried to find out the answer to the age-old Monty Python question. Do not google for "speed swallow".

Re:A related story

[protohiro1]

There are some things that you cannot unsee.

Re:A related story

[shrewd]

when i was showing my old man the wonders of the internet (a few years ago) i was demonstrating search engines and asked him to name something like one of his hobbies, he was into leatherworking at the time and responded with keywords like "Strap" "harness" and other things like that.... stupidly i clicked the i'm feeling lucky button.... sigh...

Child porn or children watching (adult) porn?

[JourneyExpertApe]

One issue which I think was fuzzy in the earlier post and in this one is what the DoJ is actually concerned with. Are they looking to find child porn-related searches, or are they looking for the amount of (legal) porn sites returned in searche results (which may inadvertently expose children to porn)? Or are they looking at both? These are two very different issues, and I'm curious if anyone can enlighten us as to the real situation.

Nope.

[Weaselmancer]

In fact, I feel less safe. WAY less safe. Now I have to worry about all the people in the world who are pissed at me for being an American, the new people in the world who hate me because W has pissed them off, and now I have to worry about my own government spying on me and throwing me in jail if I type something into a search engine that returns something naughty.

And that can happen without you doing anything wrong. Ever type in a search that returned a few surprises? How about your wireless access point. Are you SURE it can't be hacked? You BETTER be.

In Soviet Russia...

[0xDEADC0DE]

...search engine indexes you.

Violation of the 4th Amendment

[blair1q]

These search engines have no right and no compulsion to turn over any customer data, anonymous or otherwise, in response to politically motivated fishing expeditions.

Re: this just in -- United States subpoenas Google

[Kargan]

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?typ e=internetNews&storyID=2006-01-19T200124Z_01_N1930 3715_RTRUKOC_0_US-GOOGLE-PORNOGRAPHY.xml

Your search strings never contain personal info?

[geekotourist]

I question this assumption by Yahoo, AOL, etc. that search terms, by themselves, have no privacy considerations because they've been separated from personal info. What if the search itself contains personal information? Are the search companies deleting the timestamps and randomizing the order of the search terms themselves? Because otherwise I could see personal info showing up:

• Alice.Geekotourist and cryptography (searching for a relative's paper)
• Geekotourist 212 (then their phone number and address)
• Model.rocket.supplies near 742.Evergreen.Terrace, Springfield (buying hobby supplies)
• postal.regulations rockets (learning why I can't buy model rocket engines )

So now a block of searches associates the name Geekotourist with rockets and with one or two addresses. Does this affect my privacy if these searches are clumped together?

Did Yahoo/AOL include any white pages or yellow pages searches while doing the government's homework? Does the government expect Google to keep all Google Local searches out of the "1 week of searches"? The white page and local style searches leak personal info like mad.

Or what if a search was designed to check on one's personal privacy, for example:

• Geekotourist and Bob.Aliceson (checking to see if anyone has linked "Geekotourist" with the nickname "Bob.Aliceson)
• Geekotourist and 212.313.4114 (seeing if my old phone number is linked to me)
• Geekotourist and bobalice@yahoo.com (seeing if I'm connected with an old email address or to a blog, say)

And while Y/AHOOL didn't provide "the results of the searches" to the gov't, I assume the gov't will be re-running them. The searches 'Cameras near 742 Evergreen Terrace' combined with 'photographing children' may have just been me helping with photos at a birthday party or finding a portrait studio. But its going to be analyzed by people who think 15-degrees-of-separation is a reasonable search.

From the prescient (and unfortunately being used as an anti-guidebook) best essay this century on Why Privacy is a Fundamental Human Right [just substitute 'Porn' for 'September 11' as the excuse the gov't gives, it comes out the same]:

"But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy - the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us - is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being.

"If someone intrudes on our privacy - by peering into our home, going through the personal things in our office desk, reading over our shoulder on a bus or airplane, or eavesdropping on our conversation - we feel uncomfortable, even violated.

"Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do.

"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.

But there also will be tangible, specific harm.

"The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life.

"...But if our privacy becomes ever more systematically invaded by the state for purposes of assessing our behavior and making judgments about us, wrong information and

Devil's Advocate

[jfengel]

Since everybody else is saying "no", I'll say "yes". I think that Americans feel a lot safer.

At least, they feel a lot safer than they did on September 12, 2001. Americans were pretty spastic then, and that's why PATRIOT Act I was passed pretty quietly. They were scared. I was scared. It was pretty frickin' scary.

Today, they feel a lot safer. The follow-up attack that everybody expected never materialized. They're not glued to CNN. They're not kissing their wives perhaps a final good-bye on the way out the door going to work. (I did.) They've gotten more or less back to normal. They're still kinda scared, but since I grew up with Mutually Assured Destruction breathing down my neck, me and a lot of other Americans are kind of used to low-grade, continual fear.

That's the Devil's Advocate answer. Now, do they feel safe for the right reasons? Maybe; maybe not. Why haven't there been any more attacks? Because we invaded Afghanistan and knocked out the Taliban? Because of the invasive techniques the FBI and NSA are using? Because of ordinary law enforcement? Because one big attack was all Osama had in him? I don't know.

And, as another poster pointed out, none of that has anything to do with porn. Neither me nor any of my friends is afraid of porn, so I don't have a read on that. Do "ordinary Americans" feel that their kids are being protected from porn? Probably not, but not for Bush's lack of trying; the laws he's tried to pass have all been struck down.

Would they feel safer if they had been passed? I doubt it. This is a stupid law they're trying to justify, and they're going about it in an offensive way. I appreciate Google saying "no", and I hope the courts back them up.

everything was better back then, right?

[penguin-collective]

The Republic I grew up loving is on life support, at best.

I think the Republic you thought you grew up loving was an illusion. Today, the US government probably has fewer ways of getting away with screwing you, screwing other nations, or restricting your speech than ever before. That doesn't keep them from trying, but that's what governments always do--it's part of the package. Furthermore, you have more ready access to education and information and more social mobility than ever before.

The debt is real, but ultimately not due to any particular policy--it's just that the rest of the world is starting to recover from colonialism and WWII and become serious competition again; Americans will have to get used to being less wealthy relative to the rest of the world.

HornySpiderV1.0

[BigBlockMopar]

I hope not. I hate child porn and all that, but that doesn't mean that big brother should be watching everything.

Agreed.

But if they're gonna be watching me (I personally like Yahoo for the combination of search and headlines), I can assure them that they're going to get a hell of a show. I'll go so far as to create a spider which hunts for kitty porn ("MmMMMmm... Next we have Fluffy the Persian. She's an 8-year-old who can lick her own ass and likes it when her 30-year-old master rubs her stomach.") and then pipes keywords and sentences from that directly into Yahoo and then uses the search results to find more sites to spider.

Naturally, being my first real programming project since University, it will be released open-source in case the community happens to have suggestions on how I can improve its efficiency.

Re:HornySpiderV1.0

[coofercat]

Remember that unlike Google (and MSN), Yahoo, AOL and others use 'redirect' links, rather than direct links to sites. As a result, Yahoo, AOL etc track far more than the words you type into a search box because they actually know where you went after that.

Thus, any such spider should be 'clicking' those redirect links to inflate the stats somewhat ;-)

Incidentally, if you want a starting point, have a look at http://www.coofercat.com/wiki/EuropeanElectronicSu rveillance

You're misrepresenting the Knox case

[xiphoris]

You are misrepresenting the case. If you are really interested in the details, you can read more about it yourself. I'll post a relevant portion of the case, which is an advertisement (placed by the defendant) for the videos on question:

"Sassy Sylphs" will blow your mind so completely you'll be begging for mercy.

Just look at what we have in this incredible tape: about 14 girls between the ages of 11 and 17 showing so much panty and ass you'll get dizzy. There are panties showing under shorts and under dresses and skirts; there are boobs galore and T-back (thong) bathing suits on girls as young as 15 that are so revealing it's almost like seeing them naked (some say even better).

I think that speaks for itself. Child pornography laws are not just about exposed skin; they're around to prevent the exploitation of children in which Knox was very obviously (and self-admittedly) involved.

Re:You're misrepresenting the Knox case

[Chowderbags]

If that were true, shouldn't the parents of every model on childsupermodels.com be brought to court for what they allow? Every site on there is obviously marketed as softcore porn. Now, I'll say that the problem of child porn is vastly overblown in many cases, and I really wouldn't care if the age of consent and the age for legally being in porn were reduced to 16, but there's a big difference between a hot 16 year old that's actually gone through most of puberty, compared to a pre-teens who have no development of sexual features.

not "child porography" but "children seeing porn"

[kozumik]

I think people are misunderstanding the whole nature of this law and the controversy around it. It's NOT about child porn.

The purpose of this law is to increase censorship on all porn, even legal porn, and it's driven by the Christian Right Wing, supposedly to protect children from viewing it.

That's why it's initially a 1st amendment issue (freedom of speech) which is now becoming a 4th amendment issue (unreasonable search and seizures) as the admin asks for private records. But make no mistake, the dispute is not a "child porn" issue, it's a censorship issue, supposedly to protect children. Big difference.

Child porn is already aggressively investigated by the DOJ, and it's an entirely separate thing. In those investigations, the DOJ has no trouble getting warrants which all the major companies including Google are happy to comply with to catch child pornographers.

It's also a pretty sneaky move by the admin, because obviously nobody likes the words "child" and "porn" anywhere near each other, which distorts and misrepresents the whole issue. So to anyone who took the bait, congrats, you've been had by the Bush admin and their clever spinners.

=P

The UK isn't much better

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

It's not just you guys. We have this sort of crap in the UK, too.

One of my favourite political comments of recent times came from Lord Hoffman, a Law Lord (our highest judicial authority). In the conclusion of a review of our recent "anti-terrorist" legislation, he stated:

"The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws like these."

I take some small comfort in the fact that the tide seems to be turning. Tony Blair has been handed a string of defeats in the House of Lords this week, including a heavy slap-down of his ID card proposals. In Parliament, there are enough rebels in his own party that even with his undeserved absolute majority of seats, he's unlikely to pass any further draconian legislation without making major concessions. His political career is effectively over, and when he goes, hopefully he'll take the heavy-handed Home Secretary types like Straw, Clarke and Blunkett with him.

Now all we need is some sort of written constitution so we can immediately overturn previous laws like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and we might restore some semblance of civil liberty in this country. We can but hope...

Re:No Love for Child Porn Purveyors

[miro f]

everyone needs to stop being confused about the issue here! we're talking about children accessing pornography, rather than starring in it. The term "Child Porn" is being thrown around a lot but that is not the issue at all.

Lets Google Bomb them!

[digitalgimpus]

I propose we all start querying search engines for the following phrase in an attempt to skew search results a bit:

George Bush Rapes America Porn

The following are quick links for each popular search engine to perform the search:
Google
Yahoo
MSN
AOL

If a lot of people did it every day, it would eventually skew popular queries, and send a little message, should Google loose the fight.

It's on my blog already. If a ton of people do the same, and get a big campaign going, it could be interesting.