Stunned!

Unbelievable! Every time I think it can't get any worse...

The Bush administration has issued a blanket subpoena to Google, Yahoo, AOL, and MSN asking for the records of searches done on their web sites. No specific people, no direct connection to any crime. Just everything they have for a week. Why? The War on Pornography (to save our children, of course). What did one talking head say in response to the obvious privacy questions? "If you aren't doing anything embarassing, you have nothing to fear" (paraphrase). Sound familiar?

Google is the only one resisting these strong-arm tactics. The other companies surrendered immediately. Not only be careful of what you say, who you phone, what you listen to, and what you read... now worry about what you search for. Who needs the Bill of Rights when Papa Bush is on the job?

http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+th...3-6029042.html

This is unreal and at the same time nothing more than I would expect from GB. Good for Google for not bellying up like the others did. Let's remember, though, that to GB, the Constitution, et al, is only a piece of paper.

Oh great, this has me worried, i seached "how to make a bomb" on google for a school paper... :p :D :rolleyes:

Scary thing is that Yahoom, AOL and MSN already complied... Apparently Google is the only one with balls to stand up to this BS.

Isn't Google the biggest search engine used around the world. Maybe they are worried they have to much information linked to there servers.

I wish they would do something about the porn emails, home loans, pharmacuticals, and all the other unwanted emails that are generated to everyone who never asks for all the pathetic stuff in the first place. They should catch this stuff at the servers and put it all in a big black hole. 90% of my emails is just plain crap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_AUS

Isn't Google the biggest search engine used around the world. Maybe they are worried they have to much information linked to there servers.

I wish they would do something about the porn emails, home loans, pharmacuticals, and all the other unwanted emails that are generated to everyone who never asks for all the pathetic stuff in the first place. They should catch this stuff at the servers and put it all in a big black hole. 90% of my emails is just plain crap.

---

I use a "front-end" account at usa.net. They catch almost all of these junk mail items. Once in a while, some get through but, with a single click, they are prevented again. Well worth the money.

Yes, Google does have massive amounts of search information in a week. But they also link those searches to people who have gmail accounts (if logged in). The government says they don't want personal info but tells Google they want that address information as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastian

Scary thing is that Yahoom, AOL and MSN already complied... Apparently Google is the only one with balls to stand up to this BS.

---

Good thing I only search via Google! Phew!

"They wouldn't have to fight if they didn't keep this information in the first place," he said.
Google said the government requests would put an undue burden on the company. But the motion offered to "compensate Google for its reasonable expenses," and noted that other companies did not report any compliance difficulties.
"We did not provide any personal information in response to the Department of Justice's subpoena," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako wrote in an e-mail yesterday. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue. We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information."
MSN said Microsoft Corp. "works closely with law-enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," but did not address whether the Redmond, Wash., company provided the Justice Department with any information.
Andrew Weinstein, an AOL spokesman, said the Sterling, Va., company did receive a subpoena but provided the government with only a "list of aggregate, anonymous search terms from a roughly one-day period."

It doesn't matter if private information is transferred. The problem lies in the fact that this administration uses subpeonas to force private companies into becoming agents for their agenda.

THAT is what scares the hell out of me.

in this case they are looking for better ways to protect children from porn. Are you against that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterman

in this case they are looking for better ways to protect children from porn. Are you against that?

---

Whether the government is looking to find ways to protect kids from getting into porn, preventing people from getting advice on growing pot, or keeping them from learning about the theory of evolution, it is neither here nor there. It comes down to the fact that the government has no business doing the job of a parent.

Sebastian is right. The government is using the power of subpeonas to create a case for a new law like COPPA. Its no secret that the conservatives view pornography in the same light as drugs, and they would love nothing more than to outlaw it. Since they can't do it directly, why not limit access to it in the name of protecting children? After all, as your question assumes, no reasonable person will oppose a measure if it protects children from obsencity.

Frankly, this isn't a government matter. This is a matter for the parents to control, as it is their responsibility to shape their offspring into adults. Now, we all know kids are very clever and know how to get into things that they're not supposed to, but there is no reason why any child under 13 should be on the Internet unsupervised. After that, supervision should be slowly reduced as they are given more responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masdog

Whether the government is looking to find ways to protect kids from getting into porn, preventing people from getting advice on growing pot, or keeping them from learning about the theory of evolution, it is neither here nor there. It comes down to the fact that the government has no business doing the job of a parent.

Sebastian is right. The government is using the power of subpeonas to create a case for a new law like COPPA. Its no secret that the conservatives view pornography in the same light as drugs, and they would love nothing more than to outlaw it. Since they can't do it directly, why not limit access to it in the name of protecting children? After all, as your question assumes, no reasonable person will oppose a measure if it protects children from obsencity.

Frankly, this isn't a government matter. This is a matter for the parents to control, as it is their responsibility to shape their offspring into adults. Now, we all know kids are very clever and know how to get into things that they're not supposed to, but there is no reason why any child under 13 should be on the Internet unsupervised. After that, supervision should be slowly reduced as they are given more responsibility.

---

1, I agree with you about this being primarily the responsibility of the parents
2. All parents are not created equal and so the children suffer
3. Following your logic on the feelings of conservatives I guess that means that all liberals would not like to outlaw it and therefore promote it. That is a pretty general statement.
4. Is it ok push this back on the parents but when it comes to abortion its ok to let a minor decide what is best? (rhetorical question don't want to argue about abortion)
5. I thought it took a village?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterman

in this case they are looking for better ways to protect children from porn. Are you against that?

---

Wow, I really hope that you don't think it's that simple. If you do, then I am sorry.

Porn is not stalking the streets looking for ten-year old boys. Porn does not pull up in sedans and offer kids candy. Porn is not a threat. The real threat is the systematic breakdown of our society's ability, and more importantly, DESIRE to be a parent.

People think that having a baby means taking nine months off of work, playing with them for a bit, and then letting TV and the public education system do what they're supposed to. Porn, violent video games, explicit language in music are not threats. The real threat is that poeple think that by giving a child a computer and leaving them alone with it they are doing something good. All that happens is that the kid figures out how to use Google, finds passwords for x-rated sites, and does what comes naturally to any 13-year old adolescent male.

If the parents actually got of their middle-class career-driven asses and did what their supposed to do, you wouldn't have to "protect" the "poor children." Same thing with explicit music and other media that are deemed "improper." If they are watching it, you are not doing your job, or the people they are with are not doing theirs. Expecting the government to pass laws to make parenting easier for yoou is lazy and arrogant at best.

Does porn add anything to society? Uhm, NO. But that doesn't mean anyone needs to be "protected" from it. Ploease, enlighten me, is "protecting" children from porn more important than providing local police departments with more money to patrol more areas and actually DOING something?

Is it more important than cutting education funds? Because the current administration sure thinks so. Apparently it's also more important that providing healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterman

2. All parents are not created equal and so the children suffer

---

Life isn't fair.

Quote:

---

3. Following your logic on the feelings of conservatives I guess that means that all liberals would not like to outlaw it and therefore promote it. That is a pretty general statement.

---

Hardly. You're assuming way too much. I never said all Conservatives wanted to outlaw porn, and my statement made no mention of liberals. What I should have said was people associated with conservatism want to outlaw porn.

Quote:

---

4. Is it ok push this back on the parents but when it comes to abortion its ok to let a minor decide what is best? (rhetorical question don't want to argue about abortion)

---

No. A minor has no legal standing to make a decision like this, especially without consulting and getting the approval of their parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterman

3. Following your logic on the feelings of conservatives I guess that means that all liberals would not like to outlaw it and therefore promote it. That is a pretty general statement.

---

Typical reactionary logic. To not outlaw something DOES NOT mean promoting it. I personally view the U.S. Constitution's freedoms as much more important than protecting someone from something that they will inevitably get. And laws such as these bring us bit by bit closer to a country that is no more free than any other. And since that is the reason my family and I came here in the first place, it's a bit of a sore subject.

Americans take the freedom for granted, and all too often give up pices of it for unattainable things such as "protecting children" and "fighting the war on terrorism" without an ounce of foresight or caution.

You don't know what you're missing until you don't have it anymore.

But now we're off the subject. NO administration should be allowed to subpeona companies to mine data for their agenda, no matter what the agenda is. That is a VERY slippery slope that we do not want to walk on. If the administration wants data, they should conduct studies on their own, and if they want other companies' data, ASK them. Develop relationships. BUT, that would not abuse power, which is clear is a popular "To-Do" for the ones in charge right now.

Subpeonas are for legal matters, not for getting your point across.

This is a little bit dif. direction from where this thread is going, but I thought I would throw it out there anyway.

From what I heard on the radio today, Google is not rolling over on this issue is because they are claiming that this could unveil their trade secrets as to how their search engines works. By disclosing WHAT info they have, someone could figure out HOW they got that info and use that same technology to compete with Google.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterman

I suppose I was more concerned with taking steps to protect children than the issue of data mining and with the typical response of "damn that bush and the conservatives" with no other suggestions on how to fix the problem. thats all.

good discussion either way though - thanks.

---

You have to be careful about stereotyping, Shutterman. I actually voted for Bush....twice!!!

I suppose I was more concerned with taking steps to protect children than the issue of data mining and with the typical response of "damn that bush and the conservatives" with no other suggestions on how to fix the problem. thats all.

good discussion either way though - thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shutterman

I suppose I was more concerned with taking steps to protect children than the issue of data mining and with the typical response of "damn that bush and the conservatives" with no other suggestions on how to fix the problem. thats all.

good discussion either way though - thanks.

---

Given that this is only the latest attempt to protect us, I don't think that data mining on it's own is the issue. It's that, on top of everything else. There have been so many other actions taken in the name of protection that labeling this one as "protecting our children" seems ridiculous. At least call it what it is. Another method of keeping tabs.

And I am all for protecting the children. But I don't see how monitoring search engines will do so. And yes, all parents are not created equal. But it isn't for the federal government to mandate.

The federal government was created to govern us as a nation, not as parents.

Several issues have been brought up here.

1. Being a Libertarian, I am probably more conservative that any of you Democrats and Republicans. Both major parties swung over to the left a long time ago. I don't believe in restricting rights in an arbitrary manner. Democrats and Republicans do.

2. "Will someone please think about the children!" is the plaintive cry of that character in the Simpsons every time the citizens mess up. Children are the responsability of the parents. Where in the Constitution does it give government the right and duty to raise children?

3. Porn has been around since the lewd drawings in caves. Its sex, get over it. Before there was an internet, all boys got porno from other sources. I defy any guy here to truthfully say that they were never interested in seeing porn. Healthy males are not "scarred for life" by porn. Sexual criminals don't get that way because of porn. Does reading a sailing magazine magically turn you into a sailor?

4. Alone, this may not seem like much. When put in perspective with all the other spying and invasions of privacy being committed by this administration, it becomes signifigant. Just the fact that three major companies immediately rolled over when handed a court order shows the chilling effect Bush and Company have created when it comes to our basic freedoms.

.