1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Google resists subpoena

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by The_Pope, 20 Jan 2006.

  1. .308AR

    .308AR New Member

    Joined:
    8 May 2005
    Posts:
    752
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm a bit divided on this issue. If they only want the data for kiddie porn I don't see the problem. The only people who know the exact details of what the Feds want are Google, their lawyers, and the Feds. A bit of a rush to judgement in my view. Politics are being played by the media, Google, and the government. Iran is what they should be thinking about IMO. Google isn't threatening to nuke anybody.

    There is no contract to sign when you enter a search term on Google. Is it really your data? Does it become the property of Google?
     
  2. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    That's not entirely true. You can read the Court Documents that the government filed when requesting the information. It clearly explains why they want the information and the history of this issue (thanks to cpemma for dinsing and posting the link).

    I applaud google for standing up and saying "Enough". They may not win the case in the end, but by dragging what the government is trying to do out into the light and making it public, perhaps they can derail the efforts to pass more laws restricting what people can do online. The current administration seems comitted to chipping away at our freedoms and privacy in secret. Fortunatly, people are becoming less and less willing to cooperate with this process and by blowing the whistle perhaps we can put an end to it.
     
  3. Da Dego

    Da Dego Brett Thomas

    Joined:
    17 Aug 2004
    Posts:
    3,913
    Likes Received:
    1
    Cthippo, constructacon, and .308, thank you for bringing this back on topic. The rest of you know who you are, you have PMs. Mind them.


    .308, you bring up a good point. There's not exactly a contract for google, though there are terms of service. Whose data does it become at that point?

    And spec, you bring up that slippery slope, which was right on target for what I was considering when I wrote this article. We've honestly had (and I think all sides can agree with this) a very callous treatment of civil liberties in our country as of late. Part of that can honestly be blamed on the 9/11 fears and realities as we adjust to a world that we closed our eyes to for so long. But absolute power corrupts absolutely... what if this ISN'T all it's used for?

    And if they can do this for kiddie-porn, what's to stop them from doing it for anybody who's searched for education on illegal drugs, to make informed decisions? Or piracy? Or worse, as spec mentioned, political motivation? Who owns your queries, and what could they be used to say about YOU?
     
  4. Breach

    Breach Modding in Exile

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2005
    Posts:
    396
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think that is exactly right, the porn thing would only be the start. They would tack on little revisions and sneak other bills into it just like they do with others. Soon everything we search for will be running through a government server farm searching for keywords for "bad" things we might do.

    Hats off to Google, bout time someone stood up to these morons that run our lives. And btw, just remember that Google is not the only one who can fight back, you can too.
     
  5. Spaced_invader

    Spaced_invader New Member

    Joined:
    25 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0

    ok, get this your goverment request a DNA sample to place in a database to truly identify you, you obey and promptly go to your local hospital give blood and give them $100 for their trouble. you are then found to have a defective gene which makes you more prone to heart conditions. The next time you want to purchase insurance, you find out it has tripled in value from the previous year. Why is this? because the puppet has told the puppeteer all about you and your faulty genes. I for one will fight for the little privacy we have left, and as more and more are erroded more and more will i exersice the ones i have left.

    [edit] my appologies for being a little off topic, it just get's to me when poeple are willing to throw away their rights
     
    Last edited: 21 Jan 2006
  6. DLoney

    DLoney New Member

    Joined:
    21 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    Google Privacy Policy
    :thumb:
     
  7. Aphex_

    Aphex_ New Member

    Joined:
    16 Oct 2005
    Posts:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    in all seriousness does anyone know who to contact regarding the legality of this, a petition or 3 could actually do a lot of good in this. whilst protecting children is important it is more important to protect the privacy of nations and individuals, we have a right to use the internet for what we want within the law, this is making us only be able to use the internet for what the us wants.
     
  8. Captain Slug

    Captain Slug Infinite Patience

    Joined:
    25 Nov 2001
    Posts:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    7
    First off, I'd like to point out that everyone can stop lumping the ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT into one cabinet. I don't make assumptions that everything that comes in or out of the government of other countries is the result of their respective leaders. We have Senators and Congressmen, all of which have hteir own agendas to forward.

    The subpeona is absurd and they can continue issuing them all they want but the simple fact of the matter is that legally they don't have a footing to confiscate records of this nature since it doesn't relate to a specific crime or a specific individual. If they want usage research they'll have to compile it themselves instead of trying to strong-arm it away from someone else.

    They can't do this to phone companies or banks without jumping through hoops and being very specific as to who and why they need the information.

    I'm also enjoying the irony of using this under the umbrella of an Act that (WHEN it was active, which it no longer is) was only aimed at sites directly targeting children, and regulations concerning filtering mechanisms required IN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS (i.e. not at home): http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/coppa1.htm

    I'm also under the impression that children (2-12) don't belong online since there's very little of value for them to do. It's been that way for a very long time. If they need to do research take them to the LIBRARY so they can use those things called BOOKS. They'll find more reliable information that way since they have yet to develop the ability to distinguish between the credibility of different sources.
     
    Last edited: 21 Jan 2006
  9. Spaced_invader

    Spaced_invader New Member

    Joined:
    25 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    what i don't understand is what use that information will be as that information will point searches to specific browsers and not poeple. For every computer there may be many users, My PC here at home is used by myself and my flat mates and sometimes other friends. All one of which do their course work unsupervised as they are all adults. I know some of them use adult sites, so I would get lumped into that category because it's my PC. So even if they find searches relating to child pornography, they won't be able to pin point poeple to those searches. All they will get out of it is statistics of internet searches relating to child pornography. probably to use as scare tactics in some sort of new law they want to put in place designed to protect us but used to watch over us.
     
  10. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101
    I think a lot of peole have missed the point of this action. This is not about the government trying to catch people looking at child porn. Rather the intent of the subpheona is to show that almost any search will bring up porn as one of the search results and therefore porn sites should be banned from showing adult content in such a way that it can be found by searching. The end result would be to not allow adult sites to offer free previews of their content. The Supreme COurt ruled previously that the intent of the act was over-reaching and said, in effect "We think that existing filters are adequate, but if you can prove otherwise come back and try it again". And so that's exactly what the administration is trying to do. This has nothing to do with child porn.

    The fear is that by establishing a precedent the administration is opening the door to further searches in the future which might be targeted at individuals based on what they are searching for online.
     
  11. automagsrock

    automagsrock New Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    15
    If this subpeona is actually served and google does do as it says, what could be next? The major dial-up ISP's have already complied with their subpeonas, if google does as well, the only corporation is Microsoft, and we all know how well Microsoft and the Gov't get along.
     
  12. Kipman725

    Kipman725 When did I get a custom title!?!

    Joined:
    1 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    1,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just rearlised how stupid this is because most ilegal pornography will not be hosted on websites as they can easily be found by typing those same google serch terms in and shut down. This is just an attempt to go after the easier target instead of the one at the root of the issue, the person taking the pictures.
     
  13. wharrad

    wharrad New Member

    Joined:
    26 Jul 2003
    Posts:
    869
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree, a government can do what it likes as it faces the ultimate test - to be voted into government for the next term.

    However, if they want IP details from any other country (i.e. MY website, MY IP address) - then I DEMAND a vote also. Who's my state representative? (Don't say Blair, I called him and he doesn't like shouting at Bush and it makes his children cry)

    In this case, anyone outside of the US doesn't have a voice. Before globalisation this would have been fine.
     
  14. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    101

    I think if I were you, I'd write Alberto Gonzales, the Attorney General who's name is on the court filings. You can try to get an email to him at AskDOJ@usdoj.gov.

    I would like to propose that the members of this forum send a letter to Google supporting their refusal to cooperate. I'll draft it if others are interested.
     
  15. ZERO <ibis>

    ZERO <ibis> Member

    Joined:
    22 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    454
    Likes Received:
    8
    good jop google i just wich more companies would protect their customers rights. this is yet another example of why som many love google so much, it's because people trust it.
     
  16. Spaced_invader

    Spaced_invader New Member

    Joined:
    25 Sep 2002
    Posts:
    493
    Likes Received:
    0
    PM me with the drafted letter
    i'll happily voice my concerns to google.
     
  17. rosemary

    rosemary New Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
  18. ratp0is0n

    ratp0is0n New Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    yea its good they stood up. if they didnt we prolly woudn't have even known that aol, msn and yahoo bent over.

    but f google, what, they stand up to the justice dept, (all PR i bet) but bends over to china as it b slaps human rights?

    they are all full of it.
     
  19. MiNiMaL_FuSS

    MiNiMaL_FuSS ƬӇЄƦЄ ƁЄ ƇƠƜƧ ӇЄƦЄ.

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2003
    Posts:
    6,449
    Likes Received:
    108
    at the end of the day the majority of people dont like Bush, however he is a just a figure head, you cant believe the man makes any REAL desicions himself, hell he's on holiday most of the time.



    Much like Tony Blairs lack of credability over here at the moment, but he is a figure head, labour are still the most popular choice and it is the goverment offcials that make desicions not him - he just enjoys printing his rubber stamp and and then.

    The english choice is simple and no matter what they claim it boils down to this:
    -Conseratives = lower taxes but have to pay more for everything due to privatisation.
    -Labour = higher taxes but have to pay less due to socialisation.

    However our system isn't a true demouracy, as even if liberal democrats were to say get more votes than labour, labour would still beat them as they need LESS VOTES PER SEAT. so the current ruling party requires less votes per seat to win an election....scandel.
     
  20. ratp0is0n

    ratp0is0n New Member

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2006
    Posts:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    thats a pretty simplistic view of a president/prime minister. there are a few other things to consider hmmm ummm like .... WOULD they goto war?? WHAT is there foreign policy? R they corrupt and greedy? do they give a RATS ASS about human rights/environment? what IS there agenda!
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page