Slashdot Mirror
Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Privacy Concerns
Philip K Dickhead writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns over a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests on privacy grounds. The department claims this will help revive an online child protection law that the Supreme Court has blocked, by proving that Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography online. A federal court hearing is scheduled in San Jose, California, March 13th."
Just one more reason to use the Scroogle scraper.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Is this a surprise? The Bush admin is waging a war on porn and this is a logical step.
The owls are not what they seem
...wait, I thought censorship was bad and UnAmerican(TM)?
All of you who use Google Desktop might want to uninstall it, just in case the "DoJ" starts going after that data next.
My sig is too lon
PLEASE think of the children!
Can the government really go after Google for aiding Chinese censorship and for NOT aiding US censorship AT THE SAME TIME?
Google should be forced to turn over evidence in response to a court's order, and by nothing less. The DoJ can shove it.
Send them a convoy of brinks trucks with the printouts of everything they ask for... Attach a memo reading: "child porn" != "child looking for porn" love googlebot...
bah... bah ... bah
another one bites the dust
another one down, another one down, another one bites the dust...
its funny, I was just remarking to my self "Man, my parents are just too busy, I wish there was some large organization that could assume the role for my parents, I mean honestly they need a vacation"
If the USA is not good for Google they're welcome to set up their business in our country.
the taliban download pornography!
If the supreme court struck down a law, and the government is using its resources to try and bring it back, isn't that illegal?
So, if I get caught with a couple of sawed-off body parts dissolving in my bathtub, I can just tell the sheriff "No worries, my good man. I'm simply performing research into overturning the murder statute. You can go about your business..." *insert jedi-wave*
"Is it possible to host a datacentre out at sea?"
Sure. Take a look at Sealand
I saw plenty of nudie pics and porn as a child and I'm pretty well-adjusted as an adult. Yes, seriously. I'm getting pretty sick of government types thinking they can run our lives better than we can.
Ok, so from what I can read all they want is a list of search words - nothing that can track back to any users. Well - I say give it to them. After all, the purpose seems allright "By showing the wide variety of Web sites that people find through search engines, the government hopes to prove Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography and other inappropriate material online.". They're right. Internet filters sucks, and if they can throw a court verdict after them, then maybe this will help end the censorship and convince the government that filters are a dead end.
Or maybe I'm missing something?
Oh wait, it is worse. Let's hope it's not true.
With all the other problems in the world, I am at a loss as to why this is a top concern for this Administration?
How about addressing problems related to global warming, poverty, war, and pollution - first and foremost?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Is the doj incapable of coming up with their own search strings to defeat filters?
I don't really understand how the department can reject something in order to revive a law that their own highest court has blocked.
I was under the understanding that the judicial branch was seperate from the executive - perhaps I missed a factoid that zipped by at the bottom of the screen on cnn....
Has the government really thought this through?
They have to realise they're setting a precident here.
Google works in many countries around the world. How is the US government going to react if, say, the EU requests the same data from Google? How about China? Or Iran?
Are they restricting the data they gather to searches only made by US citizens? Because here in the EU there are pretty strong laws about how companies can use personal data they gather. If the US government forces them to hand over data that pertains to EU citizens, I believe Google will be breaking EU data laws and could be opening themselves up for legal action in the EU.
Actually, there maybe something that EU citizens can do about this. Perhaps EFF Europe should start a campaign...
Maybe google should get the DOJ in touch with representative Tom Lantos and have a bit of a discussion on the moral implications of complying with legal orders. Just sayin'.
Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
It's not so much a privacy issue as a conscription issue. Do we really want the government going around and strong arming data out of companies for their research?
The data is the property of google, the government really should not have any right to it, nor should it be able to force google into preparing it and giving it to them. You want it pay for it, just like the rest of the slobs. It's not like it's part of a criminal investigation.
This administration has no concept of the right to privacy, except when it come to them and their friends.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Why can't they just ask Google for a list of keywords that they think might fall in the border areas between obscene and non-obscene results, and then ask for permission to run a simulation on them from the DOJ headquarters? The answer? Power. The DOJ wants to be able to force them to give them something for nothing because they asked for it. Google is being forced to foot the bill for what amounts to an unfunded mandate on a private entity. In olden times, what did black people call being forced to work without compensation and criminal record? Slavery!
This case does, however, remind me why I have come to have little respect for the ACLU. According to CNet/ZDNet, the ACLU is not just content with getting the same data, they want the trade secrets as well. Google is just getting bitch slapped no matter how you look at this. They are caught between the fascists at the DOJ and the socialists at the ACLU who could care less about Google's trade secrets.
The DOJ only "rejected" anything in the sense that they don't agree with Google - the court will decide, not the DOJ
Since when did the government start caring about our children. I have a simple solution, Don't leave your child on your computer with internet access alone. When they are old enough to browse and be responsible by themselves, they are old enough to look at porn.. BUSH ADMIN, quit wasting resources on BS and fix the real issues at hand.. Like our Deficit, the war, social security and countless other items. Leave the parenting up to us.
Do you REALLY think that matters? He's got his first post, and he's got his link -- the first of his 50 inane posts that he'll make this week to keep his karma-whoring narcissism strong. Now it's just a matter of waiting until his TMM fanboys come around and mod him as "Informative" or "Insightful", following right along like the good little TMM fanboys that they are.
The President can illegally wiretap his own citizens, start a war under false information, illegally detain people without process or trial (closing Guantanomo will only move things to the Policharky prion in Kabul), try to block a movie because he feels being portraited as the bad guy (Darth Bush?) and now he's trying to gain access to an internation crowd through Google (I really don't believe that his interests will stop with US citizens).
I guess times are really changing... Perhaps Google should move his offices outside the US so they don't have to deal with these constant attacks on freedom and democracy.
Here is what I don't get. One of Google's hippocratic values, 'Do no harm', was ignored at the start. They were capturing information on users searches and for what!? OK, I can understand that this info is helpful for the adsearch which is what pays the bills, but the adsearch program would only find this data useful for a limited amount of time. There is no need to keep and hold that data ad infinitum. Why not purge that data as it is old?
Is this a surprise? The Bush admin is waging a war on porn and this is a logical step.
Logical yes.. but one gets the feeling that this has more to do with getting yet another controversial surveillance law enacted by attatching it to a campaign against child porn. The clever aspect of this tactic is that it is hard to be against this sort of a law because it is probably one of the the best ways to hunt down one of the most revolting but also elusive and dangerous species of pervert out there. On the other hand experience teaches us that once it is in place, such a law allowing the US. Govt. agencies to rifle through peoples search queries to their hearts content, is guaranteed to be massively abused by those same agencies for all sorts of other reasons that have nothing to do with catching pedophiles.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
So... exactly what information is these representatives of the US Government after? The fact that people search for porn? If they remove any identification of who, and thus what, the person is... what's going to tell them that any given search conducted by a wide-eyed innocent (queue Bush jokes) vs. a consenting adult?
Does anyone have a link to the actual DoJ response to Google?
Which brings in the "but logs are in the US so it's legal" issue.
Sure if it wasn't for porn i'm sure half the internet traffic would disappear
...Think of the Children!! As you give up your most sacred rights...
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
Once more, a nice display of reverse logics! If I, as a parent, fail to keep track of what my child is doing and/or looking at, I find someone to blame. And the federal government is backing me up on this one.
If you have a small child, you, as a parent, should be aware of what kind of content your child has access to. Preview television shows, whitelist certain webpages. If you leave smutty magazines lying around the house, do you blame the editor if a child finds them and looks through it?
Besides, sex is a natural thing, use education to enable your child to discern right from wrong, instead of keeping the whole subject hidden from him/her until marriage.
Google has nothing to do with this battle the right-wing christians wage against the porn industry. I'm not saying that pornsites should advertise all over the net, or judge porn altogether, but the federal government is taking a very one-sided approach in this matter. The net has always been free, and it should remain that way. I agree with Googles view on this matter.
Because that's comforting...
The DOJ doesn't make laws, and it doesn't rule on laws. The DOJ is in the executive branch, and this decision will be made in the judicial branch, by courts.
/That's/ when words like "reject" actually mean something. Submitter, don't be an attention whore.
- chad
You're close but not quite on the money. This has wedge issue written all over it. Much like gay marriage in 2004 (and soon to be gay adoption in 2006), this is an issue to draw out the single-issue conservative voters to the polls. The point isn't necessarily to win this battle, though that'd be feather in the cap of the Republican Party, as it is to have the fight in the first place.
The majority of American's wouldn't support a conservative agenda on the environment, healthcare, and corporate welfare, but they will support an agenda about terrorism and "protection of values." This is known as a "wedge issue." It's designed to drive a wedge between the conflicting loyalties of swing voters to force them to choose between two different positives and to draw out partisans from the woodwork who couldn't care enough to vote about economic policy issues.
Bringing back up net filtering and monitoring gives the Republicans another chance to decry "liberal judicial activism" in a bid to install more pro-executive power, pro-business judges. As a bonus, they get to legislate morality and provide an in for more monitoring of citizens. In case you don't recall, sexual scandals are just about the only scandals that have any traction in the media any more, so the opportunity to catch a current or future politician looking at porn is a great tool for whoever's in power, and it's even better if your opposition consider using that power against your people to be wrong.
This is just a win-win fight for the Republican Party no matter how it plays out.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The department believes the information will help revive an online child protection law that has been blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. By showing the wide variety of Web sites that people find through search engines ,
Wow and all this time I thought that's what Internet Search Engines were for.
the government hopes to prove Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography and other inappropriate material online.
Dear Department of Justice, let me be the first to provide you with a clue, there is indeed a highly effective filter to prevent children from viewing "pornography and other inappropriate material online", it's called a RESPONSIBLE PARENT (which occasionally actually come in SETS)..... last time I read the Constitution I missed any references to where it was the Federal Governments job to play the role of pseudo parent to American Children.
Please stick to doing what I pay you to do for a change, namely protect me & my fellow countrymen from other people that are attempting to violate our rights and not wasting our tax dollars trying to protect us from ourselves.
Children need protection from porn, because it would be too bad if they would discover their sexuality on a normal speed which coupled with a good sexual education program can significantly reduce the number of underage pregnancies, on the other hand the administration encourages and is fine with the military recruiting from schools, sharing schoolchildren's data in a huge opt-out database and sending these kids to Iraq or Afghanistan.
Clearly, porn is the danger here. Think of the kids!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
As if there's any branch of the government capable of checking executive power anymore.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
First of all, "rejects" seems a bit strong - if I'm reading the article correctly, this is just a counterargument, and the matter is still very much in the air - with a hearing on March 13. So far so good.
What I still don't get is what legal grounds the Justice Department has for filing this subpoena. I really, really, really don't get it. Can someone more familiar with US law or with this case enlighten me?
That's great, but why can't they research their own set of queries? You know, the old fashioned way - paying some consultants a boatload of money to come up with some useless results? Or why not ask Google nicely? Okay, maybe that's a bit naive, but why not offer to hire Google to help them with their study? Why a SUBPOENA? And why Google, and not the other search engines? Have they already asked the other search engines and received a list of queries? If so, why are they still going after Google? If not, why haven't they?
None of this makes sense to me. Any help?
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
If the request for the 1 million search sample is left to Google, then I say they hand over search results from Bush, Cheney and all those other cracksheads in that administration. And Google should post it publicly seeing as how we're all disregarding privacy laws here.
I'm sure they won't mind.
I don't believe in protecting children by hiding content such as pornography, besides the smart kids will figure out a way to circumvent the censorship anyway. Stuff like double anal, gagging, spitting, gaping etc is a common part of mainstream porn these days though. What I think would be a better idea is the good ole' father/mother-to-son/daughter talk. It is the parents responsibility to tell their kids about sex and love and why they shouldn't spit their first girl/boyfriend in the face and violently shove a 6 inch up their asshole. Makes me wonder what the administration is trying to archieve though..
Perhaps I don't fully understand, but isn't this basically a government research effort? They want to see if their assumption is correct to support a law which doesn't currently exist. Correct?
So why should a private company be compelled to give them data? It's not like this is a search warrant. How is this different from if NASA when to the academic community and said: "give us all your observations about the moon?" Just because the government wants data that a private company has, doesn't give them to right to demand it.
I know they are looking for evidence of something which ties (loosely) to illegal acts committed using Google, but that is an awfully broad net to be casting.
Am I totally missing something here?
From TFA:
The Justice Department submitted a declaration by Philip B. Stark, a researcher who rejected the privacy concerns, noting that the government specifically requested that Google remove any identifying information from the search requests.
So, what's the problem with the request, really? The government finds out what people are searching for, but not who searches for what.
I admit though that the article doesn't say whether the information requested could be used to group searches by user, which could be used to ID anyone who likes to google their own name (i.e. plenty of people.) But if that's not the case, I don't see what all the fuss is about.
This is why you have to resist data collection, regardless of the immediate purpose or perceived benefits. Privacy policies and current legislation are of exactly zero relevance.
It's why I'm against ID cards in the UK, a scheme which involves a wholly unnecessary central database of biometric information. The current government may give assurances as to its scope and use, but once they have the data there's absolutely nothing to stop them or a future government from extending the scope and selling the data to the highest bidder. And that's beside the security implications of a central database.
At a museum event I once bumped into the CEO of the company behind the development of the Oyster card (a smart card for London transport, which as well as being a convenient rechargeable ticket, records against your name in the register your movements through the transport system (i.e. not solely for statistical purposes)). I asked him what data was being recorded and who had access to it; he laughed and asked me whether I'd like to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
Er, position that is. One week, they say "Oh, don't worry about us being in China; NO filter can eliminate every thing a government doesn't want people to see!" and the next week they find themselves having to admit that what's true "over there" is true "over here": NO filter can eliminate every thing a government doesn't want (their young) people to see.
Maybe their motto should have been something more like "Don't be careless."
Now, don't get me wrong: I don't think little Johnny (or Joanie) ought to be "lookin' at them nekkid people on the internet" (for a number of reasons we won't go into right here) -- I just don't think the government should think itself in the business of making sure he (or she) doesn't. That goes for China AND the good ol' U.S. of A. ANY time a government puts itself (or is put by its people) in the position of "parenting" that nation's youth, that government is in the WRONG place in the "grand scheme of things" and needs to be put (back) in its proper place.
Just one guy's sometimes humble opinion (JOGSHO).
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
It would save Google time and money and they would agree right away.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
So, what's the problem with the request, really? The government finds out what people are searching for, but not who searches for what.
Because giving inches to the gubment eventually ends up turning into miles, since there's a none to small probability that the next time they ask for "cooperation" it will be with the idenitifying information attached.
In a nutshell the gubment has no right to or justification for this information, and if they want to run a tax payer funded "study" of how effective "Internet filters" are they can damn well do it on their own, and not strong arm private business into giving them anything they feel like asking for.
Alberto R. Gonzales is the man who wrote the doctrine saying the tortue is okay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Gonzales#WarIf someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
With the current administration, you can count on anything that infringes upon an individual's right to any sort of privacy to get the green light. The only group that seems to get any privacy in this country any more are those who operate behind closed doors in the Executive Branch.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Will it help society if they get it?
Well, if they get their way you won't be able to watch something like that on the Internet. You'll still be able to do what you want in the privacy of your own home though. For now at least. Soon that will be illegal as well.
--Residential Interior Design
Funny how Google gives the US government the finger, yet is down on it's knees for the Chinese Government. Guess the Chinese government issues better knee pads. Oh, Chinese are leftist, current US Government is viewed as Right Wing. Silly me!
Dammy
"by proving that Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography online."
Government demands to be allowed to invade the privacy of millions to prove the obvious.
Film at 11, v-chip permitting.
Yeah, me too. Never saw the connection between sicko kiddie porn and being a pervert as an adult. Just a bunch of authoritarian mind control, if you ask me.
Well, now that the intros are over, can I sleep with your girlfriend? Got a cat? Can I watch it pee?
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
The parent should be required to sit there and, when pr0n pops up on screen, cover the kid's eyes and click the back button.
"So, what's the problem with the request, really? The government finds out what people are searching for, but not who searches for what."
... there is no problem with the request pers se. The problem is that once Google availed themselves of the right to say NO , it turned into an attempt at compelling them through a court order. The government can ask me to allow them to have funky anal sex with me, but when I say no, the game is over. If they then try to force me to comply it is attempted rape .
... like not handing kids the keys to the car, or riding with them while they have their drivers permit, to stop it from happening. At some point, you decide that they are old enough to be trusted, and you cross your fingers, because you don't (completely) trust them.
;-}
Well
Google isn't about to comply, and the courts are not likely to commit the act of accessory to rape in this case, INMSO though IANAL.
It was a pretty stupid move on the "Justice Dept.'s" part to openly admit that they want to prove the courts earlier rulings erroneous.
Not only that, but car keys are not a very effective way to stop children from driving to the Red Light district either. Ultimately, the parents must take some degree of responsibility
I think the US Supreme courts are smart enough to figure that out, if I can
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Oh, Chinese are leftist, current US Government is viewed as Right Wing. Silly me!
Hoo boy. A partisan. Guess what? Just because you take somebody's side on one issue (like Google and the DoJ) doesn't mean that you have to take their side on another issue (like Google and China). Yes, shocking -- I know.
My main complaint is in why the government wants this data. I'm less happy with Google after the China bit, but I'm more unhappy with China itself. In case you didn't know, China also claims that censorship of porn and terrorism are their major reasons for filtering the internet. A lot of people don't know that despite being officially atheist, the Chinese government spends just as much time beating the drum of public morality as many openly religious political organizations.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I don't understand why the /. crowd is becoming more hostile towards Google. They're doing business in China, just like Microsoft and Yahoo!, because if they don't others will anyway. Google is defending our privacy by saying no to the DoJ, and even if they end up getting overturned it's a bunch of search queries.
What are people worried that Google know about them? So you have an account and Google has your unencrypted non-private correspondance (mailing lists and such), a list of your search queries (the ones which you aren't concerned enough about to log off your account to run), and (if you haven't got adblock/cookie filtering) can track which adwords sites you've been on. What insights into your personal life can they gain from this? What's the concern? Seems like a load of FUD to me, and I'm just surprised the slashdot crowd is running with it.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Don't you think all this might be related?
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/54909/
The SC *is* the last word when it comes to interpereting the constitution. If the SC rules a law is unconstitutional, the other branches have basically four options - re-write the law so that it is constitutional, give up, wait until the structure of the SC changes enough that they may win a reversal, or amend the constitution.
The last option, is of course, difficult to pull off. So for the majority of issues you only have the first three options. But none of this says that the government can not continue to push new evidence before the SC to try and get it to reverse it's opinion. Then again, the SC doesn't have to hear those cases either.
What's really going on here, is the government is trying to get new evidence just as *an excuse* to place the issue befor ethe SC again, because they think that with the recent change son the bench, they will prevail regardless of the new evidence.
Why is it that people always think that parents should look over their kids' shoulders all the time? Isn't that big brother too, just in a smaller form? The sign of truly good parenthood is the ability to trust that children will either not access material or understand the nature of the material when they access it. "Blocking" will always cause a curious child to figure ways around the block. Well-educated and well-brought up children do not need any filtering software - they can be trusted.
The job falls on the parents to properly teach their children values and trust. The job does not fall on the government to widespreadly ban fundamental freedom of expression on the internet.
Bush has lost a lot on his domestic agenda, see his failed (and now muted) social security privatization. He has to please his supporters somehow, and this is the way. Is it illegal? Yes, this is abuse of power. Will it be prosecuted? Probably not, if any of you have noticed any notion of the executive branch not being above the law is plain silly.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
> Er, position that is. One week, they say "Oh, don't worry about us being in China; NO filter can
> eliminate every thing a government doesn't want people to see!" and the next week they find
> themselves having to admit that what's true "over there" is true "over here":
What's true over there is apparently true over here. Not just next week; how about three articles away on Slashdot? Except, now it's not available.
I'm confused because there was a Slashdot story from "the mysterious future" about a Register article stating that Google was censoring videos about the Iraq war, but only for people in the U.S. When I clicked on the Slashdot article to comment, I just got the error "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
Did anyone else notice this?
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
Why can't the US government use the list of keywords given by MSN/Yahoo/... and search for those on Google. This should give the same results except for a few special operators (link:, info:, etc.) which might get handled differently. That way the US DoJ get's exactly what they want, Google gets it's way and the only issue is that MSN/Yahoo/... will next also ignore the requests of DoJ and they face a public defeat.
My freeware games
The US government is already being passed details of EU citizens' airline flights *within Europe* - along with all of their personal information - this is happening right now in the cause of The War Against Terror (TWAT)...
It is not the governments problem to make sure children aren't looking at Porn. It is the parents and the pornographic websites responsibility to make sure children aren't looking at porn. For crying out loud this is not in the better interest of keeping children pure its an excuse to try and use this information for political gain. The information that google stores is worth billions upon billions. Marketing companies pay top dollar for that kind of data just to know how to better advertise. This kind of data could be used in more ways that just "protecting children from porn" What about everytime a person searches the web for a word like te rro ri st... Now am I on a database being watched a little closer because I used a danger word like ter ro ris t? Seriously this is a load of crap and I hope google wins the case. Parents if your concerned about what your children are looking at on the web then you need to monitor it. Its just like tv the things they see on tv are in direct relation to are you monitoring what they view. So take resposbility and government noses need to stay out of my search engine history.
Because the only thing that will save this world is knowledge...
The government has blinders on.
Ok. Google does not have to give away the requesting IP addresses or other information in that subset.
They seem to have completly ignored the relevant facts concerning costs to a private entity, and the potential damage to their operating methodology.
Get ready for this to become ugly. As I hope and expect Google to continue to say no to the phishing expedition.
A few days ago, Google's official response to the DoJ was posted on the Google Blog.
According to Google, among the reasons they are refusing to comply is because they are trying "to protect their trade secrets and proprietary systems". They add that complying with the request would be a great technological burden, and possibly create legal risks.
There is only a single mention of concern for its users' privacy - and that concern is not based any moral grounds: they merely fear any liabilities for violating their privacy policy.
Note: I'm not critizing Google for this. Their actions are entirely reasonable; after all, Google is not a charity, it is a company. I'm just sick of all the "Google does this, Google does that" media hype distorting reality. If you're going to put Google on a stand for its China decision or any privacy-related issues, do the same for the others among the "Big-Five" search engines. I own Google stock myself; I don't care if you idealized Google and your dreams burst, I want my investment protected.
What's happening is.
Users of google are becoming scared.
This will destroy google.
But you can't sue the DOJ.
The United States Is Destroying the fucking world.
FIX THE FUCKING ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES!
Or *maybe* it's because Chinese law and social norms state that the Chinese government gets to censor. US law and social norms state that the current administration doesn't get to demand data of random companies (without criminal investigation or other justification) to push their partisian issues.
1) Much of Google's assets are their search data.
2) Google has a reputation to protect. If they don't draw a line in handing over data, people cannot trust that their searches are private. If I can go use a search engine based on Sealand instead of Google because that one is private because it doesn't fall under US law, then obviously I'm going to use that. Google is protecting their customer.
Man, you Google-haters *love* to try to use the "but teh chinks is evil!" argument.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I'd rather see them go after Bill Clinton for aiding the Chinese missile program than Google for their censorship.
is anyone so ingnorant to believe that this has anything to do with protecting children? This is obviously just another way for the wiretap-happy administration to keep an eye on us.
Seriously, after all the bull sh*t Bush has been shovelling can we really believe anything he says?
This is the oldest trick in the book, wrap your true intentions in a controversial issue for the left and right to argue over. We need to stop assuming there are only two sides to these issues and start going after the real problem, the American Taliban.
Think of the Children!!! Think of my poor child!!!
At the tender age of 15, my child was brutally and without warning assailed by Janet Jackson's breast during the superbowl. This callous and unjustified act of forcefull thrusting the wide world of filthy perverted sex upon my innocent offspring forever changed the way I looked at this issue.
My child, while on the internet can be exposed to images of the naked breasts, and even obscene images of female genitalia. This is a shocking and tramatic expierience for any child, and I resent having to deal with the fallout from what some people like to call "excercising their rights". There is no excuse for ludity on the internet. None!
I fully support the governments efforts to protect my child from the shocking plethora of scandel and depravity that exists on the world wide web.
I support this for my child! She deserves better!
May the Maths Be with you!
Is it possible to host a datacentre out at sea?
To listen to them talk, Sealand's HavenCo is already there and what you're looking for.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
Why the fuss? It's not like the administration doesn't have other things to do. Perhaps they are concerned about Condi's youthful (and not so youthful) 'indiscretions' turning up on the net.
Send the request to Google China, and ask them to *start* and *stop* censoring information at the same time...
I've read the site owner's comments on the Google vs Bush administration battle and I've come to the conclusion that he's a fucknut. Please knock this 1st-poster's comment down to -1 since it contributes nothing to this topic.
This guy has a point.
Google: *hands gov't a big list of queries*
Gov't: *examines list* "Hey, this list is nothing but
the phrase "Impeach Bush" printed out 10000 times!
Google: "Yeah, people do tend search for that a lot."
The 'official' reason for Chinese censorship is also to prevent the widespread of pornography? It's funny to see how governements use the oldest 'Would someone please think about the children' argument to justify information control. The easiest way to control the population is to control the information they have the access to, and the easiest way to control information is to use those bogus claim that "We know what's good for you, let us block out only the bad stuff so your kids will be safe from bad influences". ..
And it's funny that the department of 'justice' is the last place we should look for justice today, it almost reminds me of the department of 'love'..
You need to look at TMM's post history. He is a *fervent* anti-Bush person. I am firmly convined that it doesn't matter if the policy is good for the country or not. If it comes from republicans and/or the Bush administration, TMM will spout nothing but venom and hatred even if it's something that even democrats can support. He's the kind of person that makes James Carville look moderate.
You shouldn't be surprised if any karma whoring links from him are anti-Bush. I'm surprised they're not anti-Intelligent-Design as well.
In China, it's about filtering Liberty(tm).
In the United States, it's about saving the children.
Don't you believe in Liberty? Don't you want to save the children?
If enough people said mass suicide was the only way to "save the children," I fear millions would do it, whether a la Logan's Run or that terrible, terrible episode of Stargate. Who cares about details if it's about the kids...
Honestly...
Perhaps we should compaign to get another country to request google data.
Would create some controversy if Google was asked by another country to give data about US citizens (when in fact, the US gov is asking google for non-american data as well).
Would get a lot more voices involved.
How can the government argue that the porn site and/or terms searched for in Google would not be blocked by an appropriate filtering package on a machine? Just because an adult (presumably) searched for and found the midget pr0n they were looking for does not mean a kid at the library or at their house with a blocker program of some sort would be able to access that same site.
Isn't this really just a fishing expedition? The law they wanted to implement to protect children from porn was struck down by the Supreme Court.
Now, in an effort to get evidence that what they wanted to do isn't really in violation of the constitution, they want the chance to go on a fishing expedition and get the information they've been told they can't have.
So now the DOJ is saying they reject the right of Google to not furnish information to allow them to appeal the constitutional ruling which went against them?
So the DOJ is, in effect, saying that they require the search engines to provide the information they need to appeal a court ruling? (Which if enacted, would be the search engine's responsibility to implement.)
So, why is Google being forced to help make the government's case, when the SCOTUS has already told them they can't have it?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Well, this is NOT at all suprising. Americans are just about willing to give up their first born (pun) for security. One of my favorite political drivel is ".. for the children." For the children we have laws that raise property taxes and take away more individual freedom.
us constituation states "..people to be secure in their persons... " well... unless its "...for the children."
And in other news: Microsoft rejects Europe's monopoly concerns, conservatives reject liberals' pro-choice concerns, and suspected shooter rejects plaintiff's murder concerns.
I don't know why this article is all over the web recently. Lots of flashy words, but it says absolutely nothing that we didn't already know or expect.
This is not about Google fighting evil or privacy further eroded or power grabs unchecked or Federal government meddling in a not so free market and bullying the private corporate sector or even an attempt at a wedge strategy to refocus voters away from the corruption, lies, stealing and wholesale criminal activity taking place in the White House and Congress.
This is about a single core root issue which is a cancer spreading to other major failings and decomposition in American society and culture:
Parents failing and/or refusing to be a parent to their child.
Were people still being parents when they bred, they then would be the ones to guide and protect their children while instilling morals and positive values into them. Instead, those with children chose to have everything or anything but themselves rear their children or those without children foam at the mouth screaming not unlike any other extremely dangerous fanatic and with no foundation to stand on to begin with not being a parent.
This is the same moronic idiot driven mentality that brought us the 18th Amendment which introduced and solidified organized crime in America and was later repealed accomplishing nothing but giving birth to and nursing organized crime. Ignore the root and core issues and just keep making rules and legislation to fix nothing and accomplish nothing while sending people to prison to learn how to be a real criminal from real criminals. How many more fucking times do my fellow countrymen need to see failure repeated before we do something different that has a chance of fixing or succeeding?
Leave Google and private enterprise the fuck alone, the Internet will only evolve to cicumvent any failure voted into action by a group of corrupt degenerates with a long established history of failure and corruption. Censorship has never done well on the Internet. If you are even remotely concerned or worried about children and their future, then try putting pressure back on those who caused this problem: Those who should be parents to their children but are not. Start holding these people responsible who should be parents but are not, punish the child and their parents alike. When people who breed step up to once again be parents, this whole bullshit excuse "for the children" will quickly go away along with all the demands to further erode freedom and liberty and privacy while censoring everything under the sun as if that will make the reality of it go away.
Make parents be parents again.
Vote out ALL encumbents in 2006, it is time to clean up and move to the right direction again.
Google: A Patriot's Letter
Hell, even without that, it's no surprise that the DoJ would rule in its own favor. They've never been the most objective of agencies.
I'm assuming that you don't know the function of the DoJ. In the setting of the Court, they are the equivalent of a prosecutor. Outside that setting, the department also has control over federal law enforcement. Not quite the background of an impartial body, huh? But as an extension of the Executive branch, no one should assume that they are impartial.
Basically, the DoJ doesn't make rulings on cases - justices of the Court in the Judicial branch do that. The DoJ's role is to prosecute and/or represent the federal government in a Court setting.
This is not my sig.
> The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns
In an unrelated story, sexual abusers rejected children's concerns about abusers sliding hands down their pants and feeling around.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...At least not for the average googler(of course it is a privacy issue for google itself) The government is not asking for records of who searched for what. All they want is statistics on behavior of googlers as a whole with no identifying information.
That said, Google's real argument is that this puts on undue burden on them, the government has no reason to expect that this data is at all useful, this data, by the govenrment's admission, is not ment to be used as evidence, and that this data could be used to discover trade secrets.
Most people seem to be complaining that this is very bad because it violates their own privacy. It seems like it's very bad moreso because the government is abusing its power to force Google to give it information that may hurt its business most likely in order to use shotty science to further its religious conservative agenda.
Because even a heartless, soulless, lifeless legalistic construct like a corporation, shambling onwards by the power of pure undiluted greed of human heart and indulging the darkest desires of those same hearts just to satisfy its endless hunger for profits, chewing up its employees and then spitting them out when they have nothing left to give, and feeding babies poisoned milk substitute to grow fat on their mothers suffering, was once born from a human beings mind. Even an abomination like the corporation has its roots in human existence, and as such there is a limit on how low it might sink, hard as that might be to believe; and serving George W. Bush and the United States of America is too much for even the nonexistent morals of the twisted horror that is the corporation. They served Hitler, and they serve China, but serving Bush is abhorrent, even for these Lovecraftian horrors whose uncountable slimy tentacles are even now twisting around the world and spoiling everything they touch.
So, will I get more flamebait or troll mods ?-) And, if you mod me up... I'll be scared ;).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I know we don't see this used much, if ever, but I believe it is an important item. Congress can tell the SCOTUS to "butt out" when necessary.
Sorry for piggybacking on a non-related post, but I'm posting late and I want people to actually read this post.
The issue here is not that kiddie porn is bad; that is known. The issue is not that some people look at it; that is also known.
The issue is whether the DoJ has the right to compel a someone to disclose information without probable cause, nor related to an investigation, but for political reasons.
Can you, or anyone, please clarify that for me? I'm not familiar with whatever it is you're referring to.
Thanks.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/27/google_cen sors_us_video/
Google + ex-Carlyle Group guys = oh shit
... it is up to the SCOTUS to interpret that quote you just pasted :)
It's a bit of a round robin. The constituion says that Congress can give jurisdiction to a body other than the SCOTUS, but in order for that law to be upheld, the SCOTUS would have to rule on it's constituionality in the first place. In this case though, it would be hard to argue that this wording meant anything *else*. They would be pretty much be forced to agree.
However, just to point out - the point of this is basically to give power to the congress to appoint bi-partisan comittes to excercise judicial authority in special cases. It would most certainly never be excercized lightly.
It's way too easy for kids to get their hands on porn these days. When I was a kid, I used to have to go dumpster diving to find my porn.
The Justice Dept. is not prosecuting a crime, they are appealing a ruling. And the data from Google would not prove the DOJ's case (it is not direct evidence), but would rather assist in building circumstantial support for the case.
So why should Google be forced to comply? In such a proceeding it's not clear to me that the DOJ somehow has "greater" rights than any other appellate litigant. If I appeal some ruling someday, can I force Google to give up their trade secrets, on the basis that they might provide circumstantial support for my case?
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I've noticed that the news media report about the Justice Department as if it were some impartial and authoritative entitiy when it comes to non-criminal stuff.
When the AP reports that the Justice Dept. rejects Google's privacy concerns, it holds a lot of weight with the general public, as if it were some important and final ruling. Well, the Justice Dept. has to reject Google's privacy concerns, because they are essentially the "law firm" representing the other side.
It is important for people to understand that the Justice Dept is simply a cabinet-level organization beholden to the President of the United States. When it comes to non-criminal issues, they do nothing more than advocate for the side that the President is taking. Anything they issue is simply their opinion.
I'm not trying to imply that Slashdot members are dumb or don't know this, but the general public seems to not know this distinction and I am hoping to clear up any confusion some Slashdot members may have.
they have been very successful in capturing human traffickers. Anyone who mocks them truely does not care about vunerable people in our society and world.
This is a court case the Justice Department has lost at the Supreme Court level. They want to re-open discovery and take it against a third-party with no connection to the case. They want to, in their discovery, conduct a fishing expedition with no chance of proving what they claim they are looking for. (Google does not have any info on the age the people who search using their earch engine. How could they?)
China? I think you are thinking about Yahoo who helped China to silence a journalist. If you can find Google doing the same thing in China that they are not doing in this case in the U.S., please let us know. Until then, your twisted sexual fantasies need some work.
Furthermore, the situation is quite a bit different in China in that everyone knows that the government fully monitors Internet usage and doing so is not a violation of the law, as the Chinese government has no Bill of Rights to uphold. The way the Bush administration spits on the Bill of Rights in the U.S., I think you have your villains mixed up.
The same administration that is sending young Americans to fight, die and be tortured overseas. And they're worrying about whether or not those same children are seeing people fuck? This Totalitarian government you idiots voted for is screwin you over methinks?
I am the parent of 2 children who access the Internet, supervised (Not hovering 24/7 rather follow-up about what they used the Internet for etc in addition to checking logs etc). I setup their computers in their own subnet and in their router (hard wired with no WiFi to hook into another network and circumvent my policies) I setup a blacklist to the common domains for the most common hits out of a google search for the most common keywords for undesirable subjects. I then hedge my bets using local filtering software installed on non-admin accounts so no changes/installs can be done. If they have questions and concerns, they come to see me as not only the administrator of the network but as the parent who provides guidance in using and understanding this medium and powerhouse of information. Foolproof? Hell no I am sure if I wanted I could find ways to circumvent everything I have done as anybody in the industry knows security is an illusion. But, I temper that with again being a parent and keeping my children educated and informed with comfort in an open door for their questions and concerns to be answered fully and honestly.
Someday my children will have full access to reality, and I am confident they will be ready for that day having built confidence and knowledge tempered with guidance.
Vote out *ALL* encumbents and Google: A Patriot's Letter
http://www.lp.org/
You're both going to burn in hell!
Sucks!
The US government wants Google to help them censor the web (by providing user info). The US government is also criticizing Google for helping the Chinese government censor the web (by restricting search results).
I don't have to consider political dissidence morally equivalent to pornography (NOT child porn, as others have pointed out) in order to object to this. All I need is a healthy regard for the principle of free speech, which famously protects American pornographers and Neo-Nazis alike.
The government is appealing to the ideal free speech in its criticism of Google's China shenanigans. At the same time, the government is discounting that same ideal in its pursuit of anti-porn laws. Thus the charge of hypocrisy.
"Why can't they just ask Google for a list of keywords that they think might fall in the border areas between obscene and non-obscene results, and then ask for permission to run a simulation on them from the DOJ headquarters? The answer? Power."
If you were following this case, you'd know that originally, the DOJ showed search results using key words they made up themselves. But the courts said that wasn't good enough. They wanted to see what people were actually typing in. So now the DOJ wants anonymous search keywords and results because the courts asked for them. Google isn't protecting your privacy as much as their search algorithms.
Vote for Pedro
I agree.. It dosen't make any sense from this simple context. If all they want is randomized search requests they could use the Google API to generate them just as easily (if not easier) than what they're currently proposing. There must be a 'foot in the door' type alterior motive here.
/go google
Give them the illusion of choice and they will blindly follow for they choose not to make one.
Philip K Dickhead writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns over a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests on privacy grounds. The department claims this will help revive an online child protection law that the Supreme Court has blocked, by proving that Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography online. A federal court hearing is scheduled in San Jose, California, March 13th."
OK, why is this being allowed? I mean the law was shot down...the government is over-stepping their bounds. Besides, it is a PARENTS job to protect their kids from the internet, LIKE only letting the surf safe sites and supervising, (as in actually sitting there at the screen with them) as they surf. That's what I do. I wish Uncle Sam would stop trying to use my job as an excuse to rape our civil liberties.
Not a geek just looking for one.
If Google gives in to this. I'm never using thier service again.
Why then you must be an old guy. We were more robust back then. We were exposed to the likes of titties and communism and D.H. Lawrence and we grew up just fine. Kids today are so fragile, probably ought to be kept in bubbles with variable transparency/opacity programmed to go opaque when exposed to danger.
Loose lips lose spit.
"Remember people, looking at porn as a child makes you act like a bitch and an alcoholic cokehead as an adult."
Don't stop there, tell us more about yourself.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
They won't be getting any info on the people searching, meaning it will be impossible for them to determine who is an adult and who is a child.
Hence, they would take the next step, and have the identifying info required. And if a court saw Google giving away info without the indetification, they would figure it would be okay for them to add the identifying info, because it's "just one more little step".
If this was rating Funny, instead of Interesting, I'd have passed it by. The Justice Dept isn't looking for kids searching for porn (at least not yet), they're looking for people searching for porn with kids in it. Now if the parent poster had said that s/he had participated in the porn industry as a child, then it would have been Interesting...
Of course, as someone else mentioned, this is really just the Republican administration fishing for a topic that they can use for election fodder, and of course, the Justice Dept, as part of the administration, is going to argue that Google's privacy concerns are immaterial and unfounded. I'm sure that J. Edgar Hoover had a similar defense of his FBI's policy of spying on Americans.
Isn't that the same kind of "little step" as the one from Gay Marriage to Underage Polygamous Incestual Marriage?
I understand that everyone has "needs"; But what is G.W.'s fetish about a childs left behind?
I feel obliged to point out that I find it absurd that "protecting" me from pornography is considered important enough to violate the privacy of random citizens
Frosty piss posts are worthless, GNAA posts are worthless and hurtful, but they are the least of this site's neuroses.
>> ... exposed to images of the naked breasts, and even obscene images of female genitalia.
>> I support this for my child! She deserves better!
> You're joking, right?
You tell me?
Since the Justice Department had no problem getting the search records of MSN and Yahoo!, they ought to be able to prove their case without the Google records.
And what they are trying to do is to invalidate a Supreme Court decision all ready made in hopes that this new Court will rule their way when their case comes up again (as it will).
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Since the current cadge/cabal is stating this is about anti-porn legislation, then Google, Yahoo!, msn, and the others -- if they were smart-- shoulda just said, "OK, non-commie Sammie, this is about porn, right? OK, then the PORN search is ALL YOU'RE GONNA FUCKIN' GET! NOthing else, zip, zilch, nada, go FUCK yourself..."
How difficult is that? Or, they ought to move the servers off shore.
No, they don't give a rat about porn. The real agenda is about scrounging around in the dark to find metadata to help fight the war on ter'rism, a fucking war these blights in power brought on cuz most of us DON'T VOTE (well, cuz we lost faith in the system beyond the local government level, and don't even have much faith in THAT, beyond basic stuff like fire and medical response...)
Sheesh. Just stop pissing off foreigners who DON'T want our money, business, buildings, values... LEAVE'M **ALONE***! Let the current elders die off, and if it takes 50 years, SO BE IT. They kids, out of jealousy, eagerness, longing, whatever, will then get to make the decision. It is NOT the place of US DOD or Washington or the US corporate/elite to MAKE that decision. THAT'S ONE reason we got our asses fragged-- by radicals talking for others without the balls to tell us where to get off...
I guess I 'm gonna get MY ass fragged/bitten, huh?
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Followup:
Besides, they've STILL got whatever echelon and carnivor morphed into. All this legislation is about posturing the issues to get the blind public to just HAND OVER to the "government" all kinds of power it neither needs nor deserves.
WE -- not the oligarchy/elites-- are supposed to set the standards for how we are governed. But, we've lost sight, and we'll pay oh so dearly for it. Unless our adoptive uncle bends over backwards to prove we're not descending into a draconian, state-security-ridden hell. Prove, Uncle, that we're not becoming the things you so much loath about China, Venezuela, Cuba, Old Russia, "Old Europe"... -- without politically imprisoning or "rubbing out" those who try to warn the public....
I thought so....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Seems to me not accepting the .xxx TLD is one step further from implementing simple easy filters in that regard.
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
Why are Google even archiving our searches? Ok. That we know. "To help us make searching better." Understandable.
:-( Add to this their sellout to the Chinese Government. Yeah. The Honeymoon is definitely over.
And I'm even sure that they declare they do this somewhere in their "Privacy" Statement. (Although funny how "Privacy Statements" usually tell you that you have none.)
But if, on their front page they said "By The Way: We Remember Everything you search for" I would have found another search engine.
Yeah! Thanks Google!
I've waited for what I am about to mention to be considered, I have not seen it so I will bring it up. The request for information by the government is going to be allowed because no private information is being asked for. Actually, the exact wording legalistically speaking (in order to be legal), requires Google to remove all personally identifiable information that may be attached to this info. That is a major undertaking for Google to review all that data and assure that no where in all that data is there any identfiable information. And one slip up by Google might leave Google open to law suits by those who have their personal info released by complying. Many may say "oh poor Google"..."They will have to spend a small fortune to comply". But these requests have been sent out to a lot of "data collectors" Technically if organizations with the public good as an agenda begin finding identifiable info in a lot of this info from all these companies; class action lawsuits could cripple a large number of computer tech organizations. Hey; there is even a search function on this site. Despite the best attempts some searches themselves contain identifiable info. Any idea how much finding such data in their files would cost a company ? Has anyone ever searched yours or my user name here, or on Google, or all the rest of the search engines. Not to mention real names and searches for addresses and phone numbers. This is endless. The first Lawyer that reads this post will have eyes brighter than a laser.
MYSTERY
Man, you Google-haters *love* to try to use the "but teh chinks is evil!" argument.
I'm indignant with Google, but don't call me a racist because of that. What if *I* am Chinese?
$META_SIG_JOKE