Google Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Child Porn

skinfaxi writes "Filed in New York, Jeffrey Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links." From the article: "The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial. It also accuses Google of violating federal statutes relating to child pornography and calls for the court to order that Google cease "advertising, promoting, or distributing" child pornography through its site or otherwise providing any links to such content."

Comments

Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

Wow...Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz managed to fit human rights in China, child pornography, and availabilty of porn to children in one sentence. A veritable trifecta of outrage.

From the above quote, you might get the idea that Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz earn a large percentage of their income from spurious lawsuits based upon righteous indignation. A quick glance at their litigation history would seem to bear out this assumption.

Again, from TFA:

Other recent lawsuits filed by the firm have sought at least $10 million for alleged sex discrimination against Atlantic City, N.J., casino cocktail waitresses and $600 million from the maker of an ephedra-based dietary supplement claimed to cause the death of a Baltimore Orioles pitcher.

Now, I'm against child porn as much as the next guy (or most of them, anyway), but this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.

Just one more quote from TFA:

Toback, the politician backing the action, describes himself in his biography on Nassau County's Web site as a "quality of life guy" who has focused on legislation promoting open space and recreational areas. He has also co-sponsored a law designed to protect teenagers from tanning beds and has planned this year to pursue a ban of toy guns in the area.

Oh, that's right....it's an election year.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Tackhead]

> Won't *somebody* think of the children???

Well, that is the problem here, isn't it?

/one ticket to hell, please.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[C0R1D4N]

"Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children" Wait...what? Kids are looking up kiddy porn?

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Gulik]

Wow...Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz managed to fit human rights in China, child pornography, and availabilty of porn to children in one sentence. A veritable trifecta of outrage.

It's actually a bit surprising that they missed terrorists.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[aberrantvirtue]

...and Hitler.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[bubblesonx]

Hey, kids have desires too, you know. :eek:

*recalls the lecture in Human Sexuality on fetal masturbation*

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Firehed]

The terrorists are the ones with adsense on their child porn sites. It's implied. Duh!

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

['nother poster]

Oh gods yes! Boatloads. Tankerloads! Want a few? Their free. Can't beat the price.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[LordOfTheNoobs]

... and cloned Hitlers that are terrorists.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[BakaHoushi]

That's because terrorists make money in the "regular" porn business. What did you think those sexy co-eds took their tops off for money, did you?

Remember, everytime you masturbate to porn, a terrorist beheads an infidel. Won't somebody PLEASE think of the Heathens?!

But in all seriousness, these guys are just your typical ambulance chasing sacks of crap who should be disbarred. In fact, I can think of a number of problems in America that would get so much better if we could disbar lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits... Either that, or just use them as anchors. Whichever is easier and/or more entertaining.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[joe 155]

It is interesting to note that the best way to filter out child porn, in my eyes, would be to create the ".xxx" domain name for all pornography (defining it would be hard but so long as a sensible line is taken it'll be ok). Then someone could be in charge of ensuring that all the girls on the sites are over 18. This seems so obvious i don't get why they haven't already done it. They don't even really need the ".xxx", they could just start a wide spread well resourced acrediting scheme, well resourced with enough staff... why do people who claim to care about the children always try to block the best way to do it... or is it because it would cost money?

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[spun]

Sounds like someone needs to start voting Libertarian. ;-)

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Jaysyn]

Anchors get my vote.

Jaysyn

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[computational super]

Yes, good idea. If there's one thing you can count on child pornographers to do, it's to obey the letter of the law.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Jazu]

What I wonder is, if society think so much about the innocence of children, would we have fewer people jerking off to it?

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[arivanov]

http://www.sinfest.net/comics/sf20060505.gif. Yep. We are definitely thinking of them. Loudly.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[LnxAddct]

In addition to the other reasons listed in the above replies, 18 is the age of consent in the U.S. It varies from country to country, there is no way to enforce that law. Politicians need to stay off the net.
Regards,
Steve

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[stunt_penguin]

Someone should hand these people some spare underwear and point out that every one of their homes is a potential terrorist target because of the useful mapping information given out by local.google.com!

OMFG!!1!! these paedos can see our HOUSES.

Whiney assed dumbshits, all of them.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[rpbird]

I vote for anchors. There's the entertainment factor to consider.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[faloi]

It's actually a bit surprising that they missed terrorists.
 
That's because it's a Democrat bringing this forward. They can't afford to admit there's a problem with terrorism in an election year, otherwise the "War on Terror" is almost validated.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Atzanteol]

.xxx.us? .kids.us? .xxx.uk? .kids.uk? I could see it working if countries take these things under their wings a bit and apply local standards to them. Not that I'd want the standards *enforced for all* per se, but give folks the option. Why must we abuse the TLDs?

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Nehmo]

If you hear "child" or "children" in something legal, 99 out of a 100, it's a scam. People are afraid to stand against somebody who uses these words. They fear they will be looked upon as anti-child. The scam artists take advantage of this fear. -- (||) Nehmo (||)

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Kjella]

In fact, I can think of a number of problems in America that would get so much better if we could disbar lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits... Either that, or just use them as anchors. Whichever is easier and/or more entertaining.

Well, unless you want to give up some very fundamental rights you'd need to get them convicted in a court of law first. I think beating lawyers at their own game, particularly the bullshit-o-matics that make frivilous lawsuits is going to be anything but easy...

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[billcopc]

"protect teenagers from tanning beds"

Okay, so who's the defense attorney for the tanning beds ? Seriously, this is exactly the kind of legal abuse that needs to be stopped. Court is not about getting a judge to choose whether your beliefs are right or wrong. Court is about protecting a victim and punishing its wrongdoer. Joe Random Lawyer suing someone who is not a creator or distributor of child porn, awarding damages to who ? The law firm of course.. not the victims. If Google is evil for profitting from these web sites, then Joe Lawyer is even worse for profitting from the sensationalism surrounding child pornography. They are no different. Neither of them is helping to resolve the essential problem of child abuse.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of the children???

[Popcorn Dave]

"but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

How many kids are online downloading child porn? Don't most kids just do the lo-tech thing and play doctor?

What a tool. If this wasn't an election year, I'd just think story this was one of those idiotic news specials that 20/20 or their ilk run to scare the populous of sheep.

So you were searching for child porn?

[666penvzila]

The ads typically reflect the sites that show up in your search.

Non-starter

[Billosaur]

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic. In China, the government makes and breaks the rules at will, so when they tell Google "ban searches for 'X' or else," Google complies. In the US, legislation is required to ban something and it has to meet the "rigorous" standards of law. See below.

A Google representative said Friday that the company prohibits child pornography in its products and removes all such content whenever the company finds or is made aware of it. "We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials and fully cooperate with the law enforcement community to combat child pornography," spokesman Steve Langdon said in an e-mail interview.

Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.

The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good faith to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

So, in the end, while their cause is just and I think all of us can agree that child pornography is an abomination, the fact is that laws have been passed stating the circumstances required for a company to avoid being charged with a crime for promoting child pornography, and Google is complying. Whether you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. This is a lot of wasted time and effort. Hopefully this lawsuit will be struck down and the anti-child-porn people can get back to helping children who are victims of this and hunting down the assholes who make it available and do these despicable things.

Re:Non-starter

[Hognoxious]

The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic.

I must have missed the memo about those being mutually exclusive. Someone tell us, what does the R in PRC stand for again? Is it the same as the one in USSR?

Re:Non-starter

[uniqueUser]

I think you and TripMaster pretty much wrapped this one up.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

Re:Non-starter

[TripMaster Monkey]

Well, just because a country calls itself a republic doesn't mean that it is...after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...

Re:Non-starter

[rolfwind]

The cause isn't just, it's made for personal gain, using "child porn" as the excuse and serves to put future, legitimate concerns of this nature in contempt. Warning bells should come as soon as it was said google made "billions of dollars" off this specific criminal enterprise - propaganda and exaggeration is perhaps tools for the con artist here.

Re:Non-starter

[mcc]

The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic.

They're working on that.

Re:Non-starter

[Richard Steiner]

The "R" in PRC is about as meaningful as the second "D" in the old DDR ("Deutsche Demokratische Republik").

Re:Non-starter

[thrillseeker]

after all, the United States calls itself a democracy

Slept through Civics class, I see ...

Re:Non-starter

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Not a republic, are you perhaps suggesting Bush has taken on the title of King Bush?

But since I can make a guess at what you really meant; It seems to me the United States likes to call itself a democracy, while technically true it would be more accurate imo to call it a federal republic with a efficiently two-party system. Not something I'd consider a 'democracy'.

Re:Non-starter

[TripMaster Monkey]

are you perhaps suggesting Bush has taken on the title of King Bush?

Given that Bush has repeatedly and persistently held himself to be above the law, suggesting that would be an excercise in redundancy.

Re:Non-starter

[BVis]

More like "paid attention". Leaving aside the rampant corruption and greed that makes our puported representative democracy a sad farce, remember that the people don't elect the president, the electoral college does.

The members of the electoral college are under no obligation to vote the same way a majority of their constituents voted. The fact that they almost always has doesn't change anything.

Re:Non-starter

[DragonWriter]

A republic is simply a government order whose head of state is not a monarch; the PRC is certainly a "Republic". Now its not a "Democratic Republic" like, e.g., the US. But you don't have to be at all democratic to be a Republic.

Re:Non-starter

['nother poster]

Yes, the Electoral College does elect the President of the United States. The members of the EC are sent by their representative states governments. Each state has their own rules on how their representatives are to cast their votes. Some require that their EC members follow popular vote, and others don't. This was done so that a few states with large populations couldn't make smaller states irrelivant in national politics. If you don't like the manner in which your state nominates their EC members and their voting requirements get stumping to have your laws changed.

Re:Non-starter

[rainman_bc]

.after all, the United States calls itself a democracy...

Where 60.7% voted in 2004, and 50% of those elect a president. 30% of your population picks your leader.

And it's always a two party race. Do I vote far to the right, or right of center? No sense in voting center or a little left leaning, because they don't stand a chance.

Make no mistake, the US is a plutocracy now, more than a democracy. It's about who donates to an election campaign, not just the voters now.

Re:Non-starter

[Richard Steiner]

Hmmm. I was falsely associating the term "republic" with some form of representative democracy, but that apparently isn't a requirement.

Re:Non-starter

[larkost]

But you are completely forgetting that we are a Representative Democracy with regards to our federal lawmakers... it is only in the Executive Branch that we are a (more or less) Republic... The Judicial Branch... well that is a bit from both columns...

Re:Non-starter

[larkost]

When you compare our political parties to those in other countries (Israel and Austria come to my mind), you really do have to admit that neither the Republicans or the Democrats are that far off the center as a whole. There are some who are farther... but they are still pretty tame in comparison.

Oh... and unlike Italy, I don't think we have had a former porn star in out Congress/Parliment.

Re:Non-starter

[OwnedByTwoCats]

George III is as George III does.

He has asserted the authority to change the plain text of any law that Congress presents to him, in signing statements.

He has asserted the authority to waive parts of the Bill of Rights: habeas corpus

Re:Non-starter

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The members of the EC are sent by their state governments... unless it's 2000, in which case the Supreme Court gets to butt in.

Re:Non-starter

[Potatomasher]

The Republic (think ewoks, protocol droids, etc) was also a republic.
And look at all the good that came out of it !

Re:Non-starter

[HarvardAce]

as the second "D" in the old DDR ("Deutsche Demokratische Republik").

And here I was, I thought the D in DDR stood for "Dance."

Re:Non-starter

[menace3society]

So what about the People's Democratic Republic of Korea?

Re:Non-starter

[TheNetAvenger]

Not a republic, are you perhaps suggesting Bush has taken on the title of King Bush?

Technically, when the US Congress gave permission to the President to declare war without further consulting them, which is actually a power they can't give up, it installed a monarchal set of powers for the President. Not to mention that the intelligence that was given to the Congress in making this decision was 'filtered' and even 'altered', meaning the Whitehouse had access to CIA and FBI information, as well as reports from foreign agencies that the congress NEVER got to see at the time.

There are a few books on this, how it breaks the constitution, even in a '9/11' era, the president cannot make the decision in the context he did and was allowed to do.

This is just one example of a Monarchal power the president has not only taken but used illegally.

He also was installed by the Supreme Court, which is also against US 'republic' law. He wasn't elected, he managed to get the vote count suppressed before it would have shown he lost Florida, which is what the post election counts have shown repeatedly.

So king? Maybe... Lets see if he gives up his job at the end of his term or try to institute a state of emergency or martial law suspending the Presidential elections in 2008.

But this is something for the constitution attorneys to debate and bring to the public's attention, since the Media isn't focusing on the long term repercussions of the Monarchial powers Bush and his administration are using.

We could even talk about Cheney's Halliburton profits, which are ILLEGAL as well, and a form of financial profiting that is banned because of its relation to Monarchies and why our constitution and amendments prevent this.

Now to clarify some items and express my opinion on the article.

The things being alleged about Google are VERY damming, and it HAS nothing to do with the US being a republic and China being a communist state. (Which isn't technically true either.)

Child porn is illegal in the US, and easy to define. PERIOD.

Just like using 'democracy' in publications in China is illegal and apparently a law Google is MORE willing to uphold. It should also be mentioned that the freedom of speech constraints in China have less legal merit and are 'less' defined than the Child Porn laws in the US.

Filtering Child Porn in the US is something that is assumed Google would have been doing because it does break the LAW in the US.

Now add in the fact that Google was not filtering, which is one thing as there are a lot of sites that easily fool search engines. However not filtering searches is one thing, but making money from Child Porn advertisers is another thing on a grander level.

The big story is that it is being established they were making 'revenue' from Child Porn Site ads.

Advertisers for banners, etc from Google and most other onsite companies, require a process of approval to be accepted to become an advertiser. I have seen clients get 'denied' the ability to advertise on Google banner ads for some of the most stupid reasons, so now to learn that Child Porn sites were 'approved' is even more egregious.

BTW China is an economic state of capitalism but is a communism state for social policies. (The same could 'technically' be said of the US, Social Security, banning Marihuana, etc.)

So the argument that the difference in Google's policies is related to the country of business is not valid. Breaking laws is breaking laws.

Now I'm willing to let this play out and see what is found in discovery, etc. I am NOT a fan of Google's business practices, and as I have said many times, they make MS's tactics look less evil. However, the deserve the right to defend themselves on this, they would have had a 'pervert' manager approving these business activities and it is not some that was known or a company policy to allow.

Heck look at Homeland Security, two major figures were charged with child solicitation and expo

Re:Non-starter

['nother poster]

Yes, but all the Supreme Court did was rule that the count at that time was to be the official count. They did not get to rule who won the election, just that the recounts were over and that Florida had to apply their laws to their EC members. I don't remember if Florida law requires their EC members to follow popular vote or not. I believe they do, or it would have been a fairly moot point. If the SCOTUS hadn't ruled, we could still be counting those ballots today, and that would be worse than either of the candidates winning.

Re:Non-starter

[teal_]

I have a feeling you're referring to our presidential elections which are, for all intents and purposes, open only to highly centralized ubiquitous parties that represent nobody. It's inevitable since they have to average out all of the population's whims and views in order to get the maximum number of votes.

Disregard the presidential elections. The real democracy starts at the school boards in your local township. From there it moves up to state offices, all the way up to governor, senator, and finally president. These latter three are not the real democracy, it's the former that are.

The house of representatives is also real democracy, each district votes in the person that best represents the views of a group of people concentrated in one area of the country. All in all I think that works pretty well.

For all its faults, our government is still the best in the world. That's right, for a country this big, so diverse in its population, it's the best in the world. People immediately jump on me when I say this and say "Ohh, but look at Sweden, they do great with their socialist government!" yeah well that's easy when you're small homogenous society where everybody looks and thinks the same way. Try that approach when you have to reconcile the differences between Billy Bob in Alabama and Berkeley hippies. Oh, and BTW, Sweden is collapsing thanks to its absurd immigration policies, but that's another story for another time.

Winston Churchill said something to this effect: democracy is horrible way to run a country. It's just better than everything else that's been tried.

Quite right.

Another favourite from him:

With capitalism, the blessings are distributed unequally. In socialism/communism, the misery is shared amongst all.

Re:Non-starter

[warrior_s]

The difference being that China is a Communist state, while the United States is a Republic.

Oh come on now ... haven't you heard about Peoples * Republic * of China. ;)

Re:Non-starter

[Richard Steiner]

Or "data" (as in DDR RAM). :-)

Re:Non-starter

[iced_773]

He's George III. You forgot either Washington or Bush Sr.

Re:Non-starter

[rainman_bc]

Although the acting from Ronald Regan was about the quality of some porn stars though hehe... ^_^

Re:Non-starter

[martian265]

Actually, it's the Electoral Voters that elect the President, not the people (while the Electoral Voters usually vote the way that the populous decides, there are many instances in our history where they did not). Since there are currently only 538 Electoral Voters and the population is around 299 million (rounded up of course), that means that less than a thousandth of a percent vote for our President.

If you're going to insult our backwards legal/political system (which directly or indirectly contributed to so many other countries legal/political systems, I can't find a reference, so I won't throw out percentages) then at least get your facts straight.

P.S. I wish I could argue that the US isn't truly a Plutocracy, but I'm not that blind...err patriotic.

Re:Non-starter

[ebyrob]

Given that Bush has repeatedly and persistently held himself to be above the law, suggesting that would be an excercise in redundancy.

Well, when (and if) he's wrong about Congress overstepping the constitution, it's really the judicial branch's job to fix that. (There's a reason a 3-way balance of power was chosen in this country, 2-legged tripods don't stand up very long...)

I'll start to worry he's trying to become a king when he's not gone in 2008.

Re:Non-starter

[idonthack]

Before Germany was reunited, East Germany was known as the "Deutsche Demokratische Republik". That's right - the one where you were shot on sight for attempting to escape the country. They were about as "Demokratische" as the Nazis, but that didn't keep them from pretending to pretend.

Re:Non-starter

[Grishnakh]

People immediately jump on me when I say this and say "Ohh, but look at Sweden, they do great with their socialist government!" yeah well that's easy when you're small homogenous society where everybody looks and thinks the same way. Try that approach when you have to reconcile the differences between Billy Bob in Alabama and Berkeley hippies.

Right. That's why we need to split up the country instead of continuing to force Billy Bob and the Berkeley hippies to live together.

The same situation exists in Iraq, and it's a mess. There's three main groups, and they all hate each other. So why do they have to be part of the same country? Just because the stupid British drew the national boundaries back during WWI? Splitting up the country into three would solve the internal problems quickly. In addition, the Kurds need to be given the Kurdish territories in Turkey; to hell with what the rest of Turkey wants.

If groups of people don't want to live together, they shouldn't have to.

Re:Non-starter

[oatworm]

Signing statements don't change anything; they are only a written interpretation of what he *thinks* the law means when he signs it. The idea is to give the SCOTUS something else to draw from other than legislative opinion when determining the purpose of a law. In other words, they're about as legally binding as a friend-of-the-court brief, which is 'not very'.

Re:Non-starter

[irablum]

So, in the end, while their cause is just and I think all of us can agree that child pornography is an abomination, the fact is that laws have been passed stating the circumstances required for a company to avoid being charged with a crime for promoting child pornography, and Google is complying. Whether you agree with how the law is worded is a separate issue. This is a lot of wasted time and effort. Hopefully this lawsuit will be struck down and the anti-child-porn people can get back to helping children who are victims of this and hunting down the assholes who make it available and do these despicable things.

Is the cause just? is child pornography an abomination? You might think so. personally, there are 2 classes of child pornography:

pictures depicting people who have not yet reached puberty either nude, or performing sexual acts. The nude ones, to me, don't reach the level of pornography in that they don't turn me on. The sexual acts thing is pretty shamefull, and should probably be outlawed, but its really not my business.

The second type of "child pornography" is really not child pornography at all. Its a question of where do you draw the line. 18 years old? 16? 14? 20? As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what the age of the model is in the picture as long as she(he?it?) gets well paid for the service and gets to use that money the way she wants. The argument that says, "girls under 18 are not mature enough to make intelligent decisions about their bodies" are using an arbitrary number which was made up to make people believe that there is a certain age where girls suddenly stop being stupid enough to pose naked. This is not true, as the "Girls Gone Wild" craze and the "MILF" craze has shown us, girls will expose themselves at age 19 or age 39.

Am I being callous? would I want MY kids to be in a porn video? No and no. But my kids have no interest in that kind of thing. I know this because I ask them about sex. Repeatedly. Why? because when kids get interested in sex they go look for answers. From me or from porn (hopefully from me first, but hey, better late than never). Hell, if my 16 year old wants to look at porn, I'd rather he look at naked pictures of 14-17 year old girls than naked pictures of 60 year old women, or even worse, pictures of women who are the age of his mother. (but, then again, is it my place to judge?)

The problem is that child pornography isn't the problem. Its child abuse. Its not abuse to take a picture of a naked child. Its abuse to shove vegetables (or penises) up his/her ass. Once that distinction is made then we can stop hunting around blindly and start catching the people who purpetuate violence against children (be it sexual violence or harmfull violence).

Ira

Re:Non-starter

[RexRhino]

I would say it is more of a Klepotracy now, since the U.S. government consumes more GDP than supposedly "socialist" countries like Sweden. (35% for U.S. federal government, 28% for Sweden)

Re:Non-starter

[Eivind]

There's a rule:

Countries never are those things that they claim in their names.

The Peoples Republic of China

I'll concede they're China, but that's it, they're definitely neither a Republic, nor controlled by "the people"

Deutsche Demokratische Republic

Again, they qualify as "Deutsch", but where definitely neither a Republic, nor Democratic.

Try it for yourself. If a country has "republic" or "democratic" in the official name, it's usually a sure sign that they're not.

Re:Non-starter

[Eivind]

Not a republic, are you perhaps suggesting Bush has taken on the title of King Bush?

Depends on your criteria.

Bush is elected, sort of. I mean, the other guy got more votes (by anyones count!) and the so-called election-system is basically the least democratic you could come up with even if you tried, and increasingly controlled by private companies that refuse to tell you how they count your votes, and an increasing fraction of Americans are prohibited from voting, for example for stealing a single pair of gloves from a garage.

But still, let's accept he is, atleast nominally, 'democratically' elected.

The Norwegian king plainly ain't democratically elected. But on the other hand, his powers are a *LOT* smaller than those of Bush. His actual power is limited to one thing, and one thing only: He can veto a new law. In which case the law goes back to parliament for reconsideration. If the parliament votes in favour of the law a second time, the law passes, the king can't veto the law a second time.

So, his powers are limited to being able to say: "I demand that you consider this law a second time!"

He hasn't actually done so, ever, as far as I know anyway.

Re:Non-starter

[Guppy06]

"In China, the government makes and breaks the rules at will, so when they tell Google "ban searches for 'X' or else," Google complies."

However, if Google can comply with the Chinese demands, it shows they are also capable of doing the same with illegal material in the United States as well.

"In the US, legislation is required to ban something"

News flash: child porn is illegal in the United States.

"Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results."

That's nice, except that child pornography goes beyond "offensive" and into the realm of "illegal." The laws don't say "You can't have child pornography unless you intended to look for it," so the ability to activate SafeSearch, regardless of its effectiveness, doesn't change things.

"the fact is that laws have been passed stating the circumstances required for a company to avoid being charged with a crime for promoting child pornography, and Google is complying."

It all hinges on the phrase "good faith" in the law, and I can see the case being made that, if Google is willing to go to extent X for Beijing, then anything less in the United States shouldn't be considered "good faith."

I can see this as being similar to the net neutrality debate, as Google is treating the laws of one country differently than the laws of another, depending on which action is more profitable. With China, Google has shown their hand with their ability and desire to censor their results to comply with government demands, yet over here they get to claim something akin to common carrier protections? If it were BellSouth instead of Google, Slashdotters would be siding with the lawsuit.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander; Google should be required to apply the same standards in both countries. Google doesn't want information to be free.

Re:Non-starter

[Grishnakh]

No, it's the Kurds' territory. Who are you, or anyone else for that matter, to tell them what country they have to belong to?

Re:Non-starter

[Hognoxious]

I was falsely associating the term "republic" with some form of representative democracy

Which was my point exactly. They are independent 'dimensions', and all four combinations exist in practice: Britain (Democracy, but not a Republic), Germany (D,R), North Korea (not D, R), Saudia Arabia (not D, not R).

Re:Non-starter

[Grishnakh]

I think your ideas about ownership are ridiculous in the extreme.

Territories belong, morally, to the people that live there, not to some political entity that claims them. Was the US right to force thousands of Native Americans to move in the 1800s simply because they were an inconvenience? Of course not; they had lived there far longer than the European descendents had.

Same goes for the Kurds. They live there, and they've lived there for a long time. Just because they happen to sit on oil fields is no excuse for Turkey to claim that land and tell the Kurds they can't leave if they don't want to.

What the hell does fighting for land have to do with having an opinion? You seem to think it would be ok for me to come to your house and kill you so I can claim that land. Is that ok if me and my comrades kill you? After all, if we want that land, and are willing to fight for it, shouldn't we be allowed to keep it? This is exactly what you're saying about the Turks.

And how the hell does me expressing my opinion qualify as "arrogant"? You sound rather arrogant to me.

Re:Non-starter

[Grishnakh]

My claim is very simple: the land belongs to the people that live on it. How hard is that to understand? And how can you debate that from any moral standpoint?

My understanding, from what I've read in the press, is that that part of Turkey is currently occupied by Kurds. I also understand that there is significant oil there, from what I've read in the press (you're the only person I've seen say there's no oil there).

I've not read anywhere that Turks used to live there. Even if they did at some time in the past, they must have left because it's currently occupied mostly by Kurds. Therefore, it's their land now, and they should be allowed to do what they want with it, even if it means forming a separate country. After all, that worked for the US back in the 1700s, why not them?

Re:Non-starter

[Grishnakh]

So it still sounds like you're admitting that the Kurds are a majority in the south-eastern part, correct?

If so, it's simple. Take a vote of the people in that particular region. If they want independence, give it to them. What happened 1000 years ago really isn't very important. Kurds in other parts of Turkey aren't important here either, since they're not a majority.

Who am I? Someone who believes people should be free to choose their own destiny, instead of being oppressed.

Re:Non-starter

[Grishnakh]

Try "I'm a majority in my house, so I'm morally entitled to total independence on this piece of land my house sits on. I will no more pay taxes!" line and tell me how it works.

That's a rather silly analogy. Besides, your house wouldn't do you much good if your government decided to cut off all the benefits of society at the borders of your property: power, water, trash removal, etc., erected a wall so you couldn't actually leave your driveway to go buy food, and then didn't protect you from any burglars. An independent state separating from another country isn't quite the same; they don't usually depend on the rest of the country for essential things which they can't do themselves.

Just being majority in a single region doesn't mean that you can declare independence from your country, especially if there are other groups living close.

Sure it does. It's happened many times in history; the USA is a good example, as are many other former colonies that have achieved independence. There were still loyalists to the Crown here when we declared independence, but they were a minority.

The land doesn't have to be "exclusively" Kurdish, just a significant majority. No place has a 100% homogenous population of people living in it; that's an unrealistic and silly requirement.

You seem to be saying that a minority should be allowed to dictate what the majority does.

Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[darkstar949]

Unsurprisingly this line appears in the article:

The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.

However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money. So this makes me more inclined to think that it is not "for the children" but rather "for the money".

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[Chris Burke]

Won't somebody think of the money?!

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[tomhudson]

Who will get the money? Well, the lawyers.

After all, once Jeffrey Toback wins (fat chance), then HE'LL be the one who ultimately profited from child pr0n, and we can sue him ...

And then someone else can sue us ...

Repeat until the lawyers have ALL the money.

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[TubeSteak]

Well... since "Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public", I imagine the public would be getting the money.

I mean, the public and the lawyers.

The guy filing the lawsuit is a public official, so it isn't like he's personally going to get cash from the lawsuit.

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[mobby_6kl]

>Won't somebody think of the money?!

Don't worry, I've got that asspect covered, too.

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[voice_of_all_reason]

The public, of course. Right?

Sure, it'd be an unprecedented travesty of justice for google to start censoring searches in the US. But a fat rebate-style check to all 300 million americans would sort of take the sting away :)

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[segfault_0]

Regardless of who gets the money, be assured the lawyers get theirs. The politician just gets free advertising.

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[TubeSteak]

Actually, to correct my statement, someone linked to another article which quotes the guy as saying

Toback said a lawsuit was his only alternative because Google, ..., is beyond the legislature's control. Toback, ..., filed the lawsuit as a private citizen with no county funds.

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[x2A]

Or until the Don't Sue People Panda makes an appearance

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[DragonWriter]

However, there is no mention of who would be getting the money.

Since its a private lawsuit, and there is no indication that it is a class action, in the extraordinarily unlikely event that it was successful, or somewhat less unlikely event that Google settled to avoid the hit to goodwill from having that suit making news repeatedly, the person getting the money would be the person filing the lawsuit (and, presumably, his lawyers, assuming the case was taken on contingency.)

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[Ohreally_factor]

This isn't about money, this is about politics and getting votes for Toback. It's an election year.

Although, on a deeper level, there might be money involved. I wonder if there are any rivals to Google that might have been funneling money into the campaign coffers of Toback. Are there any rivals that have a previous history of litigation by proxy?

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[consonant]

This is late, but just have to get this cleared up: how does one act negligently and intentionally at the same time, doing the same thing?

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[humble.fool]

Looks like they already did.

All those poor dollar bills in Google's accounts! Why, they're not getting out and seeing the world like I would show them if they were mine!

Re:Unsurprisingly, money is involved

[jdbartlett]

Word is, he's not after money, just wants Google to prohibit illegal pornography (which they do, it's in every Google TOS). Ironically, I pulled that link from Google News. Also ironically, while he may not have grounds to sue Google, Google's image has already taken some damage from this lawsuit and by the time their name is cleared, the media and public may have labelled Google evil and lost interest in the story. If Google loses profit because of this, they may have grounds to sue him.

Another One

[FiveDollarYoBet]

Just another politician trying to get their name in the news to score some extra votes.

Do you really want the gov't to decide what results Google or any of the other engines can return?

insert sig here

Re:Another One

[Trigun]

Why don't they go after the purveyors of said pornography?

Better yet, why doesn't every country get together and decide what a child is? Or how about every U.S. state?

Re:Another One

[voice_of_all_reason]

Reminds me of this:

ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and
discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of
all the people, and then do it.

PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that
people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.

ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.

Re:Another One

[x2A]

"If a child is defined as anyone under 35, the figure is a staggering 95%"

-- brasseye on paedophilia statistics

Re:Another One

[GmAz]

The problem is that the age at which a child is a child and no longer is a child always changes. People used to marry 12 year old girls. By today's standards, that is still a very young child. Today, 18 is the legal age at which you are no longer a child, but we see more and more early 20's people acting like they are 12. Exactly how young/old do you have to be to be a child anymore?

Re:Another One

[typical]

Better yet, why doesn't every country get together and decide what a child is? Or how about every U.S. state?

For the same reason that having other laws differ across nations is a good idea -- it provides a number of different approaches being tried out that everyone can learn from, and means that people who dislike the laws of one country can move to somewhere that they prefer. Like drugs? The Netherlands! Like guns? The US!

I think that having a single set of laws imposed across the whole world is likely to cause a bit of friction...

Re:Another One

[plague3106]

Perhaps thats why any attempt to say you must be x years old is a foolish attempt at best? Perhaps there is no magic number set in stone that defines when someone is mature?

Re:Another One

[Trigun]

Okay, but say that you're in Michigan. The age of consent is 16 (I believe). You can go to Ontario and have sex with a 14 year old, as long as you a) are not in a position of authority over said minor, b) don't do her in the butt, and c) don't bring her into Michigan.

If a neighbouring state has a restriction of 17 or 18, you cannot bring her into Michigan for the purposes of sex, otherwise you are transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex (or something like that), but if she is visiting relatives, then things are different.

To wrap it up, which is more exploitive? Having sex with someone under 18, or photographing it? I don't want to get into a big philosophical debate, but the main point that I'm trying to make, is that if you're going to sue a company that is essentially worldwide, you might want to better ensure that the rules are comparable across the board, or try to make them moreso. It's hard to prevent child pornography if it's only child pornography in one little hamlet. You can filter and control it all you want, but you'll never eliminate it.

Re:Another One

[westlake]

Better yet, why doesn't every country get together and decide what a child is? Or how about every U.S. state?

Let's be honest here, shall we?

When the talk is about child pornography, the discussion is almost certain to focus on the sexually immature child, those age twelve and under. Including those still in infancy.

Why don't they go after the purveyors of said pornography?

They can and they do. But going after the distributer sometimes means you bag the lot.

Re:Another One

[Durandal64]

I always got a kick out of that exchange. Because the sad fact is that politicians can't be made to agree on anything. If you put a bunch of them in a room and told them to come to a consensus on a certain issue in an hour or else the room would be flooded with nerve gas, they'd die bickering about whose side God is on and who is the best approximation of Hitler.

Re:Another One

[Trigun]

What's the downside?

Re:Another One

[Qzukk]

When the talk is about child pornography

But when the talk is about teenage pregnancy, the statistics thrown around almost always include 18 and 19 year olds. It makes the numbers bigger and scarier than the problem really is.

those age twelve and under

So why should we not assume that when someone brings up child pornography that they're counting all the 17 year old myspace camwhores flashing their tits just to make sure that the problem sounds as big and scary as possible? As long as the masses assume the worst in every case, thats the effect it has. Of course, we know they're doing this, thanks to the arrests of a number of these girls for exactly that have made the news recently... various not-quite-18-year-olds taking naked pictures of themselves for boyfriends or the hell of it, and being arrested for exploiting themselves. You can bet they're counted in these child porn statistics even though they're nowhere near your "innocent little girl" ideal.

Re:Another One

[Eil]

Or how about every U.S. state?

Er, they already have... In a nutshell, you cannot involve anyone under the age of 18 in pornography in any way. Selling, buying, accessing, or starring in.

Re:Another One

[DragonWriter]

I always got a kick out of that exchange. Because the sad fact is that politicians can't be made to agree on anything.

That's not true. Through enough corporate contributions around, and politicians can be made to agree on anything.

Re:Another One

[msuarezalvarez]

Because the sad fact is that politicians can't be made to agree on anything.

You make it sound as if other kind of people could easily agree on things. That is not the case...

Re:Another One

[Neoprofin]

But what about people who like guns, drugs, pedophilia, democracy, and Google?

Is the moon still open?

Re:Another One

[plague3106]

Its 'perfect' in almost no cases. Why not let parents decide what age their child should be able to do things, and stop picking absurd numbers out of the air.

The fact is that courts every day decide who is fit to stand trial and make their own decisions; you see this in cases where the defendant is a child, or handicapped in some way.

Re:Another One

[pjrc]

Why not let parents decide what age their child should be able to do things, and stop picking absurd numbers out of the air.

I can just see it now...

"Hey mom, I got this great offer to do a porn shoot. It pays $1200 for 2 days work. My friend does these shoots and I trust her. Sounds like it'll be fine. It's been 4 years since I moved out, and I'm barely making ends meet at my two part time jobs. They say since that law a few years back, there isn't any set legal age anymore, so they'll only hire me if you sign this form. Will ya?"

Re:Another One

[drsquare]

You can go to Ontario and have sex with a 14 year old, as long as you a) are not in a position of authority over said minor, b) don't do her in the butt, and c) don't bring her into Michigan.

Forget it then.

Re:Another One

[plague3106]

They'd be very few parents that would agree to that absurd scenario.

Good job though you just made your end of the argument look ridiculous.

Re:Another One

[ultrasonik]

Why stop at Google? I'm going to sue the Internet itself!

Re:Another One

[DragonWriter]

They'd be very few parents that would agree to that absurd scenario.

Well, yeah. Even for their 22yo offspring that moved out four years ago. That's the point. "No age of consent" plus "let the parents decide when their rating" is a return to the system in many ancient societies where children were legally subject to their parents until their parents died.

Re:Another One

[Atzanteol]

Save for Democracy, there's always Mexico...

Re:Another One

[NotBorg]

By nature, Google cannot be as elusive as the "purveyors of said pornography" try to be. Google is public and an easier target with far more attention in the press. It's not about pornography, the children, laws, or morals. These are lawyers.

Is it Google trying to put their content on child porn sights or are the child porn sights trying to put their content on Google? Google is making an effort to block the content. However, like spamers, child pornographers are working to circumvent the good intent of blocking mechanisms.

Re:Another One

[flashingcurser]

It is interesting that in some states an adult man could legally have sex with a 17yo girl, but if he takes a picture of her naked he will go to prison for "child porn".

Dan

Re:Another One

[fm6]

God, you're disgusting. I never suspected you of having a Michigan fetish!

Re:Another One

[pjrc]

You specifically asked "Why not let parents decide what age their child should be able to do things, and stop picking absurd numbers out of the air?"

If showing a case where such a social policy results in an absurd and rediculous scenario is not reason "why not", then perhaps nothing could possibly show what a tremendously bad idea this is.

But as someone already explained, the point is when parent and child may disagree, if social policy (codified in law) "stops picking absurd numbers" and "lets parents decide", then the obvious result is parents retain complete legal control over their childrens lives, forever (or until they die).

Re:Another One

[Chacham]

don't bring her into Michigan.

Ot you don't return yourself.

IIRC, Clinton helped pass the law that can prosecute a traveler upon return, if the trip was for such acts with someone considered am minor in the US, even if considered an adult elsewhere.

Fishing expedition?

[winkydink]

...this is looking a lot like a fishing expedition.

No, it's called business as usual at a big tort firm.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[wackysootroom]

Maybe what we need is another "hallmark holiday": Kick a money-grubbing lawyer in the balls day.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[Ithika]

You mean this kind of torte firm? http://www.mrkipling.co.uk/

Re:Fishing expedition?

[RM6f9]

Yeah - second kick if they've ever run for office!

Re:Fishing expedition?

[Jaysyn]

I don't think enjoyment of getting kicked in the balls will ever catch on except with a small percentage of the S&M demographic.

Jaysyn

Re:Fishing expedition?

[Ohreally_factor]

That's because it is better to give than to receive, numbnuts.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[zippthorne]

Your thesis presents some unflattering extrapolation regarding racial epithets.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[modecx]

That's why you mix it up a bit. On Mondays they get kicked in the balls, Tuesday they get poked repeatedly with a sharp stick, Wednsdays, they rip hair off a random body part with very sticky tape, Thursday is honey bath followed by a visit to the local African Stinging Ant farm day, and Friday they get conjugal visits from Bubba down at the state pen.

If they're willing to put up with this, they deserve to be a politician.

Re:Fishing expedition?

[winkydink]

two words:

Millberg Weiss

Re:Fishing expedition?

[WNight]

What kind of sick porn do you look at, that child rape is frequently mixed in?

Re:Fishing expedition?

[irablum]

um.... no.

first off, child Porn is no more or less rampant than it ever was. whats worse, it is LEGAL in many countries.

secondly, its not so easily found. as long as you don't put things like "rape" and "children" in your search bars, you probably won't find it. I myself, have never seen it on the web in over 10 years of web surfing.

thirdly, images are only considered erotic if you are aroused by the image. Many things which are termed "pornograph" I do not find erotic, hence there is no danger. Unless you are predisposed to finding pre-pubescents attractive, you wouldn't think that naked pictures of them are arousing. I see my pre-puescent children naked on occasion, and it does nothing for me. My wife, naked, is a different story.

Ira

Re:Fishing expedition?

[MullerMn]

And that sentence also works without the comma.

Ironic

[wackysootroom]

Does anyone else find it ironic that this law firm exploits our natural instinct to protect children to try to make a money grab from Google? So who's exploiting who here? It seems like google does all it can to try to remove and filter out any type of child porn here, so how can they be liable?

Re:Ironic

[linvir]

As well as the usual, I think if I were from New York I wouldn't be too happy about the idea of some law firm simply deciding that I, as a member of the public, had had emotional distress inflicted upon me.

Election fodder...

[Stick_Fig]

...this won't go anywhere, but at least Jeffrey Toback will be able to say:

"My name is Jeffrey Toback, and I care about your children. Vote for me this November."

Re:Election fodder...

[warbinger]

I'm sure he *DOES* care for the children ;)

Re:Election fodder...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

...and hopefully you'll hear a loud "BANG" after that sentence :)

End this party, and vote 3rd party

Talk about a knee jerk

[minusthink]

"Toback, self-described as "not the most computer-literate guy," said he learned of the filter three days ago. He said he didn't know if the computers in his home have commercial filtering software that blocks pornography and other material unsuitable for children.

Toback said a lawsuit was his only alternative because Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., is beyond the legislature's control. Toback, a father of three children, ages 15, 13 and 9, filed the lawsuit as a private citizen with no county funds."

He didn't even investigate if there was a filter in google already.
He didn't investigate his own computer even *having* filtering software.
He didn't investigate using filtering software.
He didn't think that he might, i don't know, watch where his kids go on the web.

Go go gadget out sourced parenting.

(From: http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzgoog0505,0,26 01653.story?coll=ny-top-headlines)

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[Trigun]

I think that you have one too many words in the subject line. Try taking out 'knee' and see what happens.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[TubeSteak]

Most parents don't know how to use the V-Chip... and that comes built-in to their TVs.

You think they're going to know how about 3rd party filtering software?

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[barzok]

And yet the TV manufacturers aren't being held responsible for what "slips through" when the V-Chip isn't enabled.

Why should filtering software/websites be different?

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[minusthink]

No. Who just "know"s how to use a V-Chip. No one. I'm a techie, and I couldn't tell you. Of course I could figure it out, and that's exactly what I'm suggesting parents do.

If they're that worried that their children are seeing some nipples or peepees, then yes, spend 15 minutes to figure it out. It's stupid to put this into anyone else's hands but the parent. The tools are there, use them.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[dfjghsk]

Uh.. Janet Jackson nipple slip? Vchip or not.. the TV stations are not allowed to broadcast illegal material, and are held responsible when something slips through.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[rolfwind]

This man needs to be voted out of office. People like this are neither qualified nor deserve to be in any leadership position in this country.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[nstlgc]

He didn't even investigate if there was a filter in google already. He didn't investigate his own computer even *having* filtering software. He didn't investigate using filtering software. He didn't think that he might, i don't know, watch where his kids go on the web.

That's great and all, but what does that have to do with the fact that Google is making money off advertisements served on child pornography pages? Pretty much any similar service I know has very strong rules as to content served, and while I have asked Google to revoke accounts that were clearly in error, I have yet to see them take action.

Had this been MSN's (future) advertisement service, this whole place would be crammed with comments about how this is typically MS and why they can't be more like Google.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[HoboMaster]

Best part?

Safe Search is turned on by default.

If his kids could find porn on Google, it's because they were looking for porn on Google on purpose.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[sasdrtx]

It is pointless to respond or consider Toback's stated reasons. They are irrelevant. This is a shakedown, and the "child-porn ad support" is the best pretext he could come up with at this time. Obviously, he's not smart enough to do his homework first. OTOH, maybe he thinks SCO is doing alright vs. IBM.

I'd hope that such an obviously frivolous suit would not only get tossed immediately, but also get him disbarred.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[Arandir]

Go go gadget out sourced parenting.

I just don't understand the modern mindset. On one side is the demand that children be given complete and total freedom. On the other is the demand that we put them under total continuous surveillance.

As good progressive liberals we must allow our nine year olds to watch any movie they want, dress like whores if they want, and have mixed gender sleepovers if they want. If we don't do this we will sexually repress our children and they will grow into Republicans. But we can't leave them alone for five minutes on the computer or we're bad parents.

Last I heard child pornography was illegal. But given the current support for Google on this issue, I can only surmise that protests in favor of child porn will be coming soon to a city near you.

Re:Talk about a knee jerk

[Grishnakh]

This idiot isn't qualified to do anything besides clean toilets, IMO.

child pr0n reaching children...

[geekpuppySEA]

"...Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

Because by far the lesser crime is child pornography reaching adults.

What is Google doing?

[digidave]

The real question is whether or not Google is knowingly allowing ads for sites with child pornography. Obviously if they knew about these sites they should have been removed.

I somehow doubt any company would do that since it is a sure way to get in trouble and lose lots of customers. I imagine a few ads may have slipped under the Google radar that looks for this sort of abuse, but if Google has a system in place where people can notify them of these ads and if they take immediate action to remove the ads, then I don't see them as being 'evil'.

Re:What is Google doing?

[gstoddart]

The real question is whether or not Google is knowingly allowing ads for sites with child pornography. Obviously if they knew about these sites they should have been removed.

That was the first thing I noticed.

The suit basically says "Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links".

So, how many people with kiddie porn sites are actually sponsoring links through Google's seaches? Probably very few I should think. Certainly not the the tune of billions in revenue. Quite possibly, NOBODY.

The convenient way of including child porn in with the 'other obscene content' is brilliant -- you don't need to actually demonstrate anything related to child pornography has occured. You've lumped it in with 'other obscene content', and you you can pursue that -- your "think of the children" agenda comes along for free on the coat-tails of the rest of the case. Should you be able to prove that any time, any amount of kiddie porn slipped through, your faulty thesis is proved true -- if you keep using faulty logic.

This is the law-suit equivalent of "So Mr. Smith, have you stopped beating your wife". You're either trying to make Google defend themselves and their "right" to generate revenue from kiddie porn, or they have to concede they're evil -- a false dilemma if there ever was one. The correct answer is to very vocally insist that they can demonstrate you ever knowingly did anything to support child pornography, the extent to which they feel you've not done your required duty, as well as to drive home the point that all of that other 'obscene content' has been demonstrated to be constitutionally protected and they should sod off!!

In the absense of any real evidence that Google has ever accepted money to sponsor such links, you can then only really say that Google is guilty of accepting revenue from groups who, while legal, don't conform the the claimant's wishes. However, the wishes of this guy are irrelevant here.

If the suit is re-phrased as "Google made billions through sponsored links, some of which could be for adult material -- of which someone has made the unsupported claim that some of it is kiddie porn" you'd see how this is a really bad argument which tries heavily to imply something they have no evidence for. And then win a verdict through insinuation.

Do it for the children!

[Old Man Kensey]

I wish these people would quit trying to protect everyone else's children and stick to worrying about their own.

Re:Do it for the children!

[YrWrstNtmr]

Obviously you should 'protect' your own kids. But if a company is knowingly and willingly profiting from child porn, that needs to be stopped as well.

Key word "if". I have no idea about the merits of this case. But we can't, as a society, concern ourselves with only that which happens within the 4 walls of our individual houses. Sometimes a wider action is needed.

Re:Do it for the children!

[westlake]

I wish these people would quit trying to protect everyone else's children and stick to worrying about their own.

Your argument, taken literally, would prevent any sort of community action against the sexual abuse of children.

Re:Do it for the children!

[bitt3n]

why would they do that? their children can't vote, but other children's parents can.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[LaughingCoder]

Oops ... Mr Tolback is a Democrat. How inconventient.

Load of rubbish

[malsdavis]

Yea right Billions.

So Google has made more from Child Porn alone than it's actual net yearly income?

What rubbish.

Re:Load of rubbish

[RobinH]

So Google has made more from Child Porn alone than it's actual net yearly income?

Someone needs a crash course on income vs. revenue. Google's *revenue* is in the $2.25 billion range for a single quarter of a year. If they spent $1.65 billion per quarter in expenses, then their income would be around $600 million. The plaintiff (or whatever he is) is claiming that substantial amounts of *revenue* is coming from child porn.

Source: here

Re:Load of rubbish

[glasseyetiger]

For making such a demonstrably false statement, Google should file a countersuit for libel.

Re:Load of rubbish

[DragonWriter]

IIRC, a court filing is never actionable as libel; OTOH, it may be actionable as malicious use of process.

Re:Load of rubbish

[malsdavis]

Ok, your right, I was using net income to demonstrate how obsurd the claim is but I agree total revenue would have been the correct figure to use.

Still the suit is claiming atleast a quater of all Google's revenue comes from Child Porn and similar nasties, which I think most would agree is quite a ridiculous claim to make.

Re:Load of rubbish

[RobinH]

Still the suit is claiming at least a quater of all Google's revenue comes from Child Porn and similar nasties, which I think most would agree is quite a ridiculous claim to make.

I don't know if I would jump to that conclusion, but it does seem high. I wouldn't be surprised if they were confusing child porn with "normal" porn, and google's advertising income was heavily bolstered by pornography in general. The plaintiffs in these cases tend to try and smear the line between one and the other, knowing that the majority of the public probably doesn't differentiate too much between the two. This is most likely just an election year issue, and the guy wants to get his name in the news as fighting some kind of evil social problem. Therefore, facts don't really matter to him.

Re:Load of rubbish

[malsdavis]

Yes he ..I mean I do. I just don't use your heretical "English" language. "You're" and "quater" are words of the devil, he just hasn't told you and I forgot to mention it before now.

Re:Load of rubbish

[dodobh]

Google's *revenue* is in the $2.25 billion range for a single quarter of a year. If they spent $1.65 billion per quarter in expenses, then their income would be around $600 million.

Revenue == cash income. Then there is deprecation and other accounting stuff which gives you total income. Gross profit = Income - Expenditure. Net profit = gross profit - tax.

Sponsored Links

[BigDumbAnimal]

Kiddie porn?
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com

Re:Sponsored Links

[voice_of_all_reason]

Now see, I'm pretty sure google doesn't take unassigned words and randomly attach companies to them -- because the companies would (rightly) get pissed off for precisely this reason.

So, what ass in marketing actually decided purchasing these types of search terms was a good idea. Wasn't the original text for ebay's ad was "Get great prices on..." which raised all hell when you looked up "african slaves." I seem to recall the verbage changing soon after.

Re:Sponsored Links

[linvir]

They've realised their mistake alright, but they still haven't fixed it completely yet. I literally took this screenshot right now for the purpose of this post (and I realise that I'm giving away a lot of extra info in it)

Re:Sponsored Links

[linvir]

I compiled some more

Re:Sponsored Links

[241comp]

What country is eBay marketing to these days - Iran?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bombs

Bombs
Looking for Bombs?
Find exactly what you want today.
www.eBay.com


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=enriched+ uranium

Enriched Uranium
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com

Re:Sponsored Links

[Krach42]

I had a friend tell me he got an eBay link for "Vasectomy".

Who ever buys a Vasectomy from eBay though, probably needs one so they stop spreading their genes.

Re:Sponsored Links

[bohemian72]

You can do something similar with Froogle. They've got that line "Search for your search item here near you."
I was having some fun the other day with:
Search for the Holy Grail near you.
Search for Waldo near you.
Sure enough it works with "African Slaves."
And if you click on the maps link, you get a map of the U.S. with little red tacks in about 10 places.

Re:Sponsored Links

[dantheman82]

A few more gems:

Bs
Looking for Bs?
Find exactly what you want today.
www.eBay.com


Weapons
Looking for Weapons?
Find exactly what you want today.
www.eBay.com


GET YOUR BODY PARTS NOW!

Body Parts
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com


Body parts
New York City's Online Local Search
Find Body Parts Here!
www.local.com
New York, NY


Body Parts
Only $12.99 (or order used).
Qualified orders over $25 ship free
Amazon.com


Funny Money
Whatever you're looking for
you can get it on eBay.
www.eBay.com

Re:Sponsored Links

[Andy Dodd]

At least some of those (possibly) make sense.

Perhaps there is a band with an album called Weapons of Mass Destruction?

As to body parts - keep in mind that those body parts don't have to be human or animal. Vehicles have body parts too, which are almost surely sold on eBay. Same for dolls. (do a search on eBay itself for body parts...)

Same for warheads - lots of REAL eBay results, none of which are actually explosive, including "warheads" candy.

Re:Sponsored Links

[g33uu]

Free delivery and club points with your purchase of a Weapon of Mass Destruction? What a rip, all I got with my last one was a coupon for $5 off a bluetooth remote detonator.

Re:Sponsored Links

[bitt3n]

how can I trust the post of someone who apparently lives in the UK but operates on Eastern Standard Time?

Let's Be More Like China

[Trick]

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

Yeah. Let's use China as a role model. I know they're just trying to get in a cheap shot at Google, but the implication that we should somehow control companies the same way China does scares me. Is that where we're heading?

Re:Let's Be More Like China

[dfjghsk]

he isn't saying we should be more like China.. he's saying Google spent millions to do the _wrong_ thing in China, but won't spend a dime to do the _right_ thing in America.

Re:Let's Be More Like China

[corellon13]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think you are misinterpreting the point (or maybe it's just me). The point is (even though I still disagree with it) that Google quickly filtered their searches based on the Chinese government's demands to filter out the word democracy, yet they are not willing to filter out child porn.

The real problem is that he's comparing apples to oranges. Google had to comply with the Chinese government or be found in violation of China's laws. The same is not true with child porn in the U.S. Google can, and does, try to protect the children from porn but there are no laws that would require/allow Google to filter as is demanded in this law suit. Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised to see Google being sued by pushers of child porn if they tried based on a violation of their "free speech". Damned if you do damned if you don't I guess.

Re:Let's Be More Like China

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

China does scares me. Is that where we're heading?

We're already there. We've been there for years. Do you really think we have a democracy? Do you really think we're any better than any other political system?

Maybe we are by a very slight margin, but we've had black slavery, chinese slavery, and now we want legalized mexican slavery.... we abuse our people, our corporatations use us as a cash battery while giving little quality of anything in return.

Who says we're the best? We do? Does that make it valid?

The chinese could be saying the same thing... I'm sure they're bitching about things internally but so are we...

We have a choice of 2 parties... Thats not a democracy, thats an "either or" dictatorship.

Re:Let's Be More Like China

[GuloGulo2]

"Who says we're the best?"

All the people who aren't Americans, but want to be.

Too bad, you had a decent rant going until I squashed it like that.

Re:Let's Be More Like China

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Too bad, you had a decent rant going until I squashed it like that.

hahahahhaa... Awesome.

Re:Let's Be More Like China

[consonant]

Also, let's all modify Godwin's Law to use China instead!

If Google

[tacokill]

If google is profiting, then aren't the telcos ALSO profiting from this? I mean, after all we've heard about Google "making money on the backs of the telco's networks", shouldn't the telcos be the real profiteers?

Can't have it both ways.

interesting to note

[to_kallon]

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

spurious and pointless as this lawsuit may be, i find it interesting that in the same sentence he faults google for blocking search terms and not blocking search terms. no, i'm not advocating child pornography or think that it shouldn't be blocked, i'm just saying people should really pick an agenda and stick with it. oh, but wait, this is america where politicians can say three things and do a fourth.

Re:interesting to note

[dfjghsk]

It's not about blocking vs not blocking.. it's about right vs wrong. ie: he's saying: Google spent millions to do the wrong thing in China, but won't spend a single dime to do the right thing in America.

That isn't contradictory at all.

Re:interesting to note

[TubeSteak]

oh, but wait, this is america where politicians can say three things and do a fourth.

Ah, but America is greater than that.
Politicians can say three things, do a fourth, then drink a fifth.

All in the course of a day's work.

Nice generalization....

[tinkerghost]

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

Translation: Hey they put a line of code in that says =~ s/'democracy'//ig but they won't spend a X billion dollars to create an image filtering process that can accurately determine the age of an individual in a nudie picture that can be in any of 50 different image formats.(That DARPA can't do with govt backing with standardized formats.) Oh, and elect me this fall.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[Homology]

Oops ... Mr Tolback is a Democrat. How inconventient.

Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[dietrollemdefender]

but I'm sure that Google neglected to "donate" to Republicans.

The guys at Enron "donated" to everybody and look where it got them. I still remember IIRC, CNN posting the contribution that each congressman got from Enron when they spoke. If something is really politically unpopular, you make campaign contributions until you're backrupt and it won't do any good!

If I were one of the Enron guys, to make a point to all of those grandstanding sanctimonious politicians I would have yelled out "I've paid good money for you people! Now, fall in line!"

Not to worry

[14erCleaner]

I googled this "Jeffrey Toback" guy, and he's apparently a nobody.

Re:Not to worry

[smoker2]

I googled this "Jeffrey Toback" guy, and he's apparently a nobody.

But apparently you can buy him at eBay !

Convenience and politics - whoo-hoo !

I call BS

[Hank Chinaski]

that's what I do.

Real Threat to Children: myRedbook

[Anonymous Coward]

The real threat to children is myRedbook. myRedbook facilitates the sale of sex across state lines. That sex is being provided by prostitutes who come from a variety of countries and who have a wide range of ages .

Re:Real Threat to Children: myRedbook

[FuzzyDaddy]

Hey great link! Thanks!

Re:Real Threat to Children: myRedbook

[geekzoid]

Hey man good find! Pay for play is the only way.
On another note, you sir are a complete moron to blame a website for sexual activity that is considered completely legal in some countries.

Re:It's not that easy

[uniqueUser]

Republicans don't make bad laws. People make bad laws.

Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[dada21]

As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to. Slashdot usually has good opinions from either side of the statism coin, and this is one place that I don't doubt that both sides of the pro/anti-government debate can offer some real insight to.

I believe that our governments haven't shown any ability to fix anything they want to -- the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems, protect those meant to be protected or reduce "crime" as they define it. Drug wars, porn wars, family value wars, oil wars, a War on Everything seems to just make Everything worse.

I think child porn is disgusting, but the victims in this case have never seemed to be helped by the law. Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.

I'm not a fan of regular porn, either, but I don't really see how anyone can stop something that has an obvious market (including child porn or the odd varieties of porn). As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe that the best way to fix society is one relationship at a time. I've helped a few friends overcome their porn issues as best as I can, by offering my time and love and helping them become accountable to someone (voluntarily). I don't think we can eradicate porn of any kind through the law, and I also believe in people's inherent right to view porn in the privacy of their homes. Is the criminal the person looking at porn, the person making it, or the person who connects the two together? I would have to say that the person who is violated would be the kid, and the perp would be the person making it. Wouldn't it be wiser to go after the real criminal?

Just because there is a black market for something doesn't mean that the person who consumes the black market product is the problem. You can't fix the drug problem by jailing non-violent drug users. You can't fix the problem by jailing non-violent drug dealers. You can only create a fair justice system by prosecuting and jailing people who committed real acts of violence regardless of the reason -- shoot someone (drug war, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. Run someone over with your car (drunk, aggression, whatever) and you've violated someone. The base reasoning that "it was over drugs" or "it was because of alcohol" is not a just reason -- it is the violation of the person that was the criminal act, not the base reason behind the violation.

I think the enter War on Child Porn doesn't protect the children, but it does seem to give government more and more power over our lives. If we are to criminalize an act, it should be against the perp of the act and on behalf of a real victim. "John Doe (minor) versus Crazy McCracken (perp)" is the only lawsuit I ever want to see. The People versus lawsuits should be thrown out, and we need to return tort laws to finding a real victim and a real perp.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[tinkerghost]

IANAL - out of the way early
John Doe v. Crazy McCracken is a civil case. It's a personal issue between the 2 litigants.
The People v Crazy McCracken is a criminal case usually - or a civil case involving the govt.
This is just like the case a couple of months ago against Google, top10models inc sued because they put thumbnails of copywriten pictures on the search results. Now, did Google violate copywrite? Um up until this trial they had done exactly nothing in violation of copywrite - they were simply cataloging what was available. Now, did top10 go after the sites neatly cataloged as violating their copywrite? No, they sued (and won) Google, saying the thumbnails were derivative works & depriving top10 of revenue.
So as I read it, had Google provided the whole image instead of the thumbnail, they would have been covered under the cataloging clause, but because they were providing a reduced resolution/size image in order to provide better service to their customers, they became more vulnerable.
Let's face it, Google is a big card catalog that references web pages, that's it. No more, no less. They do NOT review the material they put out in the searches. As such, they cannot determine child porn vs regular porn vs images from anatomy texts. If they remove adds/links when it't brought to their attention, and can show proof, then they are taking all due diligence for an automated service.
As for copywrites, unless they are going to dump the entire library of congress into their database & compare every webpage vs the contents, they can't filter for that either. Oh wait, that doesn't cover images, you don't have to submit them to the LOC or any other body so even that won't work. I guess they are just supposed to automagically know what is copywriten & what is in the public domain.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[sfjoe]

As a free market promoter and anarcho-capitalist, child porn is one grey area that I don't have a good answer to.

I like to look at porn and do so fairly regularly. I mostly download Usenet porn and have for ~10 years or so. In all that time, I have never once seen child porn. Although I don't go looking for it, I would expect at least once to have accidentally stumbled upon some. It never happened. All this makes me wonder if the hysteria around child porn is actually just people pandering to parent's fears in order to advance their own agenda. It begs the question: is all this mindless panic in proportion to the severity of the problem?

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[DragonWriter]

Lawsuits by the government that are titled "The People v. Google" seem to never help The People, harm Google, and in the end the lawyers win and the government wins a case that helps it grow in power without having to be any more accountable to those paying the bills in the end.

I hate to interrupt your rant, but this is a private, not public, lawsuit against Google.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[rolfwind]

The people viewing it are creating the demand for it, thus being inextricably linked to the cycle.

Replace your argument about "child porn" with the word "snuff films." Yes, the original perp would be jailed for murder and no additional laws would have to be created there.

But would the audience be less accountable than anybody else aiding and abbetting murder? Would they be an accomplice, just like a mafioso who orders hits against people, but never does the actual crime?

I'm not talking about people who catch a voyueristic glimpse here accidently or whatnot. I'm talking about people who actively participate in the process. Just because they are "only viewing" something, should they be completely absolved from accountability their part plays? They are already breaking the law by not reporting the crime (felony) to the police in the first place - individual citizens are actually accountable for the type of society people live in.

And the second thing about child porn, laws are on the books because of the right to privacy. They did not and cannot consent to being viewed in the first place and as minor should be protected from such things. You probably understand this, but it's important to acknowledge the victim has a right to dignity too.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Phroggy]

the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems,

What do you mean "unintended"?

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[fishybell]

So now, according to you, merely seeing a snuff film, or other illegal content, would be a crime? I aggree that if the person bought the video, they would be culpable, but just seeing it?

What else? If I watch videos of illegal street racing on Google Videos am I responsible for the racer's actions? No. I'm merely witnessing a crime. If I were to purchase a video of the race at a car show I'm now actively supporting the actions of the people who made the video, and potentially the people who starred in it.

The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous. The fact that we do prosecute these people (and according to the news and your local sex offender database, it happens a little too often for my comfort) is just horrendous. The idea is now the same as if I were to witness a murder, and be offended, I'd be fine, but if I were to watch a video tape of the murder to get my jollies I'm now a criminal. We can't throw people in jail because of what goes on inside their heads. If they act out any of these thoughts in real life, or in any other way support a crime, they're guilty, but as long as it stays in their head, they should be innocent.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[sesshomaru]

If child porn didn't exist it would be necessary for the government to invent it. It's our equivalent to Emmanual Goldstein (1984).

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Medgur]

You believe in the Bible and the Free Market?

Ever hear of Usury? It's the basis of the Free Market and one of your pal's Jesus' pet pieves.

Or do you not believe he threw the money lenders out of the church?

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Doctor Faustus]

It depends on your taste in porn, and where you look for it. I used to lean more towards the "barely legal" stuff (when I was around that age myself), and Usenet, and actual kiddie porn showed up every couple of months or so.

These days I don't really pay attention to whether I'm looking at 18 year olds or 40 year olds, and I'm more willing to actually pay for a website, so I haven't run across any in a few years.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Waveguide04]

Yep, heard of it. FYI its defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury . You may want to read it. It describes the terms of a loan which do not preclude charging interest or fees, but thats not relevant to your premise. Free Market != Usury. Apples and Oranges my boyo.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[everphilski]

Jesus threw money exchangers out of the church. See it was passover and people from neighboring nations came to make their offerings to the temple, but in order to make it proper you have to use the temple coin. So the money changers would exchange the foreign coins for temple coins. They were not loan sharks. They also sold doves, lambs and other sacrificial animals for the sacrifices as it was easier to bring a little coin to passover and buy an animal than to herd some animals hundreds of miles to Jerusalem.

That being said your premise is completely baseless and hopefully you have a better understanding.

Jesus never said anything about Usury. There were some old testament regs but remember, Jesus came to fulfil the old testament for us. He was that perfect sacrifice in our place. We aren't bound by it any longer.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[pjrc]

Yeah, it's easy to take infrastructure for granted...

I believe that our governments haven't shown any ability to fix anything they want to -- the unintended consequences of every piece of regulation seem to create preferential treatment for some elite group rather than actually solve any problems, protect those meant to be protected or reduce "crime" as they define it.

roads & highways
inflation kept in check for 2+ decades
airports (and very high standards of safety)
electrical power (large outages so rare as to be major news)
emergency services
water and sewage systems ...just to name a few.

Sure, some uber libertarians will point to inefficiencies or flaws, but compared to most of the world, we're doing pretty damn good for critical infrastruture.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Hillgiant]

Kinda brings a new meaning to that "invisible hand" of the market, eh?

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[gstoddart]

So now, according to you, merely seeing a snuff film, or other illegal content, would be a crime? I aggree that if the person bought the video, they would be culpable, but just seeing it?

I don't think they're trying to outlaw just seeing it in a sort of inadvertant way.

But, the way I understand the reasoning in both cases -- if you were to try and find an instance of either for purposes of viewing, and possibly be willing to pay for viewing the video, then the act of making a monetary market for a video which necessitates the comission of a crime (more specifically, a crime which goes beyond the mundane), you're encouraging someone to break that specific law to fulfill the fact that someone is looking for it.

In the case of snuff-films and child-pornography, the consequences are deemed to be so aggregious that they want to stamp out both the supply and demand side of the equation -- either someone dies, or has their life horribly messed up, neither of which is deemed acceptable.

There is certainly the fear that, having seen one 'by accident', you could then decide it wouldn't be quite so bad to see another one -- just for a peek. And then maybe another one, just for research purposes. Then, before long, someone might have to go out and commit a fresh crime to keep up with your demand.

In order to discourage people from doing these acts, or trying to profit from them if they have, or trying to see pictures of other people doing these acts, or ultimately deciding "oh, screw it, I'll do it myself and make my own video" -- I think here they've erred on the side of stamping it out completely as opposed to trying to find a middle ground of where it may be OK. All instances of it are strictly prohibited.

Send a very strong message that making, distributing, or trying to acquire such images is a clear sign that something is wrong, and not something that will be tolerated.

Your street racing example is interesting, because it highlights the way the crimes are perceived relative to one another. Society has decided that street racers are a bunch of reckless boneheads -- at the very least, they should lose their privelege to drive a car. More if they cause the death of someone while being a bonehead, in which case any corresponding murder/whatever charges need to be laid.

In the case of snuff-films and child pornography, society has decided that those crimes go way beyond what could even remotely be acceptible, and the penalty/gravity for those crimes is treated as a far more serious thing. Because, by and large, people find those two acts to be most-especially repugnant, and without excuse.

Cheers

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Sloppy]

I truly believe that the best way to fix society is one relationship at a time.

Yeah, I think persuasion is a powerful tool that tends to do very minimal (no?) collateral damage. But we live in a time when a vast majority of voters believe that government force is the optimum solution to all problems -- a miraculous cure-all.

Maybe it's just a matter of "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[RPoet]

Alright, but APART from the roads and highways, the inflation kept in check, the safe airports, stable electrical power, emergency services, and the water and sewage systems, what has the government ever done for US?

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[RPoet]

Let's keep the debate within the confines of reality. There are no such things as snuff films.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[haeger]

So, we should just distribute all the child-porn that we can find through any/all p2p networks to remove the market?
If there's no money in it it will go away?

I'm not sure that the free market will fix this problem.

.haeger

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[colinrichardday]

Jesus came to fulfil the old testament for us

I don't recall asking Jesus (or anyone else) to fulfill the Old Testament.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[rolfwind]

Let's keep the debate within the confines of reality. There are no such things as snuff films.

It is possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snuff_film

"Credible snuff films

A credible case emerged in 2000, when an Italian police operation broke up a gang of child pornographers based in Russia who, it was claimed, were also offering snuff films for sale to their clients in Italy, Germany, America and Britain. This was also reported in the UK where the police admitted the existence of such films after arresting Dmitri Vladimirovich Kuznetsov. A dozen British men were also reportedly arrested.[1]"

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[rolfwind]

In some cases, #3 can be the one creating/maintaining the market even if he never pays for it. He may trade with friends, etcetera. Of course, then he can be taken down as a distributor....

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[fishybell]

I wasn't trying to offer a solution. I was merely stating that without purchasing illegal media, what makes it illegal other than the thoughts it provokes?

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[fishybell]

I agree wholeheartedly that child molestation and street racing should be punished radically differently. However, if you read many of the great sci-fi classics on thought crime (1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc) they'll explain my argument much better. The problem is the same as going after drug users instead of drug dealers and makers. If you stamp out one drug user, you've stamped out one drug user, but if you stamp out one dealer you can (in theory at least) stop the drug usage of dozens of people. The problem is that there is (and you can check your local sex offender database for proof) a lot more people convicted of merely possessing child pornography than there are of people making it, buying it, or molesting children in general. These people, although perverted by nature, are not necessarily causing harm to others.

If you think the point of the penal system is to protect people from eachother, then thought crime is useless. If you think the poing is to protect people from themselves, then thought crime is your only tool.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[dsci]

I don't recall asking Jesus (or anyone else) to fulfill the Old Testament.

Okay, I can take the karma hit. The world does not revolve around you; theology deals with things/ideas that are bigger than us as individuals.

Of course, you could not have asked a man born 2000 years ago to do anything. What's your point? Oh, yeah, to slam religion and bigger ideals like the morality of how we should behave toward others (care for the poor, help the sick, etc).

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[rolfwind]

So now, according to you, merely seeing a snuff film, or other illegal content, would be a crime? I aggree that if the person bought the video, they would be culpable, but just seeing it?

Actually, I said in the original post I don't mean to include people who just see it inadvertantly. Hell, with my respect for the 1st admendant - I don't think viewing it period should be prosecutable. 2nd - otherwise it makes two classes of citizens, those who are allowed to look at everything (cops, researchers, etc) and those not allowed to look (by law) and that precedent would have a chilling effect on society as a whole when it creeps into areas.

And finally 3rd - The freedom of speech must include the right to look/listen. You shouldn't be punished for having eyes and eares.

But also because the problem can be simply contained with the set of laws criminalizing the acts of the perpetatror and also the people who distributed it. Many people who tend to collect things (photos in this case) would likely attempt to swap collections and whatnot and that can be classified as distribution and they can/should be arrested for that.

I'm not at all sympathetic to the knowing purchase of it though. You become part of the problem.

Intent is important, but in many crimes, it always was (just look at the different degrees of murder.)

The same thing goes for any "taboo" or illegal content. The idea that someone can be prosecuted for witnessing a crime is preposterous.

No, I don't believe this is the law and not what I was advocating. However, it is the law that if you witness a felony taking place, you have to report it (within reason - seeing it newsbroadcast would obviously negate it, and so on). That, I think, is reasonable.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[mrraven]

OMG a rational Christian who I mostly agree with, strike me down with lightning quick...

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[fishybell]

I agree with all of that wholeheartedl with the exception of "if you witness a felony taking place, you have to report it."

I don't think that this is at all a reasonable request to make. I'm pretty sure that there are "failure to report" laws, but I'm earnestly against any type of law that forces me to act or think in a certain way. Let's take speeding for example. I don't think there should be a limit to how fast I drive. If I cause an accident (either directly or indirectly), then you have every right to put me in jail for the rest of my life, but as long as long I'm not causing harm to someone else or someone's property I should be innocent of any crime (side note: what's the poing of living if you can't have fun?).

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Sloppy]

Praising government for low inflation is like praising a rapist for only raping you once.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[rolfwind]

But speeding isn't a felony, just a misdemeanor:) However, if you were to cause a hit-n-run and I witness it but fail to report it, I could be prosecuted because hit-n-run is a felony.

Usually felonies are more serious crimes to begin with, and the failure-to-report crimes don't apply to misdemeanors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[be-fan]

Unless you're a Calvinist, usury is looked down upon by most of the modern Christian faiths as well. The Pope spoke against the practice (which was still banned by the Church), as late as 1745.

The underlying point is that capitalism isn't really compatible with your beliefs. The true Christians are the Calvinists and Puritans of the world, who had the balls to actually take their beliefs to their logical conclusion, and actually live the way the Bible says to live.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[colinrichardday]

I'll see your karma hit, and raise.

theology deals with things/ideas that are bigger than us as individuals.

Assuming that theology deals with anything at all.

Of course, you could not have asked a man born 2000 years ago to do anything. What's your point?

Then why did the GP include "for us" in his post?

As for slamming religion for its morals, I would first like to know whether religion is true.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[toddestan]

Anyone who has paid any attention to the news from the Middle East the last couple of years would know that they exist, as I'm sure the videos of various terror groups beheading their prisoners would certainly qualify as a snuff film.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Medgur]

What's the incentive to loan without revenue generated via interest or fees? Fees include a rather broad range of revenue facets, from processing fees through to revenue streams generated upon completion of the invested project.

The modern market does not suffer interest-free, fee-less loans.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[RexRhino]

The people viewing it are creating the demand for it, thus being inextricably linked to the cycle.

Yes, but are the people viewing it, which is a very small number of people, that dangerous that we need to violate the rights of innocent people to stop them?

I mean, there is a lot of things we could do that would seriously reduce crime. We could get rid of trials, for one, and lock everyone up for life based on suspicion. We could have constant 24/7 monitoring of all people everywhere. I garantee you that it would reduce crime. But most people don't find crime bad enough to resport to blatent facism... at least not yet and not completly.

What kind of rights are you willing to give up, how many innocent people are you willing to lock in jail, what extreme measures are you willing to take, for a crime "epidemic" that doesn't exist? There is no reason to believe that pedophilia is any more common than Satanists sacrificing children. Yeah, in a country of 300 million people, plus another billion outside the U.S., there are going to be a few Jefferey Damners out there. But the whole pedophilia thing is hysteria! It is fear mongering! Sorry, but there just isn't an army of perverts out there waiting to fuck your kids!

The hysteria is being fed by people who want to control the internet, and realize that people will lose all sense of reason if you say their children are being threatened. And if you claim that a political action is to "stop pedophiles", what politician is going to take a chance being seen as being "easy on pedophilia".

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Antique Geekmeister]

Material that is obviously child portn also gets Usenet cancelled very, very fast indeed: servers that do not support cancel messages for the various alt.binary groups where most Usenet porn winds up are begging to be deluged and overwhelmed by spammers. So the likelihood of such messages being found on a normal Usenet feed has dropped, especially with the advent of websites, anonymizing proxy servers, and popular pirate software resouces such as the old "FSP" servers.

Only a complete idiot will post child porn on Usenet these days, since NNTP messages started generally including the posting host's IP address.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[petermgreen]

those aren't produced for entertainment purposes though they are produced to let people know they are serious about killing hostages if thier demands are not met.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[Waveguide04]

You miss the point. Its not about if fee/interest free loans are available or not, its that loan terms do not define a Free Market. A free market is defined and driven by supply and demand, not the day to day terms of cost of money.

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[everphilski]

consider. No I am not calvinist, lutheran... but we do not look down on usury. The distinction is made as to what the money is used for. No you shouldn't be charging interest on a loan to someone who is just trying to eat ... out of love you help and support them. But for business expenses, luxuries, etc... nothing wrong with loans (Remember the parable of the man with the servants, each had a coin they were to invest... Christ did not condemn this, in fact the unfaithful servant did **not** "at least leave it with the bankers where it could earn a little interest")

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[everphilski]

Then why did the GP include "for us" in his post?

It is a gift. It was done regardless of your intervention. You didn't have a choice. He came, He lived, He died. He did it for everyone, regardless of whether or not you choose to believe it. You don't factor into "for us". Why is your worldview so small that everything has to center around you? This world is a whole lot bigger...

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[colinrichardday]

The gospels may claim he died for everyone, but I'd prefer real evidence.

And I'm not claiming that the world is centered on me, quite the contrary, I don't expect people to do stuff for me. Was his death a gift to me? No more than this post is a gift to you.

And if I don't factor into the "for us", then who does?

Re:Child Porn and the (shudder) Free Market?

[everphilski]

The gospels may claim he died for everyone, but I'd prefer real evidence.

"Faith is being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see." "If you do not have the faith of one of these [little children] you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. " ... Christian religion is built on faith.

Was his death a gift to me?

Yes. According to the bible. You can choose not to believe it but that is what I believe and that is what it teaches. Take it or leave it.

And if I don't factor into the "for us", then who does?

My point was "for you" was not directed at any one person but at society as a whole. He came for everyone. Now people have to make a decision as to what they choose to do with it. Up to you.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[malsdavis]

They did ...until it became just too ridiculously obvious.

To this day many are amazed that members of the federal government havn't been indicted over why some very suspcious figures won't investigated.

Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[nick_davison]

Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing child porn and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links."

Google's 2004 revenue was $3.19b
Quarterly revenue by late 2005 was up to about $1.5b

So, at a rough estimate, Google's total lifetime revenue as a company is in the ~$10b range.

To have made "billions" in child porn related sponsored links, even if we assume all of Google's revenue is from sponsored links, we'd be assuming 1/4th of all sponsored links Google has ever served were child porn? Assume 50% of their revenue is sponsored links and that jumps to a full 50% of all sponsored links Google has ever served are child porn.

Wow. The internet is a sick place. At least 25% of Google's entire business model is purely about child porn? They're evil!

Or, alternatively, the "billions" claim is completely made up by someone who saw a company with an apparently huge revenue stream and figured he could either:

a) Get rich by blowing a minor issue out of all proportion and then suing for a chunk of that revenue stream for himself.

b) Make a name for himself as the protector of all the little children, taking on the giants, and wouldn't you really like to vote for him for D.A. next year? After all, he cares about the children. WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, PEOPLE!

Given I've not seen a single sponsored link for child porn via Google amongst the dozens of How To Make Money On EBay, How To Get Gold In WoW and various home business ads, I'm guessing a full quarter to a half of their business model is not built on child porn. So I'm going to go with self aggrandizing shyster as my guess.

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[jbolden]

I've been on the internet since 1988 and heavily since 1992. I've never seen an add for child porn.

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[Moqui]

Isn't it counter-intuitive to have an ad for child pornography? If I was attempting to sell an illicit substance, would I do it in plainsight of a police station?

There is a reason that the government needs to conduct stings to catch criminals who engage in the transmission of child pornography -- *because you can't find it through the "normal" channels* without really looking for it.

Election year hooplah. I wish we could make that illegal.

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[AviLazar]

I agree with everything you said except the whole

by blowing a minor issue out of all proportion

Child porn is not a minor issue by ANY stretch. Do I think Google is putting good faith into stopping child porn, yes. DO I think they should be sued by this clown, no. Do I think child porn is a huge issue - hell yea. Child pornographers should be strung up by their balls and then shot.

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[jbolden]

I've seen adds for illegal stuff. The penalties for child porn are huge, and the market is tiny, and enforcement is rigorous. Anyway everybody on /. agrees that there is on google child porn link. Just some silly lawsuit.

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[Stanislav_J]

Given I've not seen a single sponsored link for child porn via Google amongst the dozens of How To Make Money On EBay, How To Get Gold In WoW and various home business ads, I'm guessing a full quarter to a half of their business model is not built on child porn.

Tell me about it -- I mean, I spend hours a day on the Web, and I have never seen a link, sponsored or not, to anything that could remotely be considered child porn. Nor have I ever stumbled onto any such material, even when looking for adult erotic material. If this stuff is actually out there, it's well obfuscated -- I'm sure ther don't put links around the Web reading, "Get the newest kiddie porn!! Click here!!" Any site peddling that crap is probably hidden behind multiple URL redirects and passwords, and doesn't advertise openly. So where are the hordes of people who are supposedly "stumbling" onto this stuff? I think you'd have to be actively looking for it, plus know someone who knows someone who knows someone, etc., who provides a link.

(Not that I haven't seen a lot of perfectly legal websites whose motives I question seriously. Like the hordes of "child starlet" tribute sites -- detailed and obsessive -- run by adult males. Nothing pornographic or illegal.....but very creepy.)

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[10Brett-T]

...and then shot.

...in the gut, while on fire, with cinderblocks hanging from clips on their fingernails, all the while being forced to listen to (and watch, since their eyelids will be stapled open) Gilbert Gottfried singing the entire soundtrack from the hit motion picture Aladdin, and all its sequels.

Shooting is too easy for them.

Re:Billions? Who's the profiteering scumbag here?

[Antique Geekmeister]

I'm sorry, but you've fallen prey to the idea of "anathema": subjects so dirty or vile that any contact with them whatsoever contaminates otherwise innocent subjects. Frankly, the child porn problem through Google or other search engines is not only minor, it's nearly nonexistent. As near as I can tell, most child porn out on the Internet is actually being offered by law enforcement to lure its purchasers into illegal behavior. And a lot of it is frankly entrapment. "Entrapment" is luring people to do illegal things they would not have done if you didn't lure them into it, and it's a nasty legal problem.

If you're not aware of this sort of behavior, I suggest you look at the famous "Amateur Action" case. A postal inspector in Tennessee shipped child porn to a BBS in California, which carried only material legal in their home state of California, and got them raided on the basis of that box of material, which they had never opened after several days because they didn't order it and didn't recognize the sender! The BBS was then sued on the basis of their other content, which was ruled illegal in Tennessee and which they hadn't sent there without the client signing a waiver that said they were obeying local laws. In this case, the client was the postal inspector himself! The Postal Inspector tried to conceal his role in sending the porn, until someone compared the signature on the child porn shipping label to the signature on the warrant to search the building.

This sort of stupidity is unfortunately common in the "protect the children" world: people use it to hide their censoring policies behind the flag of "protecting the children", because no one wants to be seen as risking or harming children.

this is dumb...

[DoctorDyna]

While everybody is so enthralled with suing google over being able to access stuff, why don't they start suing domain registrars for allowing websites with questionable content to register domains.

While they are at it, let's sue the ISP on the other end of the server the content sits on for allowing the data to pass through it.

Let's also sue the company(ies) that made the routers too, they don't filter child porn.

Let's just make a list of all the companies that participated in the delivery of the content, from the companies that developped the components inside the servers the people that supplied the silicon, the companies that developped the teflon insulation in the cabling, the copper miners for making cable that could be used to transmit child porn...the list goes on and on for people that, by this same ruleset could be held accountable.

Fucktards, suing google is assinine. All they do is provide a service for people to search what is on the internet. They profit from EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET. You can't sue them because of what the internet contains. Send the people who create child porn to jail.

This whole issue is simply passing the buck. They realise it's hard to keep porn producers in check, so they sue sue sue big dollar Google to try and win a company that will help them fight their battle? It's very plain to me that most people that hold a political office of some kind have no fucking idea how the internet or computers really work, and insist on sensationalizing things like this that make grandma and grampa think they give a fuck, but the people who actually use the internet always see right the hell through it.

Re:this is dumb...

[porcupine8]

why don't they start suing domain registrars for allowing websites with questionable content to register domains.
While they are at it, let's sue the ISP on the other end of the server the content sits on for allowing the data to pass through it.

Because most of the people doing the suing don't know their ass from an ethernet jack. They've never heard of a "domain registrar" and have no idea that there is a "server" somewhere with data passing through it. But they've heard of Google, and they know it can lead people to kiddie porn. This guy didn't even know that Google had filters, and he didn't know whether or not he had any filtering software on his own computer.

I'm amazed they aren't suing Microsoft, since they're using Internet Explorer to access the porn. Shouldn't it automatically block that sort of thing?

Re:this is dumb...

[DoctorDyna]

Agreed. Plays right into my master plan about forcing people to get a licence before attempting to do anything with / about a computer. Maybe then defense lawyers could use that to get these suits thrown out

"Your honor, we would like to introduce into evidence that the plaintiff does not in fact have a computer licence, and therefore can not qualify a law suit based on a theory about computers. Move to dismiss."

How can this guy file suit

[usurper_ii]

If I know of a Constitutional violation that has happened or is happening, but it didn't actually happen to me, 99% of the time, the suit is thrown out of court. That is why it is incredibly difficult to win on a Constitutional argument, no matter how valid the violation happens to be. But this one little person can just up and sue Google on what looks like, if the charges or true, that an offical agency of the federal government should be prosecuting.

Not that I'm shocked to find a double standard with our judicial system, but it looks like to me that this should be thrown out unless the guy can show proof that he was harmed, somehow.

Re:Won't *somebody* think of Windows???

[Anonymous Coward]

Google Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Windows

"Filed in New York, Jeffrey Toback claims Google has made billions by allowing Windows and 'other obscene content' providers to use sponsored links." From the article: "The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial. It also accuses Google of violating federal statutes relating to Windows and calls for the court to order that Google cease "advertising, promoting, or distributing" Windows through its site or otherwise providing any links to such content."

"intentional" negligence?

[webrunner]

The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public

So, there's someone at Google saying "Muahahha, by my non action, child porn will soon flood the world! MUAHAHA!"

Seriously, is it even remotely possible that this is intentional negligence?

Re:"intentional" negligence?

[DragonWriter]

"Negligence" and "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" are two separate torts; the suit is charging that Google committed both (though IIED against the public at large seems, to my limited knowledge, to be a novel concept, but then novel legal theories asserted in lawsuits filed almost entirely as political stunts aren't exactly unusual.)

Re:"intentional" negligence?

[webrunner]

That doesn't make any sense though. By all accounts, they only actually did -one- thing, and it's being attributed to both "negligence" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress"

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?

If there's not much of a difference, why didn't you say "but I'm sure that Google neglected to "donate" to Republicans and/or Democrats."?

Making uninformed, strongly opinionated statements makes you look like a dumbass.

Congratulations, dumbass.

Check this one out

[K-Man]

The Governator is coming up for de-election soon as well:

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a12/photo s/gov-sign-1.jpg

Awfully broad court order...

[BaronHethorSamedi]

The complaint "calls for the court to order that Google cease 'advertising, promoting, or distributing' child pornography through its site or otherwise providing any links to such content."

Given the measures Google already has in place to exclude illegal content, it's not really clear what more the complainants want. Do they expect the court to order Google to cease and desist their indexing of web pages, and making them searchable to the general public? It's already unclear (and probably unprovable) how the public has been emotionally damaged enough to warrant monetary compensation--and who that compensation should go to--but a judge is going to have a hard time ordering Google to take measures above and beyond what it already does.

Re:Why can't Google just stop accepting porn ads ?

[u16084]

Last time i checked, porn sites were not illegal, and are protected. Theres no way of defining "Porn"

seems like another attempt to exploit us law

[unity100]

This should be prevented. People are coming forward with hilarious schemes to exthort money from corporations, even though there are corporations out there really sucking their blood for 50 years.

HERE IS HIS CONTACT INFORMATION

[Soporific]

Alternate Deputy Presiding Officer
Jeffrey Toback
(516)571-6207

Committees:
Health and Social Services - Chair
Judiciary - Chair
Rules - Vice Chair
Public Safety
Minority Affairs
Public Works
Planning, Development & The Environment

government bleh

[austinpoet]

FTA:

The Justice Department has proposed a mandatory labeling system for sites bearing sexually explicit content and higher penalties for Internet service providers that don't report child pornography on their networks to the appropriate authorities.

but we oppose the .XXX top-level domain.... how convenient.

in other news;

[hector_uk]

google stock up 0.05%.

Can we sue the lawyers?

[CitznFish]

Can we sue the lawyers for acting negligently and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the public with their asinine lawsuits? All the lawyers see are dollar signs.

Political Stunt

[DragonWriter]

More than attempt to get money, or change Google's behavior, this is a politician making a political stunt.

More offtopic ranting about tagging

[heinousjay]

I see the 'fud' tag showing up on a lot of stuff. I would like to let the intrepid tagger know that the word does not mean 'I don't like this article.' I know that's hard to understand. It's kind of the same as the fact that the 'Troll' moderation does not mean 'I don't agree.' As such, I don't expect this lesson to stick.

Please mod me down.

Re:More offtopic ranting about tagging

[mizhi]

You've been modded funny, while it's not a -1 moderation, it's clearly not appropriate for your post. I think it just further proves your point.

Apparently /. moderators are mostly able to read, they can not comprehend.

Re:More offtopic ranting about tagging

[iroll]

So, you deny that this hysterical article is about spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt?

Because that's exactly what it seems like to me: a lawyer and a small time politician spreading FUD among the unwashed masses for their own benefit.

/not the guy who's FUD tagging

Whose Fault?

[NittanyTuring]

Isn't child porn illegal? If so, then Google shouldn't be at fault, but the pornographers.

Re:They're working on that

[denis-The-menace]

Yes they are but they are not going towards Communism (left in the political spectrum)
they are going far right towards Fascism.
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
http://www.hermes-press.com/etch1.htm

All hail the shrub!

Oh right

[thenerd]

So preswumably:
1. if google are making money off of child porn,
2. and this law firm is making money off of a lawsuit with google

then

the law firm is making money off of child porn?

So who is going to sae the law firm!?

The Microsoft/kiddie-porn connection!

[Old Man Kensey]

That's true, but there's far too much of this "we must mandate impossible things to make sure no child anywhere could ever be exposed to anything immoral, illegal or fattening!" mindset going about. Outlawing child porn is one thing, and outside of extremist NAMBLA members I can't think of anybody who would oppose that. Using the most tenuous child porn connection imaginable as a lever to attempt to extract billions from a successful company and gain attention, is quite another.

By the lawsuit's logic, Microsoft is even guiltier than Google because its software does not attempt to stop the production and distribution of child porn on Microsoft operating systems. It's all there in Windows XP and Office -- just take pics with your digital camera, connect it to your PC, and Windows XP will offer to pull those images off and help you work with them. Then you use Office and FrontPage to upload them to a slick-looking website.

My personal opinions on Microsoft and their business practices aside, it's seriously stretching credibility to assert that Microsoft is complicit in and knowingly profiting from the creation and distribution of kiddie porn, and even more so to level the same charges at Google.

Re:The Microsoft/kiddie-porn connection!

[YrWrstNtmr]

By the lawsuit's logic, Microsoft is even guiltier than Google because its software does not attempt to stop the production and distribution of child porn on Microsoft operating systems.

Similarly, every single camera maker. I agree that this is probably nothing more than cluelessness and a money grab.

Re:The Microsoft/kiddie-porn connection!

[Detritus]

Outlawing child porn is one thing, and outside of extremist NAMBLA members I can't think of anybody who would oppose that.

I would oppose it, and I'm not a pedophile.

I'm all for prosecuting anyone who sexually abuses a child, and that would include sexually abusing a child to produce "child porn". The problem is that the possession of child porn has become a thought crime, unrelated to any actual abuse of a child.

Re:The Microsoft/kiddie-porn connection!

[Old Man Kensey]

I suppose it's a question of line-drawing. It is impossible to possess child porn (in the sense of "images of actual children engaged in actual sex or prurient nudity") without an illegal act having been committed (whether or not you yourself committed it), so bona-fide child porn is never "unrelated to any actual abuse of a child". Generally US law recognizes that the valuable product of an illegal act is illegal to possess if you have knowledge that it was in fact produced illegally, which is why you can be prosecuted for knowingly receiving stolen property, and you can also I believe be separately prosecuted as an accessory to the original theft, or some similar idea, for providing financial support related to the commission of an illegal act.

Of course when the item in question is a stolen car stereo, you can argue that you didn't know it was stolen, and escape prosecution unless the state can show otherwise (but you still lose the stereo). Child porn is much much harder to make that argument on in most cases -- you can argue whether a person who looks 16 is really 15, 16 or even 21, but an 8-year-old kid is generally clearly young enough to be off-limits in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with.

The "edge cases" in kiddie porn are simulation, paste-ups (young head/older body), and debates over what constitutes looking or being too young or (in the case of simple nudity) what's "sexual" vs. "artistic". But in most cases none of those come into play, and it's immediately obvious the images are the product of an illegal act without which they could not exist.

Re:Why can't Google just stop accepting porn ads ?

[ultramk]

Google is the gateway to porn right now, and that needs to change.

OK, I'll bite.

Why?

M-

They regularly remove illegal content...

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Apparently these people have never seen the huge list of links that Google removes from their search engine due to request/legality. There are literally thousands of links to child porn that they have removed.

Re:They regularly remove illegal content...

[phoenix.bam!]

This guy doesn't even know what software is running on his home computer. Do you think he actually managed to use google to google search for google's policy on things like child pornography?

Re:"do no evil..."

[fabs64]

You sir, are completely batshit fracking loco, and need to have your keyboard license-revoked.

I mean honestly, the kind of ill-informed stupid rubbish you just spouted may rub off on someone!

US is a democracy?

[Ahnteis]

We call ourselves a democracy? Where would that be?

"And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands,"

I'm pretty sure democracy isn't used anywhere except by people who don't understand what that actually means.

Re:US is a democracy?

[terrymr]

aghhhh.

You can be a republic and a democracy, a republic and communist, comunist and democratic and a republic, a monarchy and democratic and/or communist ... you can't however be a republic and a monarchy.

Re:US is a democracy?

[DragonWriter]

The US is not merely a republic, it is specifically, by design, a democratic republic -- a form of representative democracy -- even though this isn't used in its founding documents. Not all Republics are democratic (e.g., China is a Republic, but not a democratic one). Not all democracies are republics (in addition to the rare direct democracies, there are representative democracies that are constitutional monarchies, rather than republics, e.g., the United Kingdom.) But "democracy" and "republic" are not exclusive, and those who say the US is a "republic, not a democracy" either don't know what they are talking about (most common, IMO) or are particularly cynical about the role and effect of public participation through the electoral process.

Re:US is a democracy?

[Ohreally_factor]

I'm sorry, but it's a well known fact that reality conforms to Civ II.

Re:US is a democracy?

[Jherek Carnelian]

you can't however be a republic and a monarchy.

Unless, of course, the monarch is part of the royal anarchy.

Re:US is a democracy?

[forgotten_my_nick]

A system where your vote may not mean anything depending on what part of the country you live in and that you end up with the choice of only two runners. Also after a tie no system to break the tie except to be voted in by your friends you put in power before. Well I wouldn't much call that a democracy.

At least Saddam was a bit more honest about it when he made sure everyone voted for him.

I tried to search...

[poena.dare]

I tried to search for news articles about Google profiting from child porn, but the results were filtered out.

Can you imagine what next week's Google Zeitgeist is going to look like?

Re:They're working on that

[DigiShaman]

Yes they are but they are not going towards Communism (left in the political spectrum) they are going far right towards Fascism.

You can have both. It's called totalitarianism, that's exactly what China is. With totalitarianism you have a combination of the worst of both worlds (communism and fascism). First glance, it seems like an oxymoron, but it's not.

Note: All countries that start out as facists or communist end up as a totalitarianism regime.

eBay censors its act

[Animats]

It looks like eBay is doing some censoring. They still seem to have Google AdWords for almost everything, including many unlikely products ("Perpetual Motion - Whatever you're looking for you can get it on eBay. www.eBay.com"). Or even "Bombs - Looking for Bombs? Find exactly what you want today. www.eBay.com" (But not "guns".)

It's interesting to see what they don't have an ad for. "Nuclear bombs" - no eBay ad. Most sex-related keywords - no eBay ad. "Hemp" - no eBay ad. It's neither random nor accidental.

Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

[khasim]

If a kiddie cereal is one packed with sugar and marketed to children.

If a kiddie movie is one packed with fart jokes and marketed to children.

Kiddie ride, kiddie menu, etc.

Therefore, kiddie porn must be porn that is marketed to children.

Who needs facts or investigation when you can just launch a lawsuit? I'm betting these guys are hoping for a quick settlement from Google just to make the allegations go away.

I'm hoping that Google fights this.

Re:Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

['nother poster]

Oh, they will. I just hope Google wins this.

Re:Well, it makes sense, doesn't it?

[Open Mohawk]

I'm hoping the judge throws this thing out on it's (probably) meritless @$$ and doesn't waste a moment or a dime more of my taxpayer's money. And a big fine on law firm that filed the suit. Was it a slow day or something, these lawyers couldn't find something else to do?
"Got anything?"
"Nah...you?"
"Nah."
"Kiddie porn is a hot topic.."
"Yeah, and Google is everyone's favorite money maker..."
"I'm gettin' an idea...ya with me???"

"cool...."

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[Jamil Karim]

Don't blame me.. I voted for Kodos

What's the problem?

[c0d3h4x0r]

Child porn is illegal. Google is the advertiser. The advertiser should be held responsible for advertising illegal things. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but maybe I'm missing some legitimate argument to the contrary.

What's wrong with holding an advertiser responsible for promoting illegal things? Doesn't the burden of responsibility ethically lie with the advertiser to ensure that advertisements submitted to their system aren't advertising illegal things? If NBC runs a TV commercial advertising child porn, shouldn't NBC be held responsible for negligence at the very least (for not bothering to check the content of the ad that was submitted)?

Re:What's the problem?

[plague3106]

The problem is that he hasn't offered any proof that they are in fact taking advertising dollars from these people, nor has he offered proof of such an ad at all.

Re:What's the problem?

[rolyatknarf]

"maybe I'm missing some legitimate argument" I think what you missed was the bus that was supposed to take you to school. I just did a Google search for "child pornography" and did not find one single image or link to a site with child porn activity. Did I miss something?

phhhttt

[devhen]

um... google doesnt allow pornographic sites to use adwords. you stupid clod

Good thing nobody ever clicks the sponsored links!

[Max Threshold]

Me, I don't even see them. My visual cortex filters them out just like every other ad on the Web.

Re:Talk about a jerk

[Ohreally_factor]

So, you're saying that your parents' ignorance of technological matters excuses (or even blesses) this law suit? If your parents want to shield you from certain areas of the internet, isn't it their responsibility to understand the technical mechanisms already in place for doing so? Since when did the courts become the first line of defense in parenting and not the last resort?

If your parents are concerned about you accessing sites not proper for someone of your age and level of maturity, and they can't trust you to behave when they're not directly supervising you, then it's their responsibility as parents to know about filtering software. That is, if they actually care about you.

Having a lawyer on speed dial is no replacement for caring.

Re:Who should be on trial here?

[DragonWriter]

Google is a big target. Both for the value as political theater (which is almost certainly the main purpose), and the hope of extorting a large monetary settlement to make the bad PR go away (almost certainly a secondary purpose), Google is a much better target.

Kleenex Sued for Allegedly Profiting From Porn

[NoSuchGuy]

Fake news in an other dimension:

"Kleenex Sued for Allegedly Profiting From (Child) Porn!"

The suit accuses Kleenex® that the consumation of porn is made more handy by Kleenex®
Bla bla bla bla....

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[Spy der Mann]

Nowadays there is not much difference between a Democrat and a Republican, is there?

Yes. They're two sides of the same coin. And with "coin", I mean "money".

My conspiracy theory:

[Stephen Samuel]

His wife caught him "doing some research", and now he has to cover his butt by spending thousands of dollars on a frivolous lawsuit.

Re:My conspiracy theory:

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing... how else would he know about these supposed "ads." And i guarantee you that almost no one is going to go double check his "findings."

bla

[Tom]

I'm pretty sure that Google faces bogus lawsuits like this every other month. The US justice system is a big, fat, ugly "get-rich-quick" scheme for a lucky few, so it isn't much of a surprise that many are trying.

Just another idiot who - my personal belief - should be shot as a service to mankind.

Public distress?

[AviLazar]

The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public

Well I access Google all the time, even for pr0n (especially for pr0n). Since this is the case, will get $100,000 for my distress about having child porn go across my screen?

I am pretty sure Google allows automated inclusion of a link from a website, but they try and scan the MILLIONS of sites to filter out the bad ones. I doubt Google wants to ruin their business for a sick minority who enjoy watching naked children. This guy is just trying to sue so he can make a buck.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[sumday]

There are a hell of a lot of differences. However, they do share some traits.

Both democrats and republicans lie, steal, coerce, extort, and slander to further their ideals. They both think they're right all the time and rarely listen to each other. They both care deeply about the welfare of those close to them.

It's the story of human existence. Who would you rather see in power; someone who agrees with your politics and follows your religion but is an idiot, or someone who promotes things you find abhorrent and doesn't share your religious convictions but is relatively smart?

It's just a shame when both sides use the general public's fears and convictions for monetary/political gain or whatever. Which is what i think you were talking about.

Wha?

[humungusfungus]

Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children.

From reaching children? Is that the biggest problem here?

Plutonium on eBay

[Animats]

"Plutonium Sale New & used Plutonium. aff Check out the deals now! www.eBay.com"

Re:Why can't Google just stop accepting porn ads ?

[Moqui]

Ban search engines -- they potentially allow you to reach content that may or may not be appropriate for you, as deemed by someone you have most likely never met, nor shares the same moral compass as you do.

And while you are at it, ban the transmission of any type of communications that could expose anyone to anything that could potentially be bad for them. Bad being defined as "something you don't like".

This seems a case of...

[phorm]

Won't somebody please think of my children

...because I'm too busy with cocktail parties and late meetings to bother myself. Thanks!

Scumbucket's contact info

[mbius]

http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/legis/LD/07 /index.html

I can't find it in my heart to be as level-headed as parent. From CNET:

Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.

The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good-faith measures to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public...

I know it's not really PC, but I hope they have a special room in hell for this guy. He knows what he's doing, and he knows that we know he knows it.

Re:Scumbucket's contact info

[Fordiman]

"acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public"

How, exactly, do you intentionally do anything by acting negligently?

Re:Scumbucket's contact info

[artifex2004]

I hope they have a special room in hell for this guy.

Sorry, he's slated for bunk beds with Jack Thompson, another "protector of children."

Re:Scumbucket's contact info

[DragonWriter]

Negligence, at law, simply means (approximately) failing to fulfill a legal duty to protect another from some injury; it doesn't exclude intentional conduct, although usually if you have proof of intent, you have stronger remedies available under causes of actions that apply specifically to intentional harm. Also, even outside of legal contexts, "Did X and did Y" does not mean "Did X by doing Y".

Re:Scumbucket's contact info

[TubeSteak]

Basically, the guy is arguing that Google had a duty to remove a hazard, but intentionally didn't.

Kindof like if I purposefuly don't clean up spilled grease on my slippery marble floor because I know you're going to walk by. You slip on it, hurt yourself, and sue. The distress was intentional (I hate you) and leaving the grease was negligence.

Re:Scumbucket's contact info

[Pendersempai]

It's two different charges:

1) Acting negligently, and
2) intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

They are separate torts.

Re:Scumbucket's contact info

[dodobh]

How, exactly, do you intentionally do anything by acting negligently?

Think "drunk driving". The negligence refers to responsibility.

Re:You're wrong.

[DigiShaman]

That's the "text book" definition.

Take China for example, it is totalitarian because of the combination of communism and facism. It's communistic because the government takes and spends tax dollars without voter representation. Also, the government lays down laws that put's itself above the people it's supposed to serve...including corporations. Interestingly enough, it's facist in that the Chinese government officials are totally corrupt in that they can be bought off with massive corporate and mafia funding. Ultimately however, it's the government that enforces the law (and does so with it's own government run banking and telcom divisions for example)

Re:Big surprise

[tomhudson]

Nobody's defending paedophiles ... get over it (and yourself). The guy sponsoring this is a politician.

We're not in China ... the whole "claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public" is bullshit, as is the politician behind the lawsuit. Go after the producers. Oh, wait ... that would mean admitting its a job for the police ... so much for an opportunity for wrapping himself in the flag over an apple-pe issue.

Hey, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - lets sue the politicians - they're always "acting negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public".

come on, you're not even trying!

[Thud457]

underaged cloned Hitler kiddie porn

The boiz from Brazil, if you will.

Re:I've not even bothered to read THFA...

[Handpaper]

Oops ... Mr Tolback is a Democrat. How inconventient.

Mr Tolback may be a member of a party that calls itself 'Democrat' but I would dignify neither that party nor this person with the label.
The party is another 'frighten them enough and they'll keep us incumbent' organisation.
Mr Tolback is merely an attention-seeking moron.
Fine. Lets give him some attention and show him how much of a moron we think he is:

District 7- Jeffrey Toback (D)
(ph)516-571-6207
(fax)516-571-4123
jeffrey.toback@mail.co.nassau.ny.us

Re:Non-starter - you don't get it...

[tacarat]

The idea that Google makes billions just from child porn ads is ridiculous. I'm fairly sure they don't make that much from MMO gold sites or Viagra ads, and those are pretty common.

It's stupid to say that Google is making any thing available. Well, unless they have board meetings that revolve around opening child porn sites. That junk was around before the internet and google. If the problem is that it makes the material easier to find, then this lawsuit should also be going after ALL OTHER SEARCH ENGINES (MS and Yahoo come to mind) or explain why Google's been singled out. Wouldn't that make a great ad for omitted search sites? "We're good, but not good enough to find controversial material".

This is a useless lawsuit. For the follow up they should try suing god for harboring child pornographers. Omni-present, all knowing and perfectly able to send burning bushes to speak with authorities. Given that prayer is the currency of the spiritual world, god must be profiting quite well from the prayers of those wanting to be freed from their plight. That's not counting the prayers of the oppressors to not get caught. Wow. That could open up into all sorts of things. God supports terrorists, child pornogragphers, fornicators, jaywalkers... He's a criminal overlord like nothing we've seen before!!!

Oops, wait, it's a useless PR lawsuit. Nevermind. If you're going to do something stupid, you have to make sure it can't possibly piss off a decent chunk of your voter constituency. That's the truth behind being "Politically correct", yah?

Accuser Doing The Same

[Pitawg]

Why is having a hyperlink to someone's site any more criminal than a politician hitting the national/worldwide news services in an election year?

Google only points to sites. The politician is pointing to google as a pointer to the same sites he says should not be pointed to.

The politician is even advertising to people with and without internet access.

Well, sorta...

[abb3w]

Mr Tolback is a Democrat. How inconventient.

Yeah, but he's a Nassau County Democrat, which I'd expect means he's roughly as far left as Joe Liberman.

The real problem

[LeeMeador]

I think we should jail the building contractors that build the buildings where the filming takes place. They are at least as culpable as Google.

Re:"do no evil..."

[Xanthir]

I'll echo another poster on this article: "IF Google is profitting off of child porn by advertising it, AND the law firm is profitting off of Google by suing them, THEN the law firm is making money off of child porn." Repeat this for any news venues that are reporting the lawsuit, etc. You can justify claiming that *anyone* is profitting off of child porn. The important thing is if Google is willingly and purposely making money off of the exploitation of children for porn, and also if they have reasonable access to means to stop it, but are not using them. Obviously, Google is not making child porn, so the first part is out. As for the second part, Google's advert program is a vast, automated system. There is no way for Google to actually review every single AdWords request that goes through. That being said, they *do* stop obvious childporn stuff, and they *do* review and remove ads that are reported to them. And they do this in a timely manner. Now, if the lawsuit were addressing what I just said specifically, it might be a different story. But the submitter of the lawsuit is a moron who admitted that he had no clue that Google had a SafeSearch filter or whether or not his own computer had a filter either.

this is great

[penguin-collective]

"The suit, which claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public, requests monetary damages to be determined at trial.

That seems to fit the behavior of the current administration excatly--negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress; can we get some monetary damages from them?

Several trillion dollars might cover at least cover two of their big disasters that come to mind immediately: Iraq and debt, although there are many other items we could add.

Google is a law enforcement tool

[bigpat]

really. How the hell does Jeffrey Toback think that the authorities find the child porn in order to track down the people producing it? If it is easy to find through google, then it is easy for the police to find and stop. Sue the police if nothing is being done about it.

Re:What's the real agenda here?

[jargoone]

Oh. My. God.

Are you suggesting that Microsoft has something to do with this? Seriously?

That has to be some sort of record, even for a slashdot comment.

Re:What's the real agenda here?

[Ohreally_factor]

It's not that big a stretch, if you believe that MS is behind SCO and it's anti-linux litigation activity. And there is some pretty good evidence that MS has been involved.

well

[McGiraf]

"to block child pornography from reaching children."

i don't think that children are the audience for this.

Re:Talk about a jerk

[spun]

Having a lawyer on speed dial is no replacement for caring.

When will you humans learn that these feelings, as you call them, can stand in the way of huge cash settlements?

WTF?! Are you KIDDING me?

[MindPrison]

I'm no Google activist by any means, but if there's one impression that google has given me is that they're so anti-child-porn as any search engine could ever get!

Even with SafeSearch Off (with their picture search facility) you can't find a singe image like that (not that I'm searching - mind you), but my experience with searching for literally anything - I've yet to come across something even remotely related to child-pron with this search facility, that I have to give them.

I'm old enough to remember the days of the Altavista search engine - and that one where relatively uncensored - so you'd stumble across the odd weird-off image now and then, but google? Nah! These people specialize in keeping such images off the engine.

However - that said - I also think that google strives to be the ultimate search engine, and therefor will have some issues on censoring just about anything. Even with thousands of people working for them - it would be literally impossible to control EVERYTHING streaming trough the net, so if anything slips by - it's most likely through the text-search and NOT the IMAGE search (they're pretty thourough - try it yourself...it's even work safe in SafeSearch OFF)

I'll be the first one to Blame Google for just about anything, but for them to make profits of Child Pron? Nope - not even by an unforseen loophole. These guys take such stuff VERY seriously - that I have to give them!

Soft child pron is a worse problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to look at porn and do so fairly regularly. I mostly download Usenet porn and have for ~10 years or so. In all that time, I have never once seen child porn. Although I don't go looking for it, I would expect at least once to have accidentally stumbled upon some. It never happened. All this makes me wonder if the hysteria around child porn is actually just people pandering to parent's fears in order to advance their own agenda. It begs the question: is all this mindless panic in proportion to the severity of the problem?

Generally no. However, a worse problem is soft child pron. Parents who dress their young children in sexy outfits and get around strict pron laws. Warning: NSFW! Babbleclub is a typical site. Think of the wierdness of JonBenet Ramsey.

Age of Consent

[garylian]

Someone was kind enough to make up a website that has this sort of information available...

Age of Consent

Hey, don't look at me like that! I needed the info for a report in psych class! I may be a pervert, but not THAT kind of pervert!

Slight correction

[GuloGulo2]

"As a believer in the Bible, I truly believe" in fairy tales.

There, I fixed it for you.

I called his office...(516)571-6207

[egamma]

..and they said that this is NOT an election year issue, he was actually just re-elected. just trying to clear up that misconception. I do agree, however, that he's a clueless idiot who doesn't know how wildly inaccurate his claims are.

To clarify...

[RecycledElectrons]

First, my bias: I believe that government is evil, and that freedom is a good thing. That makes me a radical, militant, extremist, terrorist, wing-nut.

To clarify what they are talking about..when they say:

> Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to
> block child pornography from reaching children.

"Child pornography" refers to anyone under the age of 18 nude. That means baby pictures, and porn that's legal in most of Europe (where the age of consent is 16,) and any pictures of topless or nude beaches.

This is supposedly reaching "children." That means anyone under the age of 18, like a 17 year old male surfing the 'net.

Does anyone else see the absurdity in preventing a 17 yr old from looking up his baby pictures?

Does anyone else see the absurdity in blocking a 17 year old from seeing another 17 year old naked over the internet? Go to Germany, and you can pay a few hundred bucks to screw that 16 or 17 year old "child" at a brothel?

Does anyone else see the absurdity in preventing a high school student who will spend a vacation in Australia from seeing the beeches?

Andy Out!

Re:Talk about a jerk

[TubeSteak]

So, you're saying that your parents' ignorance of technological matters excuses (or even blesses) this law suit?

No, what I'm trying to say is that this guy knows many things, amongst them: writing laws and filing lawsuits. "Technical" computer stuff is not one of his talents.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

To translate that for you: He didn't know any other ways to 'fix' the problem. So he used what he knows.

Is this payback?

[stry_cat]

For this
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/19/13 32207&tid=217

Filed where?

[jtgd]

Are you sure this was filed in New York and not Redmond Washington?

Negligent Intent

[jdbartlett]

"claims Google acted negligently and intentionally"

Is it possible to do something both negligently /and/ intentionally? A sort of 'accidentally-on-purpose'?

Just so no one is confused...

[deblau]

FTFA: The suit was filed in the New York Supreme Court.

Unless you're a lawyer or have some twisted interest in these things, this probably isn't the court you're thinking of. States usually have three levels of courts: trial court, court of last appeal, and an intermediate appellate court. (Some states do away with the latter.) Normally, the Supreme Court is the court of last appeal, but in New York it's backwards. The New York Supreme Court is really the trial court, then comes the Appellate Division, then finally the New York Court of Appeals at the top of the ladder.

Just FYI.

I am SICK of this anarchocapitalist BS

[raddan]

Wow, governments have some worthwhile functions after all! Time to pick a new political philosophy out of Wikipedia so you can tell everyone at /. about it with every fucking post.

Does this mean we can sue the ....

[3seas]

Department of Transportation for any accident that happens on a US highway?

Sigh ... dismissed.

[morto]

What's next ? Sue phone companies because they don't make an effort to catch eventual criminals making use of their infrastructure ?
It is just another bogus claim.

I wish these kind of things be posted only if there is an actual conviction (at least in first instance).

In my opinion it becomes news if there is a conviction otherwise it is just the usual crap. I bet there must be several outrageous claims like this dismissed every month.

he probably

[alizard]

discovered that spamming for profit was above his technical competence level and looked for somebody else to rip off.

I hope google not only prevails, but countersues on the basis of a frivolous lawsuit and takes every material possession he owns.

Isn't Posession of Child Porn Illegal?

[Greyfox]

Suggest someone get a warrant to search the computers of the folks filing the suit. I bet you'll find some.

End of the free Internet inevitable...

[RexRhino]

In the current model of social democracy, it is the job of the government to protect everyone from possible risks. It is the government's job to make sure you wear a seat belt, don't smoke in public... that companies don't market soda and junk food during kid's cartoons... that people can't advertise a candidate 60 days from an election... that you eat a diet the government wants you to eat, etc. etc.

The internet as it currently exists, is dangerous. People can do illicit things anonymously, people can instantly send information all around the world, and people can even spread sick things like child pornography. Freedom of information is dangerous, and it cannot be made safe! There is NO WAY to make the free, unrestricted, untracked, and anonymous exchange of information without any risks.

People want safety and a nanny state to protect them from everything. There is not going to be some sort of special exception for the Internet. The internet has risks. It is not 100% safe.

Eventually, the Internet is going to have to be controlled by a few government regulated institutions. Websites will have to be licenced. Speech on the internet will have to be regulated. Social democracy is about deciding what is best for society at a collective level, and that isn't compatible with the decentralization and anarchist individualism of the internet.

How do you get to see child porn?

[X.25]

I don't get it. I've used Internet since '91 (before that I've used X.25), and in all this time, I have never seen child pornography. Anywhere. Ever. And I spent incredibly lot of time on the net, for the past 15 years.

I've also never seen porn, unless I was looking for it.

So, how do these all people come across child pornography, if they're not actually looking for it?

Why I don't see child pornography when I search for "802.11g wireless access point" - what am I doing wrong?

Put Down Your Marijuana Joint

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone who uses myRedbook wrote, "Pure bullshit. There isn't a single topic, post, inference, or suggestion on that site that in any way promotes child porn, nor does the site provide any assistance whatsoever in procuring child porn or engaging in illegal sexual activity with minors".

If you think that myRedbook verifies the ages of the prostitutes selling sex at myRedbook, then you must be smoking a marijuana joint or snorting cocaine.

Re:Big surprise

[sendtwogrey]

Perhaps he should just sue education system as if they where not so irresponsible, people would not be able to spell child porn and therefore be unable to Google it.

Patent No. 4,698,672 holders should also take their share of the blame as they enable the viewing of child porn.

Bumblebee Guy

[teal_]

Aye Aye Aye Homer Simpson el molestario!

Re:What's the real agenda here?

[Tony Hoyle]

MS wouldn't be involved directly.

Like SCO - where they used front companies to do it so it didn't look like they were funding a frivolous lawsuit directly - if they get involved it'll be by an anonymous donation to the 'concerned parents fund' or something like that.

OTOH It's a stretch to believe this is MS funded currently.

Why?

[nurb432]

Beacuse Google has the $ to pony up. And is easier to find since they dont hide.

This is fun!

[Grendel Drago]

underaged human-animal hybrid cloned gay kiddie hitler porn that carries avian flu

I disagree.

[Grendel Drago]

I hope that because Google bent over for the Chinese, they've lost their common carrier status and are now responsible for every damned thing they index. It'd serve 'em right.

Re:Non-starter - you don't get it...

[Jedi Alec]

If the problem is that it makes the material easier to find

Google should just argue they were working for the government and cover it under a blanket of national security...problem solved.

This idea... is the worst idea ever.

[Grendel Drago]

I'm not going to bother pointing out why .xxx is a bad idea; others have done it for me already. But about those someones "in charge of ensuring that all the girls on the sites are over 18", 18 USC 2257 (in the United States, at least) enforces a requirement to that effect. Most porn sites already label themselves with a variety of metadata. (View-source on a porn site's front page and see for yourself.) So, what else are you suggesting, then?

Hey! You forgot a few co-defendants

[MoriartyBrian]

With myself being totally digusted over this frivolous lawsuit, I do have to question the total lack of throuoghness exhibited by this law firm. I mean, they forgot to name as co-defendants the biggest, most important people of all:

Al Gore and ARPA

I mean, Al created it all, and has publically claimed to do so time and time again, and of course, you can't be looking at porn (no matter what kind or what your particular kink is) without utilizing some technology developed with taxpayer monies.

I'm surprised that we haven't heard of these types of pointless wastes of cash more often. Maybe we taxpayers should sue for reimbursement for the waste of our monies over something like this.

Hey, what about Danni Ashe? She supposedly started all this porn and cybersex stuff right? (I saw a statement on someone's blog the other day. What a load of crap. I've been on the Net in various ways since 1988. I can guarantee that there were pornographic emails and USENET postings way before Danni Ashe...)

Ah those days in the cubicle with trn... Looking at porn at work was so much easier then... Until the WWW - wait, throw Tim into the law suit as well as Steve Jobs for founding NeXT, Inc.

Hey, let's all send him goat pr0n!

[No Such Agency]

No, let's not. Please do not harrass this guy, however much of a loser he is. He will not change his mind because of a few nerds yelling "You suck lol!" into his voice mail.

The More benign conspiracy theory:

[Stephen Samuel]

It just hit me, rereading the article, that what happened is that he picked up some spyware that is messing with his 'results' and making it look like his google searches are resulting in porn ads. If so, then the company that is running the spyware could find themselves joindered in as a third-party defendant...

The charges that I can see being rendered against the spyware company would include: interference with contractual relationships (with the people paying for the real targeted google ads), libel (making it look like google is serving porn), unfair business practices ... and I'm sure that an actual lawyer (of which google probably has many) could come up with some even more interesting causes of action.

Re:Non-starter - you don't get it...

[tacarat]

Senator: "As head of the US Intelligence agencies, can you explain why has the any links between Google and child pornography a matter of national security?"

MIB: "I'm sorry, Senator. I'm not at liberty to discuss that"

In the background... *fap* *fap* *fap*

For reals?

[Descalzo]

"...I would first like to know whether religion is true."

If you really want to know if it's true, there are ways to find out. Maybe some of us can point you in the right direction. You are right, though: theology is pretty much useless unless you believe in God first.

As for why he included "for us" in his post, I imagine that he believes that Jesus sacrificed himself for you as kind of a gift. You don't need to ask for it to get it. Plus, assuming that it is all true, you benefit from it whether you want it or not, to one degree or another.

Re:For reals?

[colinrichardday]

No. Theology is pretty much useless unless there is a God. One's belief in such will not make theology useful.

As for the alleged sacrifice by Jesus, how do I benefit from it? I do benefit from Euclid's systematization of geometry, but I don't have followers of Euclid tell me that Euclid did it
for me.

Re:For reals?

[Descalzo]

"No. Theology is pretty much useless unless there is a God. One's belief in such will not make theology useful."
You may be right there.

As for Him doing it "for you," apparently He knew that future generations would also benefit from this. As for how it benefits you, that kind of seems like a bigger question. A theological question. I'm not trying to argue theology here, just maybe explain why everphilski wrote "for us" in his post. It seemed obvious to me: he believes it.

weird is right

[narcc]

How exactly did you become familiar with the child-porn industry? -- That's creepy...

Unintended consequences of Public Works

[Descalzo]

I guess you could say that all of those things have come at a price. We relinquish a lot of responsibility and freedom for all of these things. I like to think of public education as an example of this:

Parents send their kids to school, giving up a little control. The State takes this control, and expands it. Now parents MUST send their kids to school, or have a dang good excuse, or homeschool them. Is this fair? Can I ethically compel someone to send their kids to school? Can I compel dada21 to pay for my kid's education? Can I compel him to pay for the schooling of all my umpteen nieces and nephews? I have now siezed control over not only the parents of the nation (they MUST comply, or face the consequences), but those who may not have kids (they MUST pay, or face the consequences). We have now reduced the freedom of the parents, the neighbors, and the children. All for 'their own good.' Before you all go beating up on me for dissing the public school system, I should tell you that I do believe in it. I teach 3rd grade. But everywhere I look I see more and more power going to the federal government and less and less to the parents and teachers (not to mention the students).

I think that's what is meant by unintended consequences. Like now we have people demanding that their children be taught about Intelligent Design! I don't think I want that taught in a science class, but if I live in Kansas, my kid is gonna get it whether I want it or not.

I sometimes feel like the bird trading his feathers to the fisherman for worms. Every day, he gives the fisherman a feather for a handful of worms. Small cost, good meal. He becomes the most well-fed bird in the land. Until one day the bird can't fly away anymore and the fisherman brings home a fat bird for dinner.

Child Porn

[fatduck]

"Defendant is willing to accede to the demands of the Chinese autocrats to block the search term 'democracy,'" the complaint states, "but when it comes to the protection and well-being of our nation's innocent children, Defendant refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children."

Well it only makes sense that children would want to see child pornography, not adult pornography.

Re:What's the real agenda here?

[Ohreally_factor]

MS wouldn't be involved directly. . . . if they get involved it'll be by an anonymous donation to the 'concerned parents fund' or something like that.

Goes without saying. But it's still possible to connect dots, as we have been able to do in SCO's case. Furthermore, there are no such things as anonymous campaign contributions., so it should be possible to find out if any MS employees made contributions.

However, this is just one brushstroke in a big picture that is MS's War on Google. It's relatively minor, and it's really already done its damage, from the MS point of view, which is spread a little FUD. Toback will get his publicity, the law firm will benefit in some unknown way, and the case will be thrown out. Death by a thousand paper cuts.

Let me guess

[WindBourne]

If we dig deeper, we will find it backed by jeffery toback?

myRedbook - do some research and call your city

[paul_sf]

I live in the SF Bay Area. I was just browsing thru this site and saw you myRedbook link. Out of curiosity I followed it, and admittedly I spent hours browsing the site. While I truly DON'T CARE whether people pay for sex or not (it's their own business), I was shocked in reading many of the Reviews, "Mini Reviews", Ads, etc. That many of these things are happening right in my neighborhood, under the guise of what they call "AAMPs". I live in an apartment complex and my wife always is suspicious about some foot traffic of many men visiting certain apartments, etc. Now reading this so called "Red Book" site put one and one togehter. So, I spent hours going thru all the messages and ads there, and collected all the information about specific "AAMPs" and specific "providers" and printed out everything and emailed it to our local cheif of police and local city mayor. I got an email from the police right away and said some of the AAMP names there are already under investigation. If you live in SF Bay Area and do not want you kids to live in an environment where prostitutions are going on right next door, I urge you to do the same and contact your local politicians and police. I don't mind if the legalize the darn thing like they do in Vegas, and put everything in a safe area away from family and children. But this happening "right next door" is really upseting. I urge you to do the leg work like I do, search thru their review sites. Their site make it easy. You can search by area code, and the look at the city you are living in. You can then track down the "AAMP" and the provider names in that city, and then save everything on a file and send it to the police. Chances are the local police is already watching them, like the police in my city. But this won't be on the top of their priority until enough citizens complain about it. Reading some of the responses to this, I take it that there are many RedBook supporters here on Slash Dot. Like I said, I am not against this but just get this out of the apartments and residential area. You will understand me if you have any children. And as for whether there is any proof that there is child porn going on there, I don't know. But last time I check prostitution is illegal here in the US. And reading the many messages posted on RedBook.com itlsef, there are certainly acknowledging that many of these girls are illegal immigrants forced into selling their bodies, or victims of women trafficking. Do you really want this happening right next door to you? Paul

Re:myRedbook - do some research and call your city

[paul_sf]

Further, here is how you can find out what's going on in your own city and neighborhood! Go to this link: http://www.myredbook.com/showpro.aspx Enter your area code in the Phone field, it will yield a list of working girls and "Organization". You DO NOT need to subscribe to the site. There are plenty of information available just from the first title line of the Review Site. And you can easily trace the "Organization" to their ads and web sites. There is even a Search function on the forums where you can get all kind of information. My contact at the police department was quite amused that I did all these leg work and provided so much details for them! Get these stuff out of our neighborhood!

Underaged Prostitutes at myRedbook?

[Anonymous Coward]

An employee of myRedbook wrote, " Do YOU have a verifiable evidence of a underaged prostitute advertising, posting or otherwise affiliated or associated in any way with Redbook? ".

That would be the role of law enforcement.

You can explain to federal law enforcment how you verify the ages of all the prostitutes advertising their services on that web site.

What? You can't? You, deservedly, shall go straight to prison.

Crackpots.

[Snaller]

Oh why must the world be filled with them...

Flamebait?

[TheNetAvenger]

Flamebait? Who let neo-cons in here? *smile*

The sad part is even though my post seems a bit 'harsh' with regard to calling Bush King, the information I posted is factual.

(I encourage everyone to research this a bit.)

This could have long term reprocussions with future administrations, so even if you are a Bush supporter, what happens when another Clinton is in the WhiteHouse? Bush and the Republican congress have extended the powers of the President to a alarming Monarchal level.

And even if I am a bit 'tinfoil' on this, it isn't going to hurt anyone that cares about the US and its future to actually look at some of this and how it truly could hurt our republic.

Take Care...

Huh?

[GuloGulo2]

"Of course, you could not have asked a man born 2000 years ago to do anything."

Well, if he was the incarnation of an omnipotent, omniscient being, why the fuck not?

Inflation

[Savantissimo]

Absolutely correct. Also the BLS has jiggered the statistics to artificially lower the reported inflation rate by continuously changing the weights of the items in the basket of goods as well as taking housing prices out of the equation and substituting questionable rent figures. Further, the US gold reserve has been exchanged for paper in last few years in swaps with the central banks of other countries and the IMF; the physical gold was sold by these banks to keep the price of gold low in relation to fiat money. That stopped working two or three years ago, and gold has been rising ever since, pulling all the other rare metals along with it. The Fed under Bernake has stopped reporting M3, security repurchase agreements, and US banks' foreign dollar accounts. The amount removed from sight is greater than all physical US currency in circulation, had been rising sharply, and is strongly predictive of the narrower M2 measure of money.

The national debt, once the present value of Medicare, veterans' benefits, Social Security, and the private sector's debt are all taken into account is in excess of $4*10^13, or more than 330% of GDP. The GDP figure is itself inflated by non-productive activity and accounting trickery. The current account deficit is over 63% of yearly exports. The price of houses in most US metropolitan areas is far out of proportion to household incomes, (5x-10x, up to 15x in SF) - well beyond sustainable levels.

The easy way to reduce the real value of paper debts and improve the balance of trade is to inflate the currency. It is vitually a certainty that it is going to happen.

I've thought about this recently

[lorcha]

I won't even comment on child porn because the issue is too charged to have a rational discussion about. But I've done some thinking about the war on drugs recently.

Like you, I believe that government intervention should be minimized, and in the case of a purely victimless situation, the government should not get involved at all. If some guy wants to smoke a joint in the privacy of his own home, I have no interest in that, and I believe that the state should have no interest in it, either. However, like you said, as soon as someone's actions infringe on my right (and others' right) to be safe and secure in my (their) person, that's where the state should have an interest. To use your example, if drug lords want to start shooting each other up, that's a problem for the state to handle.

The problem is, drugs tend to make the user lose control of his/her actions. Indeed, many users take drugs specificially in order to lose control of their actions. Take Meth, for instance. Meth is highly a highly-addictive stimulant, and can cause the user to become violently aggressive. It doesn't take a mental stretch to realize that meth users are going to be burglarizing and robbing people in order to raise funds to support their meth habits. And meth cooks (the people who make meth is home "labs") are a huge problem as well. The chemical byproducts of the cooking process are extremely toxic and the cleanup involves specialized contractors in full hazmat suits and several hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've seen it happen, and it is not pretty.

Since meth users and cooks tend to cause so many problems, how can we, as a society, permit people to use meth in good concience? I think of it like driving while drunk. We have decided, as a society, that it is impossible to operate a motor vehicle in a manner that is safe to yourself and others while you are falling-down drunk. So even if a person by some stroke of luck manages to make it home safely driving while drunk, he/she is still guilty of a crime.

Perhaps if there were some way for people to experiment with recreational drugs in the presence of a medical professional who could supervise the experience and after-care to prevent overdose and manage any withdrawl symptoms? Seems like a waste of a doctor to me, but perhaps society has a need?

So I guess my position is that some drug use really ought to be outlawed, because certain drugs make it impossible or near-impossible for the user to respect the rights of others in society. Meth and driving drunk are just two examples. How does that translate to child porn? Clearly, those who abuse children should be punished. I believe that those who pay others to abuse children also be punished as well. However, I am not clear how "having a few thumbnails of child porn in your browser's cache" could be anything other than a victimless crime. Perhaps it's still worthy of an intervention? Maybe probation+treatment? I don't really know anything about the propensity of child-porn viewers to abuse actual children other than what you hear on the 11:00 news ("Anyone who even dreams of looking at at 17-year-old naked is having sex with infants, killing them, and then eating them!!1 Lock them up and throw away teh key!!!11"), which I do not consider to be scientific evidence. My gut tells me that anyone who really wants to molest or rape children would not waste time looking at child porn. I enjoy having sex, and as I'm sure you'll agree, pornography is no substitute for an actual woman.

No you cannot!

[lorcha]

You can go to Ontario and have sex with a 14 year old, as long as you...

You absolutely cannot do that unless you want to go to jail for 30 years (or for a mandatory life term if this is your second offense). In the US, it is a more serious crime to have sex with a 14 year old girl abroad than it is to kill her (average sentence for murder is about 7-10 years).