Sweetlips Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 uh oh...... How many of you are worried? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_.../google_records SAN JOSE, Calif. - The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine. Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose. Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals. Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs. The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds. The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children. The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn. The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets. Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously." "Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codwagon Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Now you tell us. I googled Sweetlips several months ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetlips Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Now you tell us. I googled Sweetlips several months ago. 1276071[/snapback] haha......all you get are pictures of fish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I just used Snopes on this and it didn't show up. It looked so much like a Snopes deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetlips Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 I just used Snopes on this and it didn't show up. It looked so much like a Snopes deal. 1276262[/snapback] Maybe not enough time has gone by.......when I saw the article, it was under an hour old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysDiehard Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Actually, all they need to do is look on White House PCs for records of what Clinton was Googling.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetlips Posted January 19, 2006 Author Share Posted January 19, 2006 Actually, all they need to do is look on White House PCs for records of what Clinton was Googling.... 1276287[/snapback] Probably the cliff notes on how to be Presidential Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I just used Snopes on this and it didn't show up. It looked so much like a Snopes deal. 1276262[/snapback] This whole government is a bad dream. Especially Abramoff and the lobbtists running shell games with indian tribes and slave shops in Saipan with clothing they claim are made in america. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 can't wait till Bush is out of office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Actually, all they need to do is look on White House PCs for records of what Clinton was Googling.... 1276287[/snapback] easyfatchicks.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 easyfatchicks.com 1276455[/snapback] That web site seems to be down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Probably the cliff notes on how to be Presidential 1276329[/snapback] That's the last thing Clinton needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 I think Bush should be allowed to just go in and grab whatever records he wants and read our e-mails without any subpoena or warrant. If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care if our President invades your privacy? We got to stop the terrorists. It's not like he's Joe McCarthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 I think Bush should be allowed to just go in and grab whatever records he wants and read our e-mails without any subpoena or warrant. If you're not doing anything wrong, why do you care if our President invades your privacy? We got to stop the terrorists. 1276542[/snapback] That's no problem at all if you disregard the constitution and don't appreciate that executive powers were intentionally limited by our great forefathers. No president has the right to personal private matters without going through the proper procedures. Our courts exsist for matters just like this. Sorry, I don't have as much trust in every administration from present to the infinite future like you apparently have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 That's no problem at all if you disregard the constitution and don't appreciate that executive powers were intentionally limited by our great forefathers. No president has the right to personal private matters without going through the proper procedures. Our courts exsist for matters just like this. Sorry, I don't have as much trust in every administration from present to the infinite future like you apparently have. 1276586[/snapback] BW, you might wanna read that again, this time thinking 'sarcasm'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 time for cliaz to clear his history quick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 The Republican admin strikes another blow for freedom and limited, non-invasive government. Limbaugh must be so proud today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 BW, you might wanna read that again, this time thinking 'sarcasm'. 1276660[/snapback] well, somebody gets me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 BW, you might wanna read that again, this time thinking 'sarcasm'. 1276660[/snapback] Ahhhh, I never remember seeing Untateve post anything political before. I've seen things like this from Balla, Perch et al. when they are 100% serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 BW, you might wanna read that again, this time thinking 'sarcasm'. 1276660[/snapback] This from the guy who thought rule 85.1.1 was real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 This from the guy who thought rule 85.1.1 was real. 1276852[/snapback] Enjoy your fun while you can. I'm plotting my revenge....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 yahoo, msn, and aol all complied!! http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/19/_doj_...h_requests.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Enjoy your fun while you can. I'm plotting my revenge....... 1276873[/snapback] And here it is. We all have our moments, my friend. Start at post #32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Actually, all they need to do is look on White House PCs for records of what Clinton was Googling.... 1276287[/snapback] im sure it was girls at least... the cirrent admin likes man on man sex can't wait till Bush is out of office. 1276420[/snapback] well there is the ongoing war thingy and the chance he may not want to step down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 Google has been refusing the request since a subpoena was first issued last August, even as three of its competitors agreed to provide information, according to court documents made public this week. Google asserts that the request is unnecessary, overly broad, would be onerous to comply with, would jeopardize its trade secrets and could expose identifying information about its users. The dispute with Google comes as the government is moving aggressively on several fronts to obtain data on Internet activity to achieve its law enforcement goals, from domestic security to the prosecution of online crime. Under the antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, for example, the Justice Department has demanded records on library patrons' Internet use. Those efforts have encountered resistance on privacy grounds. Link to NY Times article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.