Court Date Set for Google Lawsuit

Jason Jardine wrote to mention a C|Net story giving the date and location for Google's court case with the government. From the article: "Google's attempt to fend off the government's request for millions of search terms will move to a federal court in San Jose, Calif., on Feb. 27. U.S. District Judge James Ware on Thursday set the date for the highly anticipated hearing, which is expected to determine whether the U.S. Justice Department will prevail in its fight to force Google to help it defend an anti-pornography law this fall."

Too bad..

[JDooty1234]

... they can't just dredge up a cache of Johnny Cochran.

Google should comply

[Anonymous Coward]

They should supply a list of URLs that google has indexed.

The list should be in the form of 0 byte length files where the filename is the URL -- on a FAT partition.

When the DOJ asks why all they see is millions of files named "http:/~1" google should point them to the FAT long filenames patents.

Fran

Re:You kidding me?

[RingDev]

Google is resisting a subpoena.

It like went like this:
Feds: Give us your records
Google: No
Feds: We'll sue you!
Google: We're shaking in our booties
Feds: [thwap] subpoena!
Google: Hey ACLU, the Feds want your search history!
ACLU: F' You feds!
Feds: Hey Judge, they said no :( [pouty face]
Judge: All right ass hats, get in here.

-Rick

New Google Service

[JFlex]

Google must have some massive plan to organize the world's porn for faster and more efficient searching. I, for one, look forward to pr0n.google.com!

Re:You kidding me?

[tribentwrks]

Finally someone explains politics in a way I can understand it! You should write a book explaining everything this way.

Inside the Courtroom

[Billosaur]

Govt lawyer: We need to see this cached data if we're ever to curb terrorism!

Google lawyer (waving hand): You don't need to see our data.

Govt lawyer: We don't need to see their data.

Google lawyer: You won't find any terrorists with it.

Govt lawyer: We won't find any terrorists with it.

Google lawyer: You are dropping your request

Govt lawyer: We are dropping our request

Google lawyer 2: I was sure we were dead back there.

Google lawyer: The Force (tm) has a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Re:Interesting Point

[Speare]

2) Comply with China's request, therefore helping the average Chinese citizen access information while only restricting their access slightly. In addition, they can have a message that notifies them that sites are being blocked for political reasons.

I have heard this argument, but have not yet seen the proposed message that the Chinese user would see. If it really says, "hey, your government made us hide some useful information from you" then fine, but I really expect it will end up watered down, barely better than "the Party Seal means you're getting 85% more fresh Party goodness, guaranteed."

Re:You kidding me?

[Sheepdot]

And it should have went like this:
Feds: Give us your records
Google: No
Feds: We need IPs and Searches, plz kkthnxbye
Google: No, that's a violation of privacy rights for you to have that and ...
ACLU: The constitution!
Google Customer: Wait, you said "no based on privacy rights" not "no based on that you didn't actually record that information"
Google: ...
Google Customer: So uh, you're recording IPs and searches for those IPs?
Google: ...
ACLU: The constitution!
Feds: haha, Google got pwned by teh customer! lollerskates. Your[sic] no better than us!
Google: :(