Google rebuffs U.S. gov't demand for search data

Good on em, at least they're not rolling over like MSN did.

 

Hooray for Google!!!!

 

How about adding some suspicious words to everyone's signature line to overload the system? Something like

ammonium nitrate whitehouse easter eggroll

billwald

 

Now you've done it, billwald. The BB is sure to be picked up on the "radar." Good thing my aluminum foil hat is on.

 

I want everyone who thinks this kind of power over us is a good thing to repeat after me...

"President Hillary Clinton....
President Hillary Clinton....
President Hillary Clinton..."

 

Ken said-Hooray for Google!!!!

Ken, you amaze me. First you got all over Bush about not having a subpoena. Now you are supporting Google not obeying a subpoena. That is a court order to hand over information. So much for your Bush should get a subpoena stance.

My understanding is they are looking for evidence on child porn. They have the subpoena which means they have probable cause.

So you would protect the terrorist from non-subpoena searches and you would protect the child pornographers from court orders.

I thought you were all about the law and obeying it even if it is done in the name of National defense. But now you are applauding Google for disobeying the law by ignoring a court issued subpoena.

That just makes now sense at all.

 

Bunyon,

The article in the link states that the Bush administration just went to court last week.

The article does not state that a subpoena has been issued.

Google simply refused a request by the Bush administration.

This looks like a good case to take to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

If that is true, KenH. I stand corrected. But I read they were refusing a subpoena in several mediums. But there is nothing wrong with asking, is there?

 

Nope. Nothing wrong with telling the Bush administration to go jump in the lake, either.

 

Unless there is a subpoena involved. But why such strong feelings? Do you think this is just a trick, and they are not really investigating child pornography (which is a real problem on the internet, I understand).

 

Since COPA was unconstitutional on what basis is the Bush administration making this request?

 

They don't need legal grouds for a simple request. But apparently they have them since a suboena was granted. The article suggest they need it to revive the act or make it constituional. It is not uncommon for an administration to rework something that has been declared unconstituional so they can take it back and have it pass muster.

 

COPA has been ruled unconstitutional.

The linked article did not state that a subpoena has been issued.

No one, not even you or me, has to comply with a mere request by the Bush administration.

 

It is not uncommon for an administration to rework something that has been declared unconstituional so they can take it back and have it pass muster.

the SC struck COPA down on 1st amendment violations. I fail to see how the Bush admin can rework it without encountering the same violations. Google is correct in denying the request and legally fighting the subpoena.

Do you think this is just a trick, and they are not really investigating child pornography

They are not directly seeking out child pornographers, or those who use child porn. They are using the info for purely "subject matter information", according to AG Gonzalez.

 

"The subpoena has also raised serious privacy concerns."----------------------------------------

"Subpoena" From the first post.

Why would Goggle want to resist a subpoena that is intended to get an act online that is intended to protect children? Why would anyone have a problem with it at face value?

 

Now you're sounding like the Democrats during the Clinton administration. They tended to couch things in the phrase "for the children".

I think I remember this being discussed on this board when it was struck down. If so, I don't recall the details.

 

The subpoena was what was asked for just last week. Has the court acted on it yet?

 

Ha Ha, maybe I am. But three other online services all complyed without already. This just appears to be a smart marketing move by Google "we are the defenders of your privacy". Funny, because when you sign on with google, they inform you that they monitor every thing you do and use the information to figure out everything about you so as to target you for marketing better. If you are worried about your privacy, the search engines are your number one concern.

 

Why would Goggle want to resist a subpoena that is intended to get an act online that is intended to protect children? Why would anyone have a problem with it at face value?

COPA is not intended to protect children from predators. It is intended to protect children from themselves.

Do you not see a problem with how the DOJ is seeking to gather information on searches? It is not the governments right to see what American citizens are searching for on the net, in order to find methods on how to prevent children from accessing certain sites. I'm sorry, but that IS a PARENT'S job.