Justice Dept sues Google over porn

Completely off-topic conversational diarrhea that the rest of the internet won't let you post anywhere because it's so pointless and irrelevant to anything important.
Hero of the Day
Desperately Bored Loser
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Contact:

Justice Dept sues Google over porn

Post by Hero of the Day » Fri Jan 20, 2006 12:57 am

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/ ... CTION=HOME

read the article, the gist of it is:

basically the United States Department of Justice wants to revive a law the supreme court struck down in 1998. They have subpoenaed Google requesting a variety of records, including all search records from any given week.
Google is fighting, citing right to privacy issues for its users, and exposure of trade secrets as reasons for non-compliance
Confidence comes in a brown bottle.

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Post by Venomous » Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:02 pm

Dude, the articles forum is for articles we at SocDev have written ourselves, of a substantial and often ranting nature. Your last thread there was a perfect example, but posting URLs to web articles, no matter how newsworthy, belongs here in general chat. =P

That said, this is a heinous matter, and good on Google for fighting this. Child friendly internet my fucking ass. A lot of kids get hurt every year with sporting injuries too, that doesn't give the government the right to peep over your back fence with a video camera while you play catch with your kid.

Bush, get the fuck out of our private lives, asshole!! Kids should be protected from harmful information online by technology and good parenting, not legislation! What consenting adults do with their Google in the privacy of their own homes is none of your fucking business!!!
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

User avatar
Hellmark
Pissed Off Gimp Farmboy
Posts: 455
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:54 pm
Location: O'Fallon, Missouri
Contact:

Post by Hellmark » Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:55 pm

If google does this, they'd be basically divulging how their search works, and its just pure bullshit. It wont help national security, it wont help protect kids, etc. Only reason that filters to protect kids "aren't enough" is because most people don't use them. Google atleast with stock settings has the safe search to filter that crap out.

Hero of the Day
Desperately Bored Loser
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Hero of the Day » Fri Jan 20, 2006 6:19 pm

the govt contention is that software filters are unreliable

point two this is NOT in conjunction with any ongoing criminal or civil matter

hopefully the us district court will tell Alberto Gonzales to blow it out his ass.
Last edited by Hero of the Day on Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Confidence comes in a brown bottle.

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Post by Venomous » Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:06 pm

This Gonzales character sounds to me like another Jack Thompson, the guy that tried to sue Rockstar Games and EA Games for the sexual references and nudity in Grand Theft Auto and The Sims 2 respectively. Personally, I think miserable maggots like this who have nothing better to do than to try and limit our personal freedoms and censor anything that could ever possibly offend somebody ever, are no better than a ringworm-infested hemorrhoid on a dead baboon's decaying sphincter.

I think there's a special level of Hell set aside for these kinds of assholes, where they burn even hotter than politicians, pedophiles, and telemarketers.
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

User avatar
MP81
Chronic Spammer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by MP81 » Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:37 pm

Fuck the government...This is complete bullshit...

Supernovae
Desperately Bored Loser
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Post by Supernovae » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:35 am

It certainly sounds as if the government is trying to control our actions as human beings despite it being written in the constitution that we have freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

But they also feel that they need to place a censorship label on everything. But the real question here is WHO gets to decide what I believe needs to be sensored and what should be left alone?

The government should take a closer look at the phrase "you can't please everyone"
A deviant mind at rest has no function here.

User avatar
MP81
Chronic Spammer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by MP81 » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:07 pm

The goverment should look closely at the phrases "Fuck off" and "Kiss my Ass" as well.

Hero of the Day
Desperately Bored Loser
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Hero of the Day » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:53 pm

Karl: Alberto Gonzales is Attorney General for the united states. In other words another member of a very right wing administration. Word is that this effort to revive this law is coming directly from the White House.
Confidence comes in a brown bottle.

Mythic
Lonely Lamer
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: The Dark Side of The Moon

Post by Mythic » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:50 pm

I wonder, have any of the other companies, i.e. Yahoo!, MSN etc. been subpeoenad, and if so did they give in and that is why it has not been publicized?

I agree, I don't see how subpeoned search records are going to help the problem. In my opinion it comes back to the home, it's the parents job to regulate the childs internet use, television use, video game use etc. Not the government. If parents would bother to pay more attention to what it is their kids are doing, instead of allowing televisions, computers and game boxes to become baby sitters, make such media a supervised activity, and encourage imagination and the fostering of skills then this wouldn't be an issue. And no matter what the government does, until Hilary Clinton's stupid "It takes a village to raise a child." Comment fades into the background, and parents realize that it takes a "parent"to raise a child, then it will always be an issue.
Always Dancing in the Shadows.

User avatar
MP81
Chronic Spammer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by MP81 » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:54 pm

Kristi wrote:and parents realize that it takes a "parent"to raise a child, then it will always be an issue.
Wow. True as hell right there...

If the government was ment to raise children, it'd be robotic, in everyone's house and called "Parent". But it's not and never should be...

Hero of the Day
Desperately Bored Loser
Posts: 324
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:14 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Contact:

Post by Hero of the Day » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:30 am

Kristi wrote:I wonder, have any of the other companies, i.e. Yahoo!, MSN etc. been subpeoenad, and if so did they give in and that is why it has not been publicized?
The subpeona originally was issued over the summer.
Yahoo confirmed late last week that it had complied with a similar subpeona.
I am unsure why/how it escaped publicity.

anyhow the reasoning behind the subpeona taken directly from the court filing
"assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches, and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software in screening that material."

the law the administration is trying to revive is the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998

according to Wikipedia the goverment has been blocked from enforcing the law, in 2004 the United States Supreme Court upheld the block on enforcement that was issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; finding that the law was likely to be unconstitutional.

What we have here is the administration trying to do an end run around the law. They have demonstrated no suffiecient reason as to how this law will protect minors. Additionally there is no sufficient evidence that the records they are after will do any good. How can anyone tell if the searches were by minors or by individuals of legal age? All I see is another form of censorship and another violation of my Constitutional right to free speech. Big brother is interfering with our lives too damn much lately, I dont know about you, but I sure as fuck dont need him to tell me how to run mine.
Confidence comes in a brown bottle.

User avatar
MP81
Chronic Spammer
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2005 12:34 pm
Location: Michigan, USA
Contact:

Post by MP81 » Sun Jan 22, 2006 1:33 am

rather, they're the ones who need to know how to be run

User avatar
Venomous
Site Admin
Posts: 1577
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Social Deviancy
Contact:

Post by Venomous » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:13 am

Kristi wrote:I wonder, have any of the other companies, i.e. Yahoo!, MSN etc. been subpeoenad, and if so did they give in and that is why it has not been publicized?
I'm guessing you didn't actually read, or maybe you just quickly glossed over, the article Hero linked to in the thread starter?? I quote:-
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/G/GOOGLE_RECORDS?SITE=ORLAG&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME wrote:Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp., which operate the next most-used search engines behind Google, confirmed that they had complied with similar government subpoenas. America Online said it didn't fully comply with the subpoena but did provide a list of search requests already publicly available from other sources.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."

MSN said it complied with the government's request "in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers."
Seems pretty black and white to me. =P
Hero of the Day wrote:according to Wikipedia the goverment has been blocked from enforcing the law, in 2004 the United States Supreme Court upheld the block on enforcement that was issued by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; finding that the law was likely to be unconstitutional.
Jesus H. Christ, I'm a non-voting, politically apathetic Centrist from halfway across the globe who's never even set foot on American soil, and I even *I* know that fucking law is unconstitutional!!
Hero of the Day wrote:What we have here is the administration trying to do an end run around the law. They have demonstrated no suffiecient reason as to how this law will protect minors. Additionally there is no sufficient evidence that the records they are after will do any good. How can anyone tell if the searches were by minors or by individuals of legal age? All I see is another form of censorship and another violation of my Constitutional right to free speech. Big brother is interfering with our lives too damn much lately, I dont know about you, but I sure as fuck dont need him to tell me how to run mine.
You know what America needs? A good old fashioned civil war. Something to bring all the troops home, and make the government reassess itself. The country needs to stand up and throw off its shackles and say "Hey Bush, you assmonkey! Land of the FREE, remember?? BACK THE FUCK OFF!!"...

But unfortunately, this will never happen. Why? Because America is a democracy, and whether we can believe it or not in hindsight, people voted for Bush, and people out there believe that what he's doing is right. And as long as those fucking idiots outnumber us, we'll remain the fringe posting rants on SocDev, and they'll remain the voting majority keeping Big Brother in administration.
- Venomous -

The internet is a tool, and so are most of the people who use it...

Social Deviancy

Mythic
Lonely Lamer
Posts: 171
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:57 pm
Location: The Dark Side of The Moon

Post by Mythic » Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:03 am

I actually responded to that as an afterthough, so I never read the article to begin with. It was something that my family and I had been discussing and those were my views.

This is an edit, but only because I accidentaly sent at the wrong time.

I was a Bush supporter in the last two elections, If I had to do it over again, I still do it over Kerry or Gore. What's great about this country is that what is unconsitutional can be undone. If not now, than in another administration. As much flack as Bush has gotten over invading our privacy, Kerry was promising to do so in a less obtrusive manner, but so much more of it. Where Bush, who is a raging capitalist himself, hasn't handed down any executive decisions (other than the war in Iraq, which is a totally seperate issue and highly flammable) that affect we Americans where we live. He has affected corporate America (which when he was elected he was being accused of favoring them, now that he's done something that doesn't favor them he get's flamed too, but I do understand he's going about this the wrong way.) He has affected members of government (I kinda find it hilarious that a few members of the government have suddenly found themselves wiretapped--they deserve it) But admittedly it does set a bad precedent. I really think that Bush has taken the roll on as protector of American values, and where it is nice to have a president that supports such things as values, he needs to realize that we don't need to protected from ourselves. Values cannot be handed down an executive decision. But hey, he'll be out in a couple of more years and the Democratic party will take back over like they had the previous 8, and there will be a whole new set of arguments and issues on the agenda. I refuse to sell my vote for my "party". I'm a registered independant and vote such, the sad thing is that there are so many that will only vote "with" their parties, because they so utterly distrust the other, and that is how we keep falling into partisan cracks such as this one. Then only presidents that don't get flamed on a regular basis are the ones that do nothing. What happened, while irritating, was small fish compared to other issues that need an agenda and don't get one. I'm ready for a presidential candidate that is loyal to his country, not his party. But until then we will do as always, and retaliate next election and place another party whore in the mansion.
Always Dancing in the Shadows.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests