What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
175 Comments
- howie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@thecolor11:
"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."
Child pornographers? Showing porn to children is not "child pornography". If you are a parent and allow your child to surf around unsupervised, it is you who deserve punishment anyway, not porn sites.
I notice that "child porn" is used once in the article, but I can't figure out what on earth preventing minors from viewing legal porn has to do with child pornography.
Also, even if it was about child porn, why should Google have to hand out overly broad search data in the first place? Just because you search for things that may be interpreted as child porn (such as "preteen", which parents with young children may use as a search term to find useful info) doesn't mean that Bush's henchmen should bust down your door and drag you away to prison!
I don't care if it's normal port, child porn or monkey porn. The government has no business looking around around in everyone's searches. - deathpasser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11There is no fight, Google is an elaborate scheme by the Govt. to get us to love Google and use it and then Google saves every single record of your activity on its servers, at its own expense, in humungosaurous databases. Secretly, teh NSA and CIA and all the other whatchamacallits out there are using Googles enormous databases. This crap between Nicole and Bush is just a front for something else, something big...bigger than we cou......................................
- adrianrf, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13wake up kids!
the fear-powered junta has been occupying the White House for like 6 years. it is:
-- ALREADY checking library records for "suspicious" people reading "suspicious" books; and they've gagged the librarians from disclosing when it happens;
-- ALREADY has its pet chimp -- the cheerleader who got the Supreme Court to say in 2000 "sure, let's stop counting ballots; you win because we say so", and then consolidated his coup d'etat in 2004 (with more outright mass voter fraud) to **TELL US** cheerfully over a week ago that yep, he IS above the law; he's got NSA spying illegally on your email and phone traffic right now -- and b'jebus, he's gonna carry right on doing it, and dang if he doesn't resent you even asking questions about this, cause that's purty close to treasonous...
-- ALREADY suckered this country into an illegal war, on completely false pretenses, killing over a hundred thousand so far, and with a civil war clearly on the cards
-- ALREADY are stealing our kids' and grandkids' futures blind by running up unbelievable deficits, while cramming through new tax cuts ever more narrowly focused to the people who need them least
-- MEANWHILE: the only significant semblance of organized opposition to protect your interests in what's left of the tattered shreds of what used to be a fairly useful Constitution and Bill of Rights is -- omigawdshelpusall -- the Democratic Party -- can't muster the collective spinal stiffness of a Mister Softee cone on an August Death Valley afternoon, so THEY'RE standing uselessly by while:
** ALREADY the draft-dodging/AWOL Freepers are starting to smear Congressman Murtha's military decorations with that good ol' Rovian "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" horse-hockey they unrolled shamelessly on Senators McCain, Cleland, and Kerry.
** ALREADY they've done the heavy lifting to cram in Alito, an affectless robot who stonewalled his way past a Senate confirmation without serious challenge [seems no Dem's got balls for even a token filibuster effort] despite everyone and their little yaller dog knowing full well that Alito's hand-picked mission is to depth-charge Roe v. Wade and drive American womanhood back to the bad old days of back-alley coat-hanger abortions and the Culture of Shame
BUT NOW:
...you're worried/surprised/shocked -- about ***Google searches*** being inspected for signs of sedition/treason/sabotage?
OMGWTF!
are you serious?
you are already so pwned, pwned, pwned!
Dubya is packing your fudge from behind -- but he SURE as hell didn't pay you the courtesy of kissing behind your ear beforehand.
now, if this reality-based assessment bothers you, you need to start doing something.
figure out who your Congress critters are, and let 'em know you expect them to do something ASAP, and that if they don't, you yourself personally are gonna go volunteer to help whoever will be challenging them in the upcoming midterms.
start by pressing them to insist on paper trails for your vote, not unauditable electronic systems that can be easily rigged by minions for DeLay/Hastert/Frist/Abramson/Cheney - the most blatantly cynical and corrupt political machine this country's seen in nearly two centuries.
donate money; pester your friends; and get ready to join in mass protest marches.
that's what it's gonna take to restore democracy, here in the USA. - mattmeow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9 "I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'"
--Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation - crazyguy821, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
A bit of Thomas Jefferson is in order here - SniperGX1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"I don't care if it's normal port, child porn or monkey porn. The government has no business looking around around in everyone's searches."
One professor I once had said, the true test to supporting the first amendment is not saying or producing whatever content you want, but defending that content which you do not agree with. I believe this is true in this case. I don't like child porn and think its terrible, but I don't care if a 7 year old wants to check out another 7 year old. In fact I don't even want to know he is doing it because that is gross in my oppinion. - Stonekeeper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It makes me laugh when people say "They cant! It's the constitution". I've got some news: Wake up and smell the coffee! Your country is being run by neocon business men who don't give two craps about your constitution, your privicy or your rights. Open your eyes! It doesn't take a genius to see what's going on.
- padewak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@graybot
good work!
at the same site, I found a letter this organization wrote to then President Clinton in 1998.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
excerpt from the letter signed by several members of PNAC included Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
"We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council."
The intent to invade Iraq was there before 9/11 and so was the intent to bypass the UN.
Amazing!!! - srocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5>They have NO RIGHT. IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION! Our country is based upon freedom, and it >needs to stay that way. Despite the good intentions(?) spying on your own citizens does not help >protect their rights and freedoms, it destroys them.
>
>matt meow
You are living in a dream world. USA != freedom. You have NO RIGHTS. - grayBot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5this is really *****...
this administration has brought us the "clear sky initiative" , the "patriot act" as well as pandered to christianity while simultaneaouly justifying war.
We also know that this admin has has NYT and Time reporters in their pocket, it is very clear that somewhere between Cheney, Rumsfield and Rove that political power trumps honesty everytime.
Considering this, if you were the type of person who was used to decieving the public, how would you go about justifying seizing a massive amount of internet data ?
Hmmm..... let's see O, we are going after child pornographers! If google doesnt hand over their information they are helping the child pornagraphers... yea we dont buy it.
Seriously people... how much more of this ***** can we take, just ask yourself where the line is ? This administration is slowly ripping apart the constitution before our eyes, how far will we let them go ?
If you dont believe just google PNAC, or the Project for a New American Century, this think tank includes a large majority of the Bush administration and specifically states that one of their top priorities is controlling cyber space.... it' all there in black and white....o ***** it I'll find the link......brb - tijer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I will provide you with three facts. See if you can put them together in the right order!
1) Microsoft contributed huge amounts of $$ to President Bush during his two election campaigns.
2) President Bush is the commander in chief. That includes NSA, CIA and FBI.
3) Microsoft is trying to "kill" Google. - Elranzer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"the good fight" ... defending child pornographers is "the good fight" ???
Dammit, if a 16 year old wants pr0n, they'll get it one way or another, I can assure you. However, giving the gov't access to ALL search records to help fight the case is insanity! - mattmeow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They have NO RIGHT. IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION! Our country is based upon freedom, and it needs to stay that way. Despite the good intentions(?) spying on your own citizens does not help protect their rights and freedoms, it destroys them.
- judsond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3google really has to be hating this, if the government takes away the customer's ability to trust them that will hurt more than some feel-good crap, it will probably end up costing them a lot of lost revenue.
- ninjakarl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm gonna go with the "They have no right to be looking at people's search records" point of view on this one. They have no right to go about looking through innocent people's search records. If they suspect someone of being guilty of some crime then they should put some sort of keystroke logger on that person's computer if they are convinced that the person has broken a law online and do so often.
+digg - Rince, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3So how exactly can you deduce somebody's age from a searchrecord? Did I miss something?
And aren't there any "popular searches"-lists available for the Gestap...eh, feds to refer to?
- prosthetichead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3the thing that's also messed up is NOT only Americans use google or the Internet! the Feds have no right at all to look at the searches I make here in another country no matter what whacked out laws get passed there. Besides what are they going to do with this information? it would be HUGE and I mean huge in the since of more information then what is humanly possible to make any use of.
- TheOtherGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"All of you who feel this is an important issue ought to contact Google and tell them if they succumb to government pressure you will cease to use and advocate their services, especially Google ads"
Why should we punish Google for doing something it is being legally compelled to do?
That said, this interference by the Bush administration is ridiculous. Google is ubquitous enough to be regarded as a vital piece of the Internet's infrastructure. Having it hand over our search records is akin to its forcing libraries to hand over records on what people are reading. It is unfair and makes a mockery off all we hold dear in a liberal democracy. - sp4rky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3uh oh, hope Googlefight.com is wrong.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Google&word2=Government - Purposeless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All of you who feel this is an important issue ought to contact Google and tell them if they succumb to government pressure you will cease to use and advocate their services, especially Google ads.
You ought to contact your government as well to announce your displeasure. Participate in your republic. No one else is going to. - asdfasdf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3***** morons. Child pornography is used as an excuse for the government to gain more power, more control. After they eradicate that, what's next?
- DFrag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What about yahoo? MSN? Have they handed over the info?? If they did, ***** them and not ever use their sites again.
- Chapter80, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I enjoyed this quote from the article: "The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content inaccessible to minors." - Yeah, I guess we need to make porno more accessible to minors! ha ha
thecolor11: yes, this is fighting the good fight - google should fight this for two reasons: 1) they're not even party to the law suit, and are being asked to provide a ridiculous amount of information, and 2) privacy is at stake of law-abiding citizens. Now some people say "If I am not doing anything wrong, I don't care if the government watches me". But they don't want snooping when they go to the bathroom (same principle!) - arudgick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2cheney must have stock in yahoo
- ScoTTeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@davidleeroth
You realise the .com.au servers arnt hosted in Australia right? A quick tracert shows along with its .com counterpart that they are hosted in the good ol' US of A. - cloudtears, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm from the NSA and I'm here to help you. A lot of you will get used to the chip implant after a while, many people who objected to getting it now tell me how grateful they are that we put the implant in them, as it has helped honest people stay honest ;)
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2[quote]solution: move google servers to russia ;)[/quote]
China could probably do it, they already have a Google and MS campus, amongst other US tech companies. Not to mention that their broadband services now surpass the US. 100mb DSL is available in Hong Kong, what do we get in America? We get some fundamentalist moron questioning evolution and using our taxes to spy on us. Not to mention that none of his campaigns have resulted in any successes:
Osama escaped
Anthrax attack never solved
Iraq invasion failed
Oil prices highest in recorded history
Oh there was ONE success for this criminal tyrant: the oil companies and military contractors have had record profits. I know, some Republican apologist will say the economy is doing good. It's not doing good, the standard of living in America has dropped off a cliff! - grayBot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ok here are the links I was blabbering about
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
( scroll to the bottom of this document and you'll find a whose who of the bush administration including brother Jeb Bush. )
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
page V states of this document states one the main objectives as
"CONTROL THE NEW “INTERNATIONAL COMMONS” OF SPACE AND “CYBERSPACE,” and pave
the way for the creation of a new military service – U.S. Space Forces – with the mission of
space control. - crazyguy821, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*whoosh*
ah the sound of your rights going down the crapper
whats next, active logging to ensure you dont engage in "terrorist activities" or the great standby of child porn, who can argue with catching scumbags, but then why not let google turn over databases of certain keywords ect...oh the government would never lie to us poor gullible fools. - fmwap, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bush is probably just pissed because he's the top result for 'Miserable Failure'.
Try it, goto google.com, type in: "Miserable Failure" and hit "I'm feeling lucky" - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So how exactly can you deduce somebody's age from a searchrecord? Did I miss something?
And aren't there any "popular searches"-lists available for the Gestap...eh, feds to refer to?"
I think what they want to do is see how many times porn turns up in searchs that are not necessarly for porn (like the preteen example by a previous poster) then argue that it would be easy for a minor to encounter porn even when they aren't looking for it. - moshguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hate to say it but a majority of kiddie porn isn't sent via the web. Most of it goes under the radar via P2P file swapping. I don't know why in the world they are going after google on this one.
- skabyss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This isn't about trying to defend the child pornerators, its about trying to defend MY right to type whatever the hell I want in that little search box without worry of my door getting kicked down and my house raided.rnrnIt is very plain and simple; our president and his administration are nothing but bullies, bullies trying to push the computer world around because they haven't even the foggiest concept of the kind of turbulence that the community takes on a daily basis.rnrnOh, and lobbster, shut you worthless hole, not only do you posses the grammatical skills of a dyslexic urine-soaked dog, but your idea has fallen pitifully short of being a complete rational thought.rnrnGo laid little boy, but that should be hard for an ignorant mutt that stinks of piss...rnrn
- jcs_goog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Dugg. The US government should turn all of its data over to Google. I'm sure Google would manage it better.
- gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2first wire taps now google........
- imitated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It really is sickening to hear this but it's no big surprise. Does any one know how this will affect international users of Google sites? As a UK citizen are my rights of privacy compromised by any data/voice traffic that passes through the US? I fear so.
- thisismenotyou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2thecolor11...
yes defending child pornographers is "the good fight".
read the constitution. you don't have to like what people do, but they have the right to do it. google's an american company, and the "feds" are american. we all have the right to be free from a search without warrant. they can't go fishing for people based on what they may or may not have been interested in.
it scares me that a lot of people won't even mind the fed asking. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ah well what's new? It's either 'for the children' or 'the war against terrorism'............
- padewak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Here is the deal.
The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was defeated in the US Supreme Court 2 years ago.
The US Supreme Court has given the Government a chance to prove that COPA does not violate First Ammendment rights.
The Governement wants the Google data to prove their Child Online Protection Act actually protects children from Internet pornography.
Why is the Government meddling in private affairs? Let the parents raise their children how they see fit. Let' stop wasting tax money on this nonsense! - spacenettnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1About time someone's standing up to uncle sam. screw this government. Go google!
- SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just a matter of time before we're all given permanent IP addresses at birth instead of Social Insurance Numbers..... anonymity is so 1974
- jenmarsh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I really thought the headline and news blurb may have been a bit biased, but unfortunately, the article is in line with the headline and blurb. I can't believe the government is really trying to do this. I would support turning over search records for a specified user as long as a warrant was signed. Warrants usually mean that there is sufficient suspicion and circumstantial evidence to warrant such action, however obtaining searches from 1 million users over any one week period of time is just plain invasive.
Thankfully our government is built on a checks and balances system. In this case, our judicial branch is keeping things in check. I am glad the Supreme Court acted as it did, it was appropriate action. - RobCowie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If this happens, it will kill Google.. at least outside the US.
A non-US citizen is not going to want to subject themselves to the scrutiny of a foreign government.
Or.. Google will move its servers outside of the US - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can dooooo eeeet! Fight off these moronic administrators. Good lord.... what the hell is wrong with this administration? They push and push and push.. and expect everyone to just bend over and take it....
- Oogler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why doesn't the Bush legal team come up with their own search engine? I'm sure the 4+ million right-wing whack jobs who tipped the balance in the last election would swarm to it. (Along with all the other brainless drones.) Oh wait, they wouldn't be searching for porn though. : ( Ya right!
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Google DOES host servers locally. The reason that Americans tracerouting the AU servers are getting US results is because Google will send you to the closest server regardless of which domain you query. When I query Google Canada from Canada, I get a server in Canada. When I query Google Australia, I also see a server in Canada.
Google is all about local servers to reduce latency to clients. - salmonmoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"the servers mught be in usa but i aint the usa has no duristiction to prosutcute people where they dont abide by there ***** up peins laws bush if ur reading this ***** U any one who suuppoerts bush is a wanker and shuld ***** himslef in the ass"
See? look! this is one of the children they want to protect :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yo Go Girl er, ug, google.
Stupid feds. Always attacking what they don't understand.
http://www.presenternet.com - joel.smith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They say they're fighting to keep pornography away from children.. BUT THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT STIFLED THE .XXX TLD.... Jesus Christ! These people are morons...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 175 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is