babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Feds after Google data

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Feds after Google data
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 19 January 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
RECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAW
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.


Read it here.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 19 January 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This has alarming implications for privacy. Do those google records contain information like the IP of the searcher?

In the age of "Homeland Security" and the U.S. government spying on its own people, could they end up with information about which people were googling for information that goes against the Bush agenda?


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 19 January 2006 12:56 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.

However, the Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn.

As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is ``harmful to minors.''


So if grandma inadvertantly gets a porn pop up ad than her ip address shows up in a government file?

This sounds like a pretty large net to cast to find out this kind of information. Perhaps they want to do this to cast a chill on the online porn industry and to get a record of people they could blackmail later - people who surf for porn now know that the government could keep this information to use against them at a later date. And that could include many prominent people as well.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 19 January 2006 01:53 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
So if grandma inadvertantly gets a porn pop up ad than her ip address shows up in a government file?

That is if they can prove she was using the IP address. Many internet service provides do not hand out static IP addresses to their customers.

From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 19 January 2006 02:31 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
True to an extent. They are leased but sometimes that leased IP lasts a very long time. Regardless, do you know how many people's computers are hijacked by Trojans, pop-ups and malware that redirect their webpages to porn? All one need have is a teenage son surfing porn, online games, using p2p apps, and you are hijacked. So where does the burden of proof lie? This has serious implications for privacy, as well as legal liability. Given that in the US it is seemingly guilty until proven innocent, then this has far reaching consequences. As well, what countries data are contained in these databases and who gives the US the right to prosecute the citizens of other countries?

Edited for really bad spelling

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fitz
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4379

posted 19 January 2006 03:33 PM      Profile for Fitz     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rights? You doan 'ave no steenkin' rights!
From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 19 January 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
So where does the burden of proof lie? This has serious implications for privacy, as well as legal liability.

I agree.

I wonder how usefull the list will be to the Feds. Imagine the amount of work involved investigating a single google search. I see a big waste of law enforcement resources.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 19 January 2006 05:34 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do those google records contain information like the IP of the searcher?

Yes it does.

And whats worse, amond my peers at ISPs, lawyers etc, thee is a lot of worry in that article since it states from a Gov't source that other search engines have given them what they wanted already. In other words only google is fighting, the others already gave in. There are quite a few ISPs that will hand over any information with a gov't request or a lawyer issued subpoena, without a warrant or a judges oversight now


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
eau
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10058

posted 19 January 2006 06:18 PM      Profile for eau        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its a wedge issue. The Democrats will have a hard time arguing privacy when the word paedophile is dropped into the conversation.

I sincerely hope that Google fights this all the way to the Supreme Court in the US. Poindexter rules and Google is raining on his parade.


From: BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 22 January 2006 04:27 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Moral of the story for now I guess is to only use Google to do searches since M$, AOL and Yahoo will hand over info to the U.S. government without a fight.
From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 January 2006 05:57 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:

That is if they can prove she was using the IP address. Many internet service provides do not hand out static IP addresses to their customers.


No, but they usually, almost always fall into a range of subnet IP addresses mapped into the larger domain address. And if using broadband with ethernet as the data link, there is a 48 bit hardware address for your controller card that combines with the 32 bit IP and creating a remarkably unique overall address. Down there, the feds have newer Wiretap Laws. As far as routers and switches and ISP's are concerned, there is an actual datacom protocol, and it's referred to as "WireTap Protocol", which permits application level software to view data packets from telephone, cellular, cable modem, head end modems, college and university campuses, DSL, T1, E1, OC-All you name it, data packets transmitted over the internet and larger public switched telephone system at local ISP, VPN, VoIP gateways, IXC's. Unless the person is hacking from an access point at say, an airport(and pffff!) the feds could be down on us faster than we can say Pablo Escobar. Keep your noses clean people.

[ 22 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca