BushCO seeks GOOGLE Porn Records

[LoungeMachine]

JAN. 19 10:38 A.M. ET The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.

Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.
The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously."

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.

[FORD]

Hey Chimpy!

Let me save you the trouble. Here's my Google searches. (http://tinyurl.com/8g4kr)

[frets5150]

Originally posted by FORD
Hey Chimpy!

Let me save you the trouble. Here's my Google searches. (http://tinyurl.com/8g4kr)


:D

[BITEYOASS]

Originally posted by FORD
Hey Chimpy!

Let me save you the trouble. Here's my Google searches. (http://tinyurl.com/8g4kr)

I'll give you 5 stars for that! :D

[ODShowtime]

Shit Lounge I read this today at work and thought of you.


I can't believe this motherfucker's gonna get another Supreme Court pick!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Shit Lounge I read this today at work and thought of you.


I can't believe this motherfucker's gonna get another Supreme Court pick!

LMMFAO

Because you figure I Google porn all day?????









Well, sometimes at night ;)

[LoungeMachine]

Yahoo Gave Search Data To Bush Administration Lawyers

Yahoo acknowledges handing over search data requested in a subpoena from the Bush administration, which is hoping to use the information to revive an anti-porn law that was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

By Antone Gonsalves
TechWeb News

Jan 19, 2006 03:03 PM

Two of at least three major search engines subpoenaed by the Bush administration acknowledged Thursday that they handed over search data in the government's efforts to revive an anti-porn law that was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Microsoft Corp., which owns MSN, and Yahoo Inc. said they complied with the orders, but insisted no personal information on users was given to government attorneys. The disclosure followed reports that rival search engine Google Inc. had refused to comply with a similar subpoena, issued last year.

The government had asked Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., for a broad amount of data, including a million random Web addresses and records of Google searches over any week, the Associated Press reported. The information came from U.S. Justice Department papers filed Wednesday in a San Jose, Calif., federal court.

Microsoft, Redmond, Wash., and Yahoo, Sunnyvale, Calif., said they provided the data without handing over personal information on subscribers.

"We did comply with their request for data in regards to helping protect children in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers," MSN spokesman Adam Sohn said in a statement. "We were able to share aggregated query data, not search results, that did not include any personally identifiable information at their request.”

A Yahoo spokeswoman said, "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."

"We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information," spokeswoman Mary Osako said in an email.

It was not immediately clear whether other search engines had received subpoenas. Ask Jeeves, owned by InterActiveCorp, did not return a call for comment.

The high court ruled two years ago that the 1998 Child Online Protection Act requiring adults to use access codes or register with a site before receiving adult material violated free speech. The court also ruled that filtering software was adequate to protect children. Administration lawyers are hoping that the search data will help convince a Pennsylvania federal court that technology is doing an inadequate job, the AP said.

At least one search expert argued that the government could test whether children can get pornography through search engines, without seeking such a huge amount of data from search engines.

"If you want to measure how much porn is showing up in searches, try searching for it yourself rather than issuing privacy alarm sounding subpoenas. It would certainly be more accurate," Danny Sullivan, editor for Search Engine Watch, said Thursday in his Web log.

While it appeared the government was not seeking personal data that would identify individuals, there was still reason for concern, Sullivan said.

"Nothing suggests that they wanted to know who did the searches in any way," Sullivan said. "Having said this, such a move absolutely should breed some paranoia. They didn't ask for data this time, but next time, they might."

Sullivan also noted that the government-requested data could also be obtained through Internet service providers.

[DLR'sCock]

WTF?


This is not about porn. Bigger picture kids. It's always about the bigger picture, always.

[Big Train]

Couldnt he just get a bookmark to the Dump/Sheep Pen. Or a wiretap to Richard Christies/Stern's house?

[FORD]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
WTF?


This is not about porn. Bigger picture kids. It's always about the bigger picture, always.


Obviously. There is a wealth of information on the net about the Bush Criminal Empire's activities from the time Grandpa Prescott stole Geronimo's skull, to the Hitler funding, to Poppy's "agricultural imports" business and CIA activities (Cuba, Dallas and otherwise) right up through all the current scandals.

Chimpy wants to know who has been looking up the truth.

I'm right here, you monkey faced unelected Nazi bitch. And you can't touch me :cool:

[Big Train]

There is no symbol to indicate how hard that post had me laughing....

Can I ask a question? If they wanted to get at the "finders of the truth" wouldn't it be smarter (and easier) to track you from the supply (website) end of things? Again here is a conspiraracy that makes little logical sense. Of all the ways to "spy" on people, why go with the most obvious and the most ACLU lawsuit friendly of ways?

Please spell it out for me, enlighten.

[blueturk]

Originally posted by Big Train
There is no symbol to indicate how hard that post had me laughing....

Can I ask a question? If they wanted to get at the "finders of the truth" wouldn't it be smarter (and easier) to track you from the supply (website) end of things? Again here is a conspiraracy that makes little logical sense. Of all the ways to "spy" on people, why go with the most obvious and the most ACLU lawsuit friendly of ways?

Please spell it out for me, enlighten.

It's easy. Bush is a fucking idiot with way more power than brains.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by blueturk
It's easy. Bush is a fucking idiot with way more power than brains.


Exactly......












and the Seahawks will win on Sunday:cool:

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by DLR'sCock
WTF?


This is not about porn. Bigger picture kids. It's always about the bigger picture, always.

Speaking of bigger picture, think you could get one for your sig??

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Obviously. There is a wealth of information on the net about the Bush Criminal Empire's activities from the time Grandpa Prescott stole Geronimo's skull, to the Hitler funding, to Poppy's "agricultural imports" business and CIA activities (Cuba, Dallas and otherwise) right up through all the current scandals.



Oh brother...:rolleyes:


Hahahahahahahahahaha...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Oh brother...:rolleyes:


Hahahahahahahahahaha...

What, you never heard the part about Grandpa Nazi ripping off Geronimo's skull before?

Well, here's some Google searches (http://tinyurl.com/czgtx) for you to check out at your convenience then. And be sure to greet the NSA agent who's scanning your hard drive in the appropriate manner....

:moon:

[diamondD]

I've said it a 100 times, but you seriously need some fresh air.

And no, I don't agree with them asking Google for this info.

[Cathedral]

It ain't cool that Google is even being asked for this sort of info in the first place, but really, what does it matter?

Some Questions:

Who in the hell uses a search engine to find porn?
Who needs to use a search engine to find porn?
What info about porn being sent through a search engine will tell them anything about pop-up porn ads in a web browser?

I usually know where i'm going before i go there so i don't use search engines for adult based entertainment.
I have always had this paranoia about the internet that everything you do online can be tracked, and it can.
So i pretty much use extreme discretion in what i type into things like search engines.

The internet is a filthy place for a child, but there are things the "PARENT" can do to protect them from the filth.
The Supreme Court was right, and they'd better uphold that ruling on this issue.

Dick Cheney spoke yesterday as if I were in agreement with him on this because i'm a Republican, he's dead wrong, and about a great many other Repub's as well.
He spoke like a mouth piece for a Dictator in a few comments he made, and i didn't like what i was hearing at all.

The Bush Administration is trying to use fear to manipulate the public into thinking it is ok to trade off just a little chunk of our own sovereignty for security, (that false security i've been speaking of lately).
It troubles me that just as soon as the Patriot Act is in danger of dying, Osama pops up to remind people of 9-11 and threatens of more attacks.

People will soon believe that they'll be safer if the government can monitor their every move to ensure no harm comes to them.

Abe Lincoln would be ashamed of us all.

[FORD]

Cat, have you ever read "1984" by George Orwell. And if so, do you remember the character "Emmanuel Goldstein"?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
Cat, have you ever read "1984" by George Orwell. And if so, do you remember the character "Emmanuel Goldstein"?

No i haven't, got the album though, lmmfao.

It's a book i've always wanted to read but have never gotten around to it. I read something similar to it though, called Swan Song (and it's not about Zepplin) that went one step further into a post-nuclear period with a devil in persuit of the last holy person on earth, a woman.

Since you reminded me of it i'm gonna see if i can reserve a copy of 1984 from the library.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Cathedral
No i haven't, got the album though, lmmfao.

It's a book i've always wanted to read but have never gotten around to it. I read something similar to it though, called Swan Song (and it's not about Zepplin) that went one step further into a post-nuclear period with a devil in persuit of the last holy person on earth, a woman.

Since you reminded me of it i'm gonna see if i can reserve a copy of 1984 from the library.

Yeah, I might dig out my old copy that I still have from high school. I haven't read it in a while. How long has that "Swan Song" book been out? You think that might have inspired Page & Plant to name their record label? Obviously with all the Tolkein references on the early stuff like "Ramble On", they must have been readers (which may or may not clash with their rock star image, the Edgewater Inn fish story and all of that)

[Cathedral]

Swan Song came out in the mid 80's and is probably more like Stephen King's The Stand than 1984.
Swan is the main character and she is trying to avoid the man of many faces (Satan).

It's written by James R. McCammon and i recommend it to everyone.

I found 6 copies of 1984 at the library but not a single one is checked in. I'll just buy the damn thing or it'll be months before i get it.

Also, while searching on that book i stumbled onto another book by Orwell called Animal Farm that looks interesting.

[Nickdfresh]

I'm reading "1984" now actually...

[diamondD]

Animal Farm is pretty cool too. Check it out.

[LoungeMachine]

Mike Malloy is reading 1984 on his show each night in 6 minutes segments per night....




And a certain someone from The Vanilla Fudge has possession of the "shark" incident home movie........and it wasn't a shark, it was a snapper.....

VH stayed at The Edgewater when they played Seattle around 81/82 in the spring sometime. [ saw Dave walk through the lobby with a rather large guy] I was there for another party......didn't see them live until the 1984 tour when Ed got hit in the chest with a bic lighter during his solo, stopped, and told the guy what an asshole he was for throwing shit.....

[blueturk]

Here's a quick primer on why the Bush administration has often been described as "Orwellian".

First, an excerpt from "1984":

" The Ministry of Truth-Minitrue, in Newspeak-was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, three hundred meters into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH "

Then, a quote from Bush:

" I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." —George W. Bush, June 18, 2002

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Mike Malloy is reading 1984 on his show each night in 6 minutes segments per night....



Mike seems to believe that Osama has become "Emmanuel Goldstein". I'd bet money that Zarqawi is exactly that. Bin Laden at least DID exist at some point, though it's obvious he had absolutely nothing to do with the last several tapes released in his name, regardless of what the Ministry of Truth says.

If they can produce a record where Natalie Cole or Bocephus Williams can sing with their dead fathers, they can just as easily make a tape with any other random dead guy.

[diamondD]

That doesn't mean it's true, just possible. When you actually do it as a profession and have to work 8 hours a day ;) doing it, maybe you'll have the authority to make that call. Modding on a message board doesn't cut it.

[blueturk]

Hey, we got Saddam , so who gives a fuck? :rolleyes:

[Big Train]

So who is Hamlet?

Who is the sorcerer from Harry Potter?

Who is is Gordon Gecko?

Who is Rocky?

I want to compare everything in reality to a fictional character. Perhaps then I could get into your way of thinking a bit better.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
So who is Hamlet?

Who is the sorcerer from Harry Potter?

Who is is Gordon Gecko?

Who is Rocky?

I want to compare everything in reality to a fictional character. Perhaps then I could get into your way of thinking a bit better.

Were those stories about a fascist dictatorship that ruled by the use of propaganda and fear tactics?

The parallels between Orwell's story and the BCE's policies are every bit as relevant as comparisons to Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin are, since the BCE has adopted elements of all of the above.

I doubt Chimpy ever read George Orwell, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rove and Cheney have.

[Big Train]

What is the point in comparing reality to a story at all? That's what I'm saying.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
What is the point in comparing reality to a story at all? That's what I'm saying.

My point is that the BCE is a hybrid of previous fascist regimes. One of them just happens to be Orwell's fictional regime in 1984.

But the use of "Big Brother" technology to spy on the citizens, and the use of doublespeak propaganda to keep the population in fear, and in line seems to be working as well in reality as it did in the fictional story. That's why it's relevant.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Big Train
What is the point in comparing reality to a story at all? That's what I'm saying.

Because the point of that particular story was to warn people. Orwell was VERY intuitive.

[Big Train]

Well thats great if that helps you with your worldview. I'm just saying its a lot of effort to find fictional comparisons to everything in the world. Not the most efficient use of time, that was my point.

But if it works for some, then who am I to complain?

[diamondD]

Well, you are talking about people who fantasize that we're on the path to be the next Nazi Germany and most likely won't have elections in 2008. What's the harm in comparing fantasies? ;)

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by diamondD
Well, you are talking about people who fantasize that we're on the path to be the next Nazi Germany and most likely won't have elections in 2008. What's the harm in comparing fantasies? ;)

Define "election"

My definition would be the people chosing elected officials through a means that has not been proven to be tainted by corporate greed.

Did you forget the CEO of diebold and the secretary of state in Ohio both pledging to deliver the state to republicans?

Oh, they were just kidding! Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten my feathers ruffled about our whole system of checks and balances being destroyed. My bad. :(

[diamondD]

Stop drinking the FORD kook-aid. Like a CEO of Diebold is going to publicly claim he will fix the election.


Did you vote in the last election? If so, why did you bother if you believe this?

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by diamondD
Stop drinking the FORD kook-aid. Like a CEO of Diebold is going to publicly claim he will fix the election.


Did you vote in the last election? If so, why did you bother if you believe this?

Of course.

There were many different strategies in many different places. Blaming this whole debacle on Ohio is like blaming Vanderjack for the Steeler's victory in Indy.

But since I can prove you wrong, I will:



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml

E-Voting: Is The Fix In?
Aug.8, 2004

(CBS) To avoid a fiasco in this fall's election, Congress offered the states $3.9 billion to buy modern voting equipment, reports David Pogue, technology editor of The New York Times.

This fall, 30 percent of us will cast our votes by touching a screen on a computerized voting machines. No muss, no fuss - and no chads.

This year, instead of being handed a ballot, some of these voters will receive a smart card.

"They simply touch the name of the candidate that they'd like to vote for," says Alfie Charles, a spokesman for Sequoia, the second-largest voting-machine maker.

Simplicity is only one of the virtues.

"It prevents voters from over-voting, it prevents or notifies voters if they under vote, it also allows them to see all the selections they've made before casting a ballot," says Charles.

You can even vote unassisted if you can't read, you don't know English, or you're blind.

Maryland used these machines in three recent elections. Gilles Burger, Maryland's election-board chairman, gives them his vote of confidence.

"Voters are delighted with the system," he says. "We have completely accurate results, so we're very high on the system."

The good news is, these machines don't have any of the problems of paper ballots. The bad news is, they may have much worse problems all their own.

California's experience was nothing like Maryland's, according to Secretary of State Kevin Shelley.

"There was a wholesale breakdown in the election last March in one of our major counties that most Americans are familiar with, San Diego," says Shelley. "And untold thousands of individuals were turned away and denied their right to vote because the voting equipment couldn't start."

So many of the machines malfunctioned or ran unapproved software that Shelley took the extraordinary step of decertifying them.

Then there's the software worry. Avi Rubin, a computer-science professor at Johns Hopkins University, spent two weeks analyzing the software from the world's biggest voting-machine company, Diebold Election Systems, which has over 50 percent of the market.

"We found all kinds of problems in the code," he said. "A computer scientist can look at program and immediately tell you if it was written by professional programmers who know how to do software engineering or if it was just put together by a bunch of hacks. And, upon looking at the source code for Diebold, it was pretty clear that this was a real amateur job."

Needless to say, Diebold disagrees.

"There were a lot of issues that were brought up in that study that, quite honestly, were very flawed," says director of marketing Mark Radke. "One of the issues in particular: the report constantly talked about hacking into our system via the Internet, when it is never connected to the Internet."

Diebold did fix a few of the problems that Rubin found, like an unchangeable master password that was the same in every machine. But that's the least of Rubin's worries.

"The concern that I have is not that somebody will tamper with the machine on Election Day and change the outcome. The concern I have is that those machines will be programmed from the start to favor one candidate over another and not to actually record and count the votes," says Rubin.

A Diebold plot to rig the elections? Where did that idea come from? The rumors began with this letter from Diebold's CEO, Wally Odell, who was moonlighting as a Republican fundraiser. In his invitation to a benefit for Bush last August, he wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."

After a public outcry, Odell announced in May that he was getting out of politics.


yeah, I bet he got out of politics! :rolleyes:

Why are Deibold's voting machines the only machines they make that don't create a receipt?

"Our CEO Wally O'Dell's position from a political standpoint really does not reflect at all in our equipment or the functionality of our equipment. It has nothing to do with how elections are run," says Radke.

But Rubin says he is not accusing Diebold of rigging elections. "I'm just saying that they could do it and that we shouldn't allow our elections to be under control of vendors when there are ways of designing voting machines such that the vendors don't have the control of them."

Security risks, reliability problems, a potential political bias of the manufacturers and, by the way, no way to conduct a recount in a close election. It's enough to make you thoroughly depressed.

But there may be a very simple solution to all of these concerns. It's called a paper trail.

Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey has proposed a paper-trail bill.

"My legislation calls for a paper record that each voter gets to see before submitting the vote electronically. And then when the voter submits - you know - looks at this and says, 'Yep, that's my vote,' and submits the electronic vote, this paper record is stored. Should there be a recount, a need for an audit, that will be available to determine what the voter intended to do and whether it was recorded properly."

The paper-trail idea is a hit with everyone from Rep. John Lewis to Ben Cohen, of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

Lewis says, "Thirty-nine years ago..., I walked across that bridge in Selma, Ala., for the right of all of our citizens to become participants in the democratic process… What happened in Florida must never, ever happen again in America."

"I've come up with a new ice cream flavor: Fudged Election Confection," quips Cohen.

The manufacturers say they're happy to add printers to the machines - for about $700 apiece. But the experts, including Sequoia's Alfie Charles, say it won't happen by this fall.

"Taking all of the machines down, retrofitting them, all while they're still trying to prepare for the November election - you know, a presidential election year is a daunting task without any changes. To add changes and complexity on a compressed timetable prior to an election of that magnitude is really risking problems that I think we all want to avoid," says Charles.

This fall, 50 million Americans will cast their votes on touchscreen machines. Is there still time to reach a solution to all of this chaos and controversy?

Avi Rubin isn't optimistic. "I think we've dug ourselves a huge hole for November. And I think we should focus on the future. Make sure that in '06… we've ironed out all the problems and we haven't put ourselves in the position where the vendors can pick our next president."

If you ask congressman Holt, the biggest worry isn't accidentally electing the wrong president; it's losing a little thing called voter confidence.

"Cynicism eats at democracy," says Holt. "Self-government works only if we believe it does. And the 2000 election was a real blow."

"If we don't get it done by this November, and there are lots of irregularities," he says, "I'm afraid it will be another win for cynicism, and that it will take democracy down another notch."

If there's any good news at all, it's that all this bad news has put this year's election under more scrutiny than the Hope diamond. Maryland will be introducing random surprise spot-checks at the polling places, and half the contested machines in California have already been fixed and re-certified.

"We won't allow the technology to be used unless these things are met: Poll worker training. No wireless communication. Parallel monitoring. Option of voting on paper. Basic security measures," says Maryland's Secretary of State Shelley

Even so, this fall's election might be a little rocky. But like it or not, there's no turning back. America has entered an age when you won't just vote with your head and your heart. From now on, you'll also be voting with your finger.


©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Define "election"

My definition would be the people chosing elected officials through a means that has not been proven to be tainted by corporate greed.

Did you forget the CEO of diebold and the secretary of state in Ohio both pledging to deliver the state to republicans?

Oh, they were just kidding! Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten my feathers ruffled about our whole system of checks and balances being destroyed. My bad. :(

Your definition is a little off track with reality then.

First of all, The votes don't determine the winner in a Presidential Election, the "Electorate" does. the only place where our votes actually determine the outcome are only on a local and state level, NOT Federal.
And also, let's not go throwing terms like "tainted elections" around when there is more than enough evidence of similar "tainting" activities by the opposing party no matter what letter follows your name.

It's like that line in Harlem Night's when Quick (Eddie Murphy) mentions he trusts his partners with business matters and Bugsy Calhoun replies, "In this business everyone's a criminal, how can you trust a criminal?"

Same thing with politicians, their after hours casino's are just 24 hours a day and home officed in Washington, DC.

I have a message for all registered and active voters...Stop playing the game by their rules or the wool will always be obstructing your view.

I'm hard pressed to say either party is above the other when it comes to integrity, principle, honesty, compassion and upholding the Constitution.
I don't want either one representing me, and that's the sobering truth.

[ODShowtime]

Originally posted by Cathedral
Your definition is a little off track with reality then.

First of all, The votes don't determine the winner in a Presidential Election, the "Electorate" does. the only place where our votes actually determine the outcome are only on a local and state level, NOT Federal.
And also, let's not go throwing terms like "tainted elections" around when there is more than enough evidence of similar "tainting" activities by the opposing party no matter what letter follows your name.


Come on Cat. That was a little remedial.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ODShowtime
Come on Cat. That was a little remedial.

Ok, it was maybe a little bit, lol...But my point is valid none the less.
It doesn't matter who's banner is flying at the White House when both major organizations basically follow the same path laid by Corporate Greed.
If we want to eat, work, drive, own a home etc. etc. etc, in this country....we have no choice but to play the game by their rules.

Welcome to New Rome, Beware of Flying Rocks!

:D

[ODShowtime]

Yeah, they're all greedy, lying assholes. My point is that you can prove that gw&friends are corrupt cheaters. I want an administration that doesn't rub their lawlessness in my face.