Bush Wants YOUR Google Records
- Thread starter Mark
- Start date
Heh. Despite disagreeing with the government in this matter, I have some sympathy for its attorneys. Basically, they've been asked by the Supreme Court that the 1998 law is necessary to acheive the government's (legally legitimate) goal of making it difficult to access pornography. And they have to do so to the evidentiary satisfaction of the Court. If they did their own search they'd be (probably justly) accused of cherry (heh) picking sites which less intrusive measures such as net nannies didn't catch. To make their case, they need to be able so say something like, "We took a random sample of all the sites on the web. X percent were pornographic; Y percent were accessible by children by typing in a common search term and Z percent were not blocked by commercially available net nanny software."
As it happens, I applaud the methodolgy the government has chosen to try to make its case. Whether they have subpoena power to attain the data necessary to apply the methodology from a non-party to the case is the question at issue. Whilst I agree with and applaud your stance in favor of the sanctity of business records, there is lots of case law and evidentiary rulings which have eroded that power over time; I'm content to let the big boys from Google's law firm fight that one out.
"We did a search on the term 'tits' on Google, Yahoo, etc. X percent of the first 1,000 results on Google were pornographic. Y percent of those were not blocked by commerically available net nanny software. X percent of the first 1,000 results on Yahoo were..."
Et cetera. And it doesn't narrow the test to one database.
Last edited:
"Your honor, our research indicates that children don't search on the term 'tits.' They prefer 'breasts' or 'hooters.' Indeed, an analysis of Google's most common search terms..." See where the government's going here? Their methodology is sound (though they'd save a few bucks if they hired someone familiar with sampling techniques so they didn't have to go through a million sites). It's the execution that leaves much to be desired. As someone else asked in this thread, I wonder what would have happened if Uncle had simply offered to buy the data instead of trying to subpoenaing it?
On another subject: Not to harp on this, but Google is seriously pissing me off. Here in this instance, where they know they've got nothing but a few bucks to the legal department at risk, they're all like, "Look at us! We're first amendment warriors! Not like those other losers! Do no evil! We're awesome!!!!one!eleventy!!!!" But in China they're all, "I'm sorry, Mr. Party Boss Repressor Guy. Shall I bend over further? Spread my butt cheeks a little further? Don't worry about the reach-around, sir." Makes me sick. Is there another search engine that's halfway decent that isn't putting its kneepads on for China? Because I'd totally switch.
Could you explain why Google caving into China's demands bothers you (I agree with that), but resisting Bush's trampling of the 4th ammendment also bothers you?
Am I missing something? If China does it, bad. If Bush does it, good. Huh?
Sorry, I missed the joke. Or were you serious? I have, scores of times. Your turn.
Wait. You've travelled by commercial aircraft? How odd. OK, then you'll probably be aware that not all warrantless searches are "trampling of the 4th ammendment (sic)." I happen to believe that intercepting the international communications of the agents of a foreign power with which we are in a declared war is not such a trampling.
Ah. Yes, I am aware of that. However, imprisoning people without charge or trial, spying on citizens, making a grab for internet traking records...all are clear violations of the 4th Ammendment. To anyone not married to the Republican Party, anyway.
Oh, hey, speaking of that: One of your uncharged, untried buddies made the news the other day.
Yeah. On a completely unrelated matter:
This kind of "lump all the bad guys together, because bad is just bad" pseudo-"thinking" is what got us into the Gulf War in the first place. (Oh, gee, there are Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan? Quick, let's invade Iraq!) It's also directly contrary to the nature of the rule of law.... but that doesn't seem to bother contemporary Republican neo-fascists much.
And exactly how do you know it is children searching on those terms?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Am I crazy, or would it just be a lot easier, and avoid any kind of First Amendment threats, to just tell parents to watch their damn kids? You don't want little Suzy watching "Nip/Tuck"? Don't put a TV in her room. You don't want little Johnny looking up "panda suit fetish" online? Don't give him his own computer. You don't want Suzy and Johnny playing "Grand Theft Auto"? Don't buy it for them! And yes, they might try to do all these things elsewhere. So? Forbid it, and make it stick! It's called "parenting". If you can't manage that, then your kids have a lot more serious problems than seeing Janet Jackson's nipple.
It seems to me the government is going down a blind alley.
Here's the way I understand it:
There is porn on the internet which anyone can access.
Someone invents net nanny software to help parents filter out porn sites.
Porn sites sprout like weeds and net nanny software does a poor job of filtering out all porn sites. Not only that, net nanny software has an annoying habit of blocking non-porn sites.
The government feels this is not enough prevention to keep kids from seeing porn, so back in Clinton's Administration, they enact legislation to make commercial internet porn that anyone can access a crime. I can only assume they felt fines and jail would serve as a deterrent since net nanny software does not deter anyone from putting porn out there.
The ACLU and others sue the government saying this COPA law violates free speech. Basically, their argument is that by forcing pornographers to remove free porn from the internet, it denies that material to adults. The Supreme Court decided on the ACLU's side.
So I don't understand what the government hopes to achieve by proving that net nanny filters aren't effective. Their end goal is still the same; to shut down porn sites with fines and jail terms. And that has already been decided on against their favor.
ETA: The Supreme Court decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU, says this is about community standards. And since a web site can be accessed from anywhere, a web site would have to satisfy the toughest community standards to be in compliance with COPA, which effectively shuts out every other community's access to porn.
I don't see what this has to do with proving net nannies don't work.
Here's the way I understand it:
There is porn on the internet which anyone can access.
Someone invents net nanny software to help parents filter out porn sites.
Porn sites sprout like weeds and net nanny software does a poor job of filtering out all porn sites. Not only that, net nanny software has an annoying habit of blocking non-porn sites.
The government feels this is not enough prevention to keep kids from seeing porn, so back in Clinton's Administration, they enact legislation to make commercial internet porn that anyone can access a crime. I can only assume they felt fines and jail would serve as a deterrent since net nanny software does not deter anyone from putting porn out there.
The ACLU and others sue the government saying this COPA law violates free speech. Basically, their argument is that by forcing pornographers to remove free porn from the internet, it denies that material to adults. The Supreme Court decided on the ACLU's side.
So I don't understand what the government hopes to achieve by proving that net nanny filters aren't effective. Their end goal is still the same; to shut down porn sites with fines and jail terms. And that has already been decided on against their favor.
ETA: The Supreme Court decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU, says this is about community standards. And since a web site can be accessed from anywhere, a web site would have to satisfy the toughest community standards to be in compliance with COPA, which effectively shuts out every other community's access to porn.
I don't see what this has to do with proving net nannies don't work.
Last edited: