U.S. Government Wants Google Search Records 917
JimBridgerBowl writes "According to the San Jose Mercury News, The Bush administration wants access to Google's huge database of search queries submitted by users to track how often pornography is returned in results. This information would be used for Bush's appeal of the 2004 COPA law, targeted to prevent access to pornography by children. The law was struck down because it would have restricted adults access to legal pornography. Google is promising to fight the release of this information." From the article: "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."
If there were no logs of searches... (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
That aside, this is pretty alarming. But let's haul out two old arguments: 1. the media tends to be alarmist (true), and 2. if you're innocent, you shouldn't have to worry (true, but only if the government isn't violating the rights of the innocent, and leads to the possibility of forfeiting other rights).
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Protecting the children from free speech (Score:2, Insightful)
"We need to see how much of the political commentary online is speech protected by the First Amendment, and how much is dangerous speech that can't be allowed in these extraordinary times," a Whitehouse spokesman said.
I really think we need an amendment to the Constitution that says "the words 'no law' shall be construed by the courts to mean 'no law whatsoever, without exceptions, and this means you, moron.'"
Looking for the wrong data (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:2, Insightful)
Which one is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no more sure-fire way to push people's buttons than to mention child porn... bah. Always makes me feel that it trivializes the problem when it's being used to push someone's agenda.
Parenting is the answer (Score:1, Insightful)
No one "protected" me (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy rights are eroding (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this an invasion of privacy?
What ever happened to parents and not the government being responsible for their kids?
Porn for dummies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
What really concerns me (Score:5, Insightful)
The most important part is missing (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Google were resisting the subpoena
and
2) Others (unnamed) had complied with the subpoena
which is slightly worrying for those that use other search engines.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a innocent can cost you your home and job. It does not have to be a government that violating your rights;
It can be a name that matches yours. Then you have to prove that you are not the matching person. Think Indentiy Theif.
It can be looking like another person. Then you have to prove that you are not that person. Think Misintification.
In both case you are out the money it cost you clean it up. The public memory can be short, but with the internet... it can be long. This means that you will have do the fight over and over.
Welcome to... (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to China!
Re:Protecting the children from free speech (Score:2, Insightful)
Sounds very un-democratic to me that's for certain.
Foot in the door (Score:4, Insightful)
US: formerly known as land of the free, currently aquiring police state status and on the fast track to fascism.
Re:No one "protected" me (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about your open-ended grabs for power (Score:3, Insightful)
One imagines the dedicated team of talented evaluators at Justice combing the list of returned sites, carefully categorizing them as pRon or non-pRon. No waste of tax dollars there -- noooo. Glad to see we're spending our dollars on the big issues that face us as a society.
The Supreme Court decision back in June 04 [cornell.edu] went back, again, to the first amendment. The series of decisions made over the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) and the earlier Communications Decency Act, came back to the laws not being "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest" and to whether less restrictive alternatives were available.
In response to those two reservations, Bush and company are apparently looking to prove how very compelling their government interest is -- by showing that kids are awash in the stuff on Google. Apparently the part where they get access to this enormous, open-ended source of information about searches doesn't set off any bells with them about the other half of that decision -- where the idea was to minimize the restrictiveness of the law and keep government intrusion to a minimum.
These were the "small government" conservatives, right?
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the government is trying to tie ages to queries. They are just trying to prove that it is easy for anyone (including a minor) to find pr0n on the internet. Although I don't agree with this attempt at massive violation of privacy, the government is correct in its assertion that finding pr0n is childishly simple (pun intended). All you have to do is a Google image search with no filters on the results. Type in pretty much anything and you are almost guaranteed to get nude or hardcore photos somewhere in your results.
Re:Age ranges? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the impression that I got FTA. Poring through a massive database of search logs would be much more difficult, time-consuming and inaccurate than simply writing a script to query Google with ramdon words and logging any results that lead to porn.
It seems to me that they want to do some data mining, maybe to identify terrorists (or dissenters), and they could just be using the "what about the children" thing in their attempt to gain access.
If Google is to remain un-evil, maybe it's time for a solar flare to wipe out the records (until the backups can be restored after this is all over).
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:3, Insightful)
As to the assumption some people make that the innocent have nothing to worry about, I ask you this:
If the FBI showed up to your office and started asking your boss questions about you, would you bee cool with it just because you've "nothing to hide"?
-Eric
Thin end of the wedge (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, how would this play from an international viewpoint? Would the data (potentially) handed over include google.co.uk or google.de logs?
The EU is busy being lobbied (can you be busy being lobbied?) about communications data retention (e.g. pi report [privacyinternational.org]). Without serious safeguards in place and with all those logs sloshing around it's only a matter of time before log subpoenas become routine.
Re:If there were no logs of searches... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a double-sided sword. It cuts both ways.
so many things wrong with this (Score:3, Insightful)
Whose definition of pornography would be used? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thin end of the wedge (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the current administration has shown that they're willing to spy on US citizens domestically without warrants, even though warrants are easy to get retroactively, why should we trust anything they say regarding 4th amendment rights?
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are just trying to prove that it is easy for anyone (including a minor) to find pr0n on the internet.
Would it not be much simpler and far less invasive for them to just submit a bunch of queries themselves? Of course it would! There's something more going on here that is not related to pr0n. The war on pr0n is a Trojan Horse to get them into the database.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is extremely firghtening. The Forth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" NOT "The Goverment shall search through any your posessions and records, but if you're innocent you should have nothing to fear."
"We need two prisons, one for the guilty and one for the innocent."
If at first you don't succeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
...beat a dead horse. Is protecting minors from unwanted and unintended exposure to pornography a good thing? Yes! Can the government mandate it? No! It goes back to the problem of parenting. If parents are giving their kids unfettered access to the Internet, they're going to see this stuff. It's no different that parents not watching what programs their kids see on TV. The US Government is trying to parent the nation's kids, when it can't even govern the country effectively (NOTE: this is not Bush-bashing; the Democrats are just as ineffectual as the Republicans).
It's good that Google has drawn the line. They aren't responsible for what their search engine turns up; the Internet is free territory and if you put up pornography or any other type of content someone finds objectionable, it may turn up. That doesn't make it Google's responsibility to police what its users are doing, anymore than it makes it the government's responsibility. At some point parents need to take back the power.
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um... oh well?
I'm so tired of this "won't someone please think of the children" scenario. This is a parental issue through and through. If parents haphazardly allow their youngsters onto computers without knowing jack about them, it's like allowing your child to watch TV without any idea as to the content of the programming.
If I subscribe (this is only hypothetical) to the Spice channel and don't lock the TV, my child has access to that channel whenever. If I don't use CyberNanny or the like, my child has access to pornography on the internet.
Parental responsibility is failing, and I'm tired of the government trying to clean up the pieces. This is why I'm all for having to have a license to have a child.
Unfortunately, this seems to me to be quite obviously a ploy to try to get at the most massive user-habit database on the planet. Oh, they want it for porn research - my ass. You think once they are done looking for "tits" they're not going to look up "impeach bush" and place a NSA watch on the IP address that the search came from?
Slashdot used to interest me. Now it more scares me than anything...
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad thing is that even the innocent have to fear these days. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find the story about the toddler on the no fly list [usatoday.com] and other examples of the innocent being at the very least inconvenienced. At some point we have to draw the line and say enough is enough. Unfortunately I think that line should've been drawn about 10 years ago...
Re:Couldn't find this quote anywhere. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:If there were no logs of searches... (Score:1, Insightful)
And Google spends their revenue on?
Re:Protecting the children from free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If there were no logs of searches... (Score:3, Insightful)
AFAICT, they've GOT a Bayesian filter running on search results for logged in users. If I search for an "interesting" search term, it'll give me sites that are somewhat more relevant to what I click. Either that, or the Bayesian will go overboard, and give me stuff that I wrote
Re:Sounds like a fishing expedition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If there were no logs of searches... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with google seeking a profit.. even a huge profit. That's sort of the way our economy works, but if you're not into that, I'm sure moving to China is an option.
Re:Silly rabbit, we're at war! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we allow any citizen, even those who can't read or write, to vote.
-Eric
Re:Couldn't find this quote anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Couldn't find this quote anywhere. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
More alarming is that many innocent people lost their careers during the McCarthy era. Any one remotely connected to a communist group pretty much had their lively hood destroyed. Innocence is judged by the whim of those in charge and not by a consistant morality.
Ok - you're wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the logical fallacy of the sheep. Why is it so many people prefer to bury their heads in the sand, and refuse to learn?
Sir, please open your eyes. Millions of innocent people have been slaughtered throughout human history (often within their own laws) by various governments. As shocking and frightening as it must seem to you, being innocent is no safeguard. Indeed, innocence has nothing to do with it when government officials are granted vast, unchecked power.
The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment (or even death) is a thin, old piece of paper. And people's willingness to uphold the words written on it.
I suggest you acquaint yourself with it.
Or perhaps I should make it more simple. The Bush administration has shown itself willing to abuse the power it had before the Patriot Act was passed. The question now before us is what are the limits to its current power?
You may not like the answer. Your "rights" have been redefined, and so has the definition of "abuse".
Innocence isn't going to save you if you are currently viewed as the wrong type of person. Indeed, in such cases you no longer have a right to legal counsel, or to let other people know you have been detained. Or the right to a speedy trial.
Welcome the new world that your elected representatives have given you. But please don't be under the mistaken assumption that innocence will protect you, or that the government isn't abusing your legally defined rights.
Yeah, well that's what governments do (Score:2, Insightful)
Give them the right to fight child porn "for the children", and the next thing they're doing is searching that data for "terrorists".
Give them the right to set up a retirement plane "for your security", and they take the money and the next thing you know the retirement plan is broke.
Give them the right to set up health care "for your health" and they ration the care and make you wait in line even if that means you're going to die.
Give them the right to set up a welfare system "to help the needy" and they set up a system that keeps you dependent upon government largess for the rest of your life.
Give them the right to spy on those that deserve to be spied on "to keep you safe" and they turn it around and use it on their citizens (and the US is by no means even close to being in the forefront on this issue, FWIW).
That's what governments do - they accumulate power. And in accumulating power that get it from somewhere else - from YOU.
And money is the lifeblood of any government's attempt to encroach your rights. And encroach them they will. Without money they can't pay for the "needed" programs that are nothing more than systems to entrench the powerful by giving them even more power.
Anyone who thinks he's for individual rights and doesn't support MASSIVE and IMMEDIATE tax cuts and locking debt limits in place to shackle the power-grabbing aspects of any government is a blithering idiot who doesn't understand what all governments do.
Legal Arguments for Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No one "protected" me (Score:3, Insightful)
The New "Republicans" don't believe in parental accountability. You raise Children the way the Rigth wants you to.
Yes, I'm sore about it.
Suggestion? Home schooling.
Re:Don't forget who signed COPA into law (Score:2, Insightful)
Nobody can be trusted info like this (Score:3, Insightful)
Just the political value of the data -- to discredit or spy on enemies -- is so great that I can't imagine it will stay secret forever. With it, the Bush administration (or Putin or any other) can gather dirt on everyone, from congress to the dog catcher candidate. In fact, for censorship purposes it almost doesn't matter if it leaks: By merely seeking the data, the gov't raises legitimate questions in many minds and will have a 'chilling effect' on what they search for.
I think that, until now, most people looked on privacy as something that idealogues worried about and which had no practical significance. I think that attitude was only a lack of experience and foresight. Unfortunately, their information is already on Google's servers; there is no going back.
Google should simply anonymize the data: They can collect aggregate market research, or even person-by-person research, yet remove all identifying information. Until then, I would seriously consider avoiding using Google, or use an anonymizing proxy service to protect yourself. The standard of behavior in privacy matters must be raised.
Re:Miserable failure (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silly rabbit, we're at war! (Score:2, Insightful)
Because only 33% of the eligible voters voted last election. Out of that 33%, 51% are neo-cons, the rest are so disorganized they couldnt agree on a candidate if the candidate was God. Everyone except the neo-cons have given up on voting. Nothing will change until all eligible voters exercise their one and only voice in the process and vote.
Re:Miserable failure (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh... and BTW... about his 'Morality' - refusing to meet with the mother of a child who died in a war he started doesn't seem to 'Moral'. Having his spin doctors smeer her name doesn't seem to 'Moral'.
Miserable Failure... yeah... I think that sums it up!
Non US citizens & their privacy (Score:1, Insightful)
Jeez, the skillz kids are gonna need... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you really trust any studies that show up on TV or the newspaper anymore? Pr0n, weed, videogames, global warming, indooor pollution, and everything else under the sun are GOING TO KILL YOU or MAKE YOU KILL OTHERS. Jesus H. Christ! (as if people haven't killed in His name...) 40 years ago scientists were worried of global cooling. The Earth has naturally warmed and cooled many times in the past - and things died, but that's nature. We're still alive. Today's youth are, according to the FBI - the least violent generation in American history, maybe, maybe, because they are inside playing videogames? Oh, and now masturbation may prevent prostate cancer - that's what I call wanking now, cancer prevention. I really just wished people weren't so ready to believe _everything_ the media, a Nigerian email, or a politician (all parties, Libertarians too) tells them to. There's a reason what you watch on TV is called programming...
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats,
I said nothing; after all, I was not a Social Democrat.
When they arrested the trade unionists,
I said nothing; afterall, I was not a trade unionist.
When they arrested the Jews, I said nothing; after all, I was not a Jew.
When they arrested me, there was no longer anyone who could protest.
That's all I have to say. Mod me down if you want.
Re:Protecting the children from free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush can read. So can most Congresscritters. They just don't read enough.
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read.
- Mark Twain
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
This was already used years ago to try to shut down the mail order porn industry - a DA would order something (via mail) to some county with a sympathetic judge and file suit there for violating community standards where it was recieved. It's an unacceptable burden to require someong fulfilling a request to first analyze the community standards of the reciepient, and the problem is even worse on the internet.
Lastly, it's important to remember that the internet is *not* like the real world, and that "community standards" a pretty questionable standard to apply to it anyway. Unlike physical locations, you can't be required to pass by a porn site in order to get to somewhere else. If you're looking at porn on the internet, then you're either doing it with full knowledge of your circumstances, someone has subverted your computer, or you're doing foolish image searches. And even if it's the last, I think it's extremely questionable that we need legislation to "protect" against this. I suspect that the amount of porn "delivered to children" when those children weren't actively seeking it out is extremely minimal and unlikely to happen enough to damage someone.
I'll give an allegory for the whole "accidental search" thing. When I was in high school a few friends and I were on a road trip to Seattle. We were wandering around the city and saw a sign for some shop that was something like "fantasy bookstore". I'm sure you can see where this is going - it was, of course, an adult sex toy/bookstore, not at all the right kind of fantasy. But just like when you mis-click on a search result, it took about 10 seconds for us to realize that we'd made a wrong turn and go back out. The fact that a minor can accidently walk through the door of an adult bookstore (much less a minor who actively tries to sneak in past the proprietor) does not mean we need legislation to "protect" that.
Re:Couldn't find this quote anywhere. (Score:4, Insightful)
I will tell you that 5 seconds of searching gives you little information, besides a bunch of articles referencing the one you linked. Many of them, such as http://www.ioerror.us/2005/12/09/bush-constitutio
Wishing something was true doesn't make it so.
People on both sides need to cut this sort of thing out. They need to cool off and be reasonable with each other again. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of open hostility and attacks.
Re:Which one is it? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd guess this is by virtue of being one of those topics that still exceeds polite conversation. Child abuse of any type is universally publicly deplored.
I can't agree with that. A child of 12 simply does not posssess the judgement (nothing to do with intelligence) to understand and accept the consequences of being filmed having sex with someone else, or themselves for that matter. Participation in porn goes way beyond put that thing in here, no matter how it's done. And it's hard to avoid asking the question: why does an adult want to see a child in sexual poses, when the adult knows or should know that children simply don't understand sex? Have you ever hooked up with someone a good bit younger than you? You know how they interpret everything you do with meanings far different and greater than what you intended? If an adult goes specifically looking for that kind of reaction, a la child porn, it's hard not to conclude that the adult is looking for control/power/manipulation through a sexual lens.
I believe you felt/feel that way. But if you look at the people who did do that, it generally turned out much worse than they expected. Sex is potent stuff, and it takes a fair bit of self-knowledge to learn how to handle the physical, emotional, and relationship elements of it, and make it something good for you. People learn to use sex for all different kinds of purposes in their lives, and as adults, they're welcome to whatever they do, but at 12 or 13, once again, someone simply doesn't have the judgment to make those distinctions. It's a tricky balance - no parent I know wants to stop their 12 year old from checking out members of the opposite sex, making out, maybe taking a few halting steps forward from there, but none that I know wants to find out their kids have been sleeping around just to prove they can have sex (which IMO is almost universally what drives teenage sex).
So yes, you can call the child pr0n scare a whipping boy, and a trojan horse for all kinds of government intrusion into people's privacy and expression, and I believe it is that. But that doesn't make child pornography itself a good thing.
Alito is the final piece of the puzzle (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt it is a coincidence that the Bush administration is bringing this up again.
Funny thing... I do not hear any complaints from Microsoft and their search engine... Do you think the feds forgot to ask Bill for his data?
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did I miss something? (Score:1, Insightful)
Right! People should take personal responsibility, not let the government tell them what to do. Makes perfect sense.
This is why I'm all for having to have a license to have a child.
Right! People should be controlled, and the government should tell us who can or can't breed.
...wait. Which do you want: personal freedom, or government control? You can't have it both ways. I know the idea of someone saying to all the horrible parents out there "Don't have more kids you idiots" is brilliant in theory, but just take a second and think about President Bush controlling who can have children.
I shiver at the thought.
Re:I see a couple of flaws. (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, if all that guy has done is download child porn, then there's no particular reason to assume he's a predatory paedophile, any more than the fact that I've watched The Godfather means I'm likely to be affiliated with the Mafia.
Re: Keep anonymous logs (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No one "protected" me (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, and mod that up please (Score:3, Insightful)
The ACLU also defended Rush Limbaugh against what it considered to be government intrusion into his medical records -- you recall his Oxycontin "doctor shopping" case. They've represented unpopular opinions at most points on the political spectrum.
Yes, it's a group that operates according to principle and not partisan positioning. That earns it the eternal enmity of those whose real credo is maintaining the status quo in order to keep a grip on power. (Let's all take a moment to consider which of our two parties essentially supports the ACLU, and which made being a "card carrying member" of the ACLU a dirty epithet in the 1988 election cycle.)
(The parent poster missed the distinction between the law that was passed and the overreaching attempt to get Google's records, of course.)
Re: Keep anonymous logs (Score:3, Insightful)
While there are technical solutions, we can't even begin to step down this path. I hope the feds get smacked down for this.
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
(Terrorism is the alternate password).
Re:No one "protected" me - sex ed is important! (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of all my friends and all of the girls I've dated, I'm the only one I know of whose parents took an interest in teaching them about sex. Fortunately, for my friends, they had sex ed in school. This is, increasingly, no longer the case.
People need to realize-- teenagers will have sex whether you like it or not. Do you bury your head in the sand, or do you teach them the one thing that we know will make a difference? If anything, sex ed decreases promiscuity because girls are informed of the consequences. I just can't believe the kind of cultural 180 that has happened in this country in the last few years.
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:1, Insightful)
While Bush gets a bye for having a male prostitute spend the night... several times [thetruthseeker.co.uk].
(Oh yeah, that is right... this terror stricken white house doesn't really keep track of who is in the house with the president. Riiiigggghhhhtttt.)
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mention that kids entering a porn shop should be shown the door. That's 100% correct. However, kids entering a website. How is the owner to know that it's a kid? What if the kid lies and says "Sure, I'm 18!" There's nothing anyone can do about that, and I don't care how great your programming skills are.
The truth of the matter is that porn is going to be on the internet, the mail, the TV and video etc because there are a lot of legal adults that are interested enough in it to make it profitable, so it's not going to go away. What needs to be done is place the responsibility of supervision firmly where it belongs... the parents or guardians. If little billy-joe-bob is wandering the llama sex sites, why should the llama sex site owner be sued? (ignoring the obvious llama activity) billy-joe-bob's parents should be supervising his internet usage and controlling his access.
There also needs to be reasonable limits set on accesibility. Sure an 11 or 12 yr old kid shouldn't have access to porn, although I know a few that would actively look for it if they could. Hell damn near every 13 yr old (or older) boy on the planet is most likely actively looking for porn. I personally feel that if a child is able to decide to go looking for the stuff, and his or her parents aren't monitoring that connection, the website owner shouldn't be penalized. If the website owner is spamming porn or placing links in google that are deceptive that's another story. Luring people of ANY age to your porn site should be illegal period. However if a 13 yr old clicks on a link "RED HOT TEEN PUSSY THAT WANTS YOU!" well.. that 13 yr old certainly isn't looking for pictures of burning felines waiting to be adopted.
Re:Miserable failure (Score:3, Insightful)
They can't raise their own kids without the gov'ment helping them protect them from the baddies... and they are scared as all get out that there might not really be a God.
Gotta suck being them...
Re:Miserable failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush has proven himself, time and time again, to be a bad guesser.
When he says "trust me"
We should fire his ass. (not wait for him to leave)
Of course Democrats NEVER use unfunded mandates
This doesn't make it right, it makes them BOTH wrong.
The battle cry of all pacifists.
Are you saying non-pacifists like to be lied to?
WMDs was simply one of the reasons for the war.
You mean, one of the false reasons for the war.
How do you feel about all the mass graves (approximately 500,000 men, women, and KIDS) we are finding there?
I think they should kill the motherf*ckers responsible.
Starting with the industrial complex that created and sold them... and, don't forget the Dick & Donald show, either.
History doesn't remember all the intelligence fuck ups that happened in WWII...
Those weren't intentional.
These are...
That's one of the problems.
Re:If there were no logs of searches... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just use the standard Firefox feature of "keep cookies.... until I close Firefox". Given the memory leaks and minor issues with extensions, you'll end up closing the browser eventually (I close it approximately 1-2 times/day). Or use private browsing option in various browsers, and it'll do the same thing.
Then again, if you're a mainline IE user (not avant/myie2 user) this doesn't apply. Of course, if you're using IE, you've probably got bigger problems :-)
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Miserable failure (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who think the result didn't work out well for the individual (given that slavery was on it's way out ion any case, albeit slowly), it's hard to imagine that Germany would have lost WWII without a united America supporting the British and to some extent the Russians though lend/lease in the early years (mostly in defiance of popular opinion) of that war. It seems quite likely that if the south had succeeded in seceding, Hitler would have been able to complete the war on one front before opening another, and we'd all be speaking German.
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
Back when our parents were children, there was very little mail order shipping. There was no wired transmission of digital media. Basically, if you wanted obscene content, you had to walk down to your neighborhood adult store and buy it. Of course, no one wants a porno shop next to their children's daycare, and some rightfully saw these establishments as blights on their community. While no one should have a problem with you consuming hardcore BDSM material in your home, some understandably had a problem with the stores you had to buy it from setting up shop right down the road. NIMBY, basically, just with porn and not waste.
Not that I nessessarily agree with it, but this is why community standards were put into law. Basically, you couldn't sell anything in a community where the "average person" disapproved. That wasn't supposed to mean that you couldn't buy it in the next town over and then bring it back to your home -- they just couldn't distribute it in your city limits.
We all know that these kinds of things mean nothing in today's world. But, many politicians and many judges are older and have not grown up with this worldview, and do not completely understand it. Others just hate porn and realize they can control it this way. Some are just power hungry. Whatever the reason, the old "community standards" no longer apply. If I buy a dildo from goodvibes.com, did they sell it to me in the community they're based in? Or the community I'm based in? The online community? The community where the billing took place? All of them? If I download a video from bangbros, isn't it technically "delivered" in any jurisdiction those bits happen to pass through?
Besides, who cares what you bought or where you bought it from, or how offensive it is when it comes to your house in a plain brown box -- or if it comes to your house through digital wires, completely hidden from anyone who might have seen it? The problem is, these laws started as a way to keep people from inadvertantly seeing obscene content they didn't wish to see and have changed into a way of keeping anyone from seeing obscene content.
Hopefully, the courts will eventually get this right, but one thing about our government is that it does nothing quickly.
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the hell are Americans such damn prudes...
Re:Age ranges? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
I didn't trust the Bush Administration in the first place, from day one. I'd have to be a fool to place any trust in them to not mishandle the information they're requesting here when they've shown a willingness to decieve even with matters of much greater importance. Think about it -- Would you hang around someone you know has done things to hurt you or your friends behind your back many times recently? I wouldn't even hang around someone who's done that, period, ever. I'd be a fool to make the current administration exempt from that logic when they wield far more power than any random joe that I come across.
By the way, trying to take an Occam's Razor-like approach to situations like this is how governments get away with whatever they please, since people assume no harm shall ever be done. Better to assume harm shall be done, and keep an extremely vigilant eye.
The news article is FUD! (Score:3, Insightful)
details, but the upshot is that the administration only asked search engines
for a week's worth of search terms data and the request didn't include
asking for anyone's personal data, just a list of terms and related search
frequency statistics. Almost all the other major search engines have
released the requested data and publicly stated that the data didn't include
anything personal or threatening to individual privacy. Google's refusal
probably has more to do with competitive reasons more than any privacy
issues.
Don't believe all the hype you might read in the Mercury News.
Re:No one "protected" me (Score:3, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree with you here. I've been watching porn fairly heavily since 5th grade (around 12-13 years old). The first porn I saw was on our old Win95 box -- in fact, it was my father's stash. While there weren't many videos (this was mid-1990's, the internet wasn't quite to that point), there was plenty of close-up, uncensored, hardcore nudity.
Yet I've never raped a girl. I've never cummed on her face and said, "Take that, bitch!" I've never had the urge to completely dominate a woman. I know that's not what relationships are about. And I know that I'm not the exception.
I think many of the "ills" that face our society today are simply caused by bad parenting and overreactionary politicians. Porn doesn't harm mentally balanced youth. Period. Video games don't cause mentally balanced children to shoot up the school. Period. Movies, music, and TV shows don't cause mentally balanced children to commit suicide after breaking their friends' necks. Period.
Parents that buy Doom3 for their 10-year-old kid are the problem (no 10-year-old is mentally balanced). Parents that drink, smoke, and beat members of the family are the problem. Parents that don't give their children any attention are the problem. Parents that encourage violence (yes! it happens!) are the problem. These kind of parents bring about mentally unbalanced children who don't know or don't care that it's wrong to shoot up the school or dominate their girlfriends.
How do we fix these problems? That's up for debate. But one thing that's clear is how not to fix these problems: by taking away constitutional rights and freedoms in the name of "protecting the children." It simply won't work.
Re:The solution is obvious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Stars and Strips and Stripped of Rights! (Score:2, Insightful)
--Stars & Stripes by KMFDM