Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Concerns (AP)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Starfury Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 04:55 AM
Original message
Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Concerns (AP)
SAN FRANCISCO - Concerns by Google Inc. that a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests would violate privacy rights are unwarranted, the Justice Department said in a court filing.

The 18-page brief filed Friday argues that because the information provided would not identify or be traceable to specific users, privacy rights would not be violated.

The brief was the Justice Department's reply to strident arguments filed by Google last week as a rebuff the government's demand to review its search requests during a random week.

The department believes the information will help revive an online child protection law that has been blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. By showing the wide variety of Web sites that people find through search engines, the government hopes to prove Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography and other inappropriate material online.

(...)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_hi_te/google_...

Hmmmm.....

Seems like this sets a dangerous precedent. Sounds innocuous, but so will the next one, and the next one... It would be an easy matter to correlate searches by IP address, ISP, etc....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
varkam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
1. Justice filed in step with the * admin?
No way. I just don't believe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. No way?...This pronouncement was a given are you kidding?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Journeyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 05:34 AM
Response to Original message
2. So they could prove everything mentioned in this snippet by simply. . .
organizing their own search parameter tests and presenting that to the justices as proof of the easy availability of internet porn to determined web surfers. Why the need for millions of incidences of what can be proved with one example?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starfury Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 05:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I figure they need results to justify the next "study"....
Maybe I'm too cynical, but it seems to me that just doing their own search merely shows it's possible. Everyone already knows that porn's the number one search topic, nothing new there. But a large mass of statistical 3rd party data shows a growing threat to the welfare of our nation's children. I'm sure everyone will be suitably shocked and appalled at the results and decide they need a solution to make the Internet safe and accountable.

I hope I'm wrong, but...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. "...the information would not identify or be traceable to specific users."
Then what the hell does BushCo want it for? What is their excuse for demanding this information? If it "isn't traceable to specific users", then doesn't it just tell them what people are googling for -- information that's already provided online?

I don't get it. Oh, I'm certain there's a dark side to it...I just don't understand what possible excuse Bush** could give for wanting what they claim to want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mithras61 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. I don't understand what these freaks want...
I google LOTS of stuff and I've never "accidentally" found a porn site when I wa slooking for something else. The only thing I can think of that they would want with the search results are that they believe that searching for porn is far more common than even THEY believe, or that Google and other search engines intentionally return porn links to innocuous searches.

Besides, they already have the data from AOL, Yahoo and MSN. Do they REALLY need the additional data from Google to be able to make their claim? What's up with that? Does Google suddenly handle more than half of all Internet searches or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mahatmakanejeeves Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. "I've never "accidentally" found a porn site...."
Same here. Unless I get it as spam, I never see it. Of course, I stay away from Rethuglican sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yup, I agree, this thing is weird. For one thing, the Bush junta and its
so-called "Justice" Department (headed by torture memo writer and Bush Cartel toady Alberto Gonzales--I mean, what a joke...or rather tragedy and OUTRAGE) has no interest whatsoever is protecting children. They are interested in finding and punishing their political enemies--people who may be organizing for peace, justice and democracy. Please keep that clear. Child porn is a bait and switch issue--just like "terrorism"--to get control of, and destroy, the opposition (the people of this country). They want total control (remember, they called it "Total Information Awareness.") They want dirt and blackmail material on any potential opponent. Just as with their pervasive domestic spying on phone calls with not even a post-facto warrant (permitted for emergencies). They are pushing at--as well as breaking--all of our laws that protect us from THEM.

So, to get this by judges, they lie. They say they have no interest in tracing google searchers to specific users. That is total B.S.

Keep in mind, also, that the people doing this are the most perverted, sick, greedy, murderous people on the planet. They are torturing numerous innocent people, as we speak; electric shocking their genitals, starving them to death, "waterboarding" them (simulated death by drowning), beating them, setting dogs on them, raping them and killing them. They are whisking anonymous prisoners off to secret torture prisons in middle Europe and points east, so they can do this with impunity. Prisoners with no charges against them, no access to courts or lawyers or any kind of help. My guess is that these poor, disappeared prisoners are Bush-Cheney business enemies, witnesses to their crimes, potential whistleblowers and others who pose a threat of exposure to the junta, or were interfering with some nefarious Bush junta scheme. Anybody who thinks they are doing all this for OUR security is an idiot.

Second, where does Yahoo get off calling Google's legal arguments "strident"??!!!

"The brief was the Justice Department's reply to **strident** arguments filed by Google last week...".

Yahoo, the Bush junta toady, who, with all the other toadies, caved in to these sick murderers and thieves.

Strident.

Yeah, Thomas Jefferson was STRIDENT. Martin Luther King was STRIDENT. Anybody who has principles, and acts for the good of the people, is "strident."

It's an AP article (aren't they all, these days? what's with THAT news monopoly?*), but Yahoo is publishing it. Strident.

"Mountain View, Calif.-based Google has staunchly resisted the Justice Department since receiving a subpoena last summer...".

Damn straight. Go, Google!!! :patriot: :woohoo: :patriot:

-------------------------

*(It was through one AP computer that all of the so-called "officials results" of the 2004 election poured into the war profiteering corporate news monopolies' computers, late on election day, and, when they saw that Diebold's and ES&S's "trade secret," proprietary vote tabulation software was saying that Bush won, they then shut down the reporting system for about an hour (a "crash," they said) and DOCTORED their own exit polls--which said Kerry won-- to "FIT" the results of Diebold's and ES&S's secret formulae. They thus deprived the American people of major evidence of election fraud, and squelched protests and calls for investigation. And AP was right in the middle of it--and may even have been the loop through which a Kerry win was changed to a Bush win.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tecelote Donating Member (645 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. You said it!
If it were not for blogs, America would be more in the dark than it is now.

In fact, without blogs, history would show that Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

The media has been handled. If it weren't for those damn blogs!

"You know Georgie, it was so much easier in the Reagan years!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. Quite frankly, this has been pure vengence against Al Gore for
speaking out against the atrocities of this adminstration.

They will try to rip anything gore is connected to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
7. I stopped reading about this when the Congress started in on them
Some how I could not get it around my brain that they in Congress would be mad at Google for giving in on things in China yet they have let any business that wishes to make money go to China. As if working people for little pay is not as bad as what Google does. If that was not paying Google back for not falling into line I will eat my hat. If Google had just done as Bush said all would have been fine. Do as Bush a Co.. say here but in China anything goes. Greed and profits will do us in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 07:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. But the "Justice" Department does accept torture
...and Unitary Executive theory. Look it up, rightwingnuts; check out where that "unitary executive theory" came from.

BUSH UBER ALLES! GOTT MIT UNS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
10. Seems Like Its Time To Split The Justice Department...
from the Executive Branch. It's time for Justice to become it own check and balance rather than an enabler for the executive.

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. "Justice" Dept.
U.S. nazi "Justice" Dept. to Google: "trust us". :eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goforit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. By law can the Justic Dept. do this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-26-06 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. I Wonder If They Are Asking for Log Files?
If they are, users would indeed be traceable.

If they're asking for the html pages turned up in the searches, then maybe not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 22nd 2014, 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC