FED JUDGE.... GOOGLE Must Comply With DOJ REQUEST

[rsmith6621]

Breaking.....SEE BANNER ON PAGE............

http://www.cnn.com/

Well Welcome to the Dictatorship....

[DuaneBidoux]

1. Dangerous shit this is.

[sarcasmo]

51. You are so correct, YODA.

[xultar]

2. OK Hit Google with anti-Bush, anti-neocon, anti-fundi, ant-rethug

searches!!!


RUN DON'T WALK!!!

[saigon68]

41. Google the phrase Bush gives %#*^and sucks-----

[xultar]

47. I did find Bush sucks donkey balls.

[Canuckistanian]

65. Well, we know he jerks off horses

His wife even said so.

[Teaser]

3. No, welcome to authoritarian republicanism

That is the sort of gov't we have now.

Not a dictatorship yet.

[NewWaveChick1981]

4. Damn....couldn't the Feds just Google what they needed???

Oh, wait... They Googled the hell out of Google through the court system. Sorry. :(

Seriously, this is just one of many instances of our rights being violated and taken away, one at a time.

[leftchick]

5. who is the federal judge?

will this go to the SC?

[rsmith6621]

6. A Judge In San Jose CA.........

[Sequoia]

25. San Jose is full of right wing extremists.

[NewWaveChick1981]

7. It should go all the way to the SC!

[xultar]

11. Meanwhile load up the searches on anti bush stuff.

[NewWaveChick1981]

21. You got it!

[NewWaveChick1981]

10. Judge James Ware

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&storyID=2006-03-14T184239Z_01_WEN2717_RTRIDST_0_TECH-GOOGLE-JUDGE-URGENT.XML

[Pachamama]

68. I wonder what would happen if Google defied the order & refused?

I think that might/should be in order and meanwhile have their lawyers take it all the way to the SCOTUS. And if it makes it that far and the Supreme Court said that Google has to give the info, well, then we all know its time to start packing our bags - it will be official that we live in a fascist state and no longer the democratic republic of the United States of America....

:scared:

:hi: leftchick!

[ReadTomPaine]

8. The next step Google takes should be interesting... n/t

[54anickel]

9. Judge to Order Google to Give Up Some Data

http://localnewsleader.com/jackson/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=157657

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer 6 minutes ago

SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to require Google Inc. to turn over some information to the Department of Justice Department of Justice in its quest to revive a law making it harder for children to see online pornography.

The legal showdown over how much of the Web‘s vast databases should be shared with the government has pitted the Bush administration against Google Inc., which resisted turning over any information because of privacy and trade secret concerns.


That's it...

[NV Whino]

18. Let me see if I have this right...

"Google Inc... resisted turning over any information because of privacy and trade secret concerns. " Gets hit by the DoJ.

Diebold won't give us paper verifiable ballots or allow anyone to check the programing because of proprietary sofware and they get a pass. Not only a pass, the damned machines are being crammed down our throats.

[JuniperLea]

24. Good point!

n/t

[JuniperLea]

22. making it harder for children to see online pornography

That is such bovine excrement! Parents are responsible for their children, period. It is very easy to block stuff on any computer a child might use.

Next thing you know Ozzy Osbourne is going to get sued because some kid misunderstood the message in "Suicide Solution"... and some stupid parent is going to blame whomever they can because Johnny can't read and Johnny's got a gun and Johnny got into Daddy's porn stash...

Parents need to take the responsibility! I raised three kids to adulthood and I can tell you from experience, kids who are disciplined feel loved because of it... if you didn't care about the kid you wouldn't discipline. And they knew that funny little bathroom jokes belonged at home... and they knew to stay out of Mommy and Daddy's private bedroom drawers... and they knew that there were certain movies and cable channels they couldn't watch. That was my job. Period. Bastards need to leave my kids' parenting to me... and all those lazy assed parents who ignore their kids or are too involved with their own life and problems to raise their kids should have exercised their rights to abortions! Bastards!

It was a wonderful time, raising my kids. I loved every minute of it. I get a little bent when people put their nose where it doesn't belong and when parents blame their bad kids on something other than bad parenting! I think there are some "bad seeds"... but for the most part, if you raise your kid well, they turn out ok!

[54anickel]

33. Yeah, but it works the fundie base up into a tizzy of support. They're

so freakin' easy to manipulate - such tools! I'm sure it's getting great coverage on the 700 Club and Google is probably being "villianized" by Pat as we type. :eyes:

[SoCalDem]

60. The same people who resist GUN control, are ALL FOR internet control

Their argument re guns is that THEY, as parents should be in charge of the safety of their own children when it comes to guns.. They resist EVERY safety feature that's proposed because they ASSERT their parental rights, BUT when a computer comes into their homes, they somehow "forget" how to parent, and want the GUBBMINT to control what their kids have access to on a machine that THEY bought and the internet providers that THEY willingly pay for.. what's wrong with THIS picture??

[JuniperLea]

64. EGADS!

I never thought of that! You are so very painfully right! Keeping a kid off porn sites is ever so easy, and not lethal either! Jeez.

[benEzra]

71. Not this gun owner...

The same people who resist GUN control, are ALL FOR internet control...Their argument re guns is that THEY, as parents should be in charge of the safety of their own children when it comes to guns.. They resist EVERY safety feature that's proposed because they ASSERT their parental rights, BUT when a computer comes into their homes, they somehow "forget" how to parent, and want the GUBBMINT to control what their kids have access to on a machine that THEY bought and the internet providers that THEY willingly pay for.. what's wrong with THIS picture??

Not this gun owner...as well as most gun owners I know. Most of us do believe in enforcing all of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, and I'd be an ACLU member were it not for their dyslexic stance on gun ownership.

I think the administration (or any other) should stay out of our gun safes AND our computers...

[TechBear_Seattle]

42. On what legal pretext?

The Junta is free to ask. Google is free to say piss off. On what justification can the courts force Google to comply?

[rsmith6621]

12. BREAKING.......HERE IS THE LINK TO THE STORY

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11824987/

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to require Google Inc. to turn over some information to the Department of Justice in its quest to revive a law making it harder for children to see online pornography.

U.S. District Judge James Ware did not immediately say whether the data will include search requests that users entered into the Internet’s leading search engine.

[Montauk6]

13. I smell a showdown before the Supremes.

[54anickel]

14. Judge Orders Google To Turn Over User Files

http://www.ktvu.com/news/7996141/detail.html

SAN JOSE -- A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to require Google Inc. to turn over some information to the Department of Justice in its quest to revive a law making it harder for children to see online pornography.

U.S. District Judge James Ware did not immediately say whether the data will include search requests that users entered into the Internet's leading search engine.

The legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government has pitted the Bush administration against the Mountain-View-based company, which resisted a subpoena to turn over any information because of user privacy and trade secret concerns.

The Justice Department downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.

A lawyer for the Justice Department told Ware that the government would like to have a random selection of 50,000 Web addresses and 5,000 random search requests from Google, a small fraction of the millions the government originally sought.

more...

[depakid]

30. Gee, governments are allowed to breach trade secrets

for fishing expeditions based on a law that was already found to be unconstitutional- and yet government is not entitled to see "trade secret" proprietary code that records and tabulates our votes.

If I had ANY lingering doubts that America is already- and irreparably- a fascist nation- this dispels them completely.

[Atman]

15. Google should tell the judge to shove it

They'll comply with the courts the same day the President does, not a moment sooner.

[mike_c]

16. everyone should google "george bush fascist dictator" daily....

eom

[xultar]

19. I have a list I keep as an electronc note. I ctrl C and Ctrl V

I can get through the list in about 3 mins using 2 browsers.

[rodeodance]

20. nope

[xultar]

27. Why not?

[Sequoia]

29. Child prono is just a smoke screen.

And we know it. You HATERS of freedom and justice can go to hell. You right wing fundies are so into children in your churches and boy scouts, you're just looking for people who want those crooks out of office. This has nothing to do with children. NOTHING. It's all about squashing the right to privacy, the freedom of speech, and all the rights in our Constitution.

[Atmashine]

44. 604,000 hits!

[Pastiche423]

53. I just got 642,000 hits!

I love doing things that bring a smile to my face 1st thing in the morning.

It's a good thing.

[Mrspeeker]

17. their reasoning LOL

~The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography.~

LOL, how about the parents turning off the computer or not allowing their kids to use the internet unsupervised. I don't need big government to step in on my behalf, as a parent I can do my job. Furthermore as a parent I would chose to have violence removed before pornographic material any day!

[wakeme2008]

23. Bush 41 Judge

Judge James Ware is a native of Birmingham, Alabama. Judge Ware received his B.A. degree in 1969 from California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks, California. He was awarded Most Outstanding Senior. He received his J.D. degree in 1972 from Stanford Law School, where he received the Hilmer Ohlmer Award for excellence in research and Writing.

From 1972-1988, Judge Ware was an attorney with the firm of Ritchey, Fisher, Whitman & Klein in Palo Alto, California. He represented individuals and businesses in a wide variety of matters in state and federal court.

On November 1, 1988, Judge Ware was appointed to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. On October 1, 1990, Judge Ware was appointed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, where he now serves

[politicat]

45. And that means anything?

Cal Lu is actually pretty liberal. It's ELCA, not Missouri Synod, and has never been really fundy.

Lutherans tend to be pretty mainstream. Just look at Minnesota.

[tom_paine]

62. The only thing that means anything

is that the Imperial Family and their freidns are as crooked as Ferdinand Marcos. ANYONE connected with the Imperial Family is suspect as corrupt.

I still remember what it felt like to be free...though sometimes it does seem like a dream and the onrushing freight train of Totalitarian Tyranny is all that is and was ever real.

[AzDar]

26. "random searches/selections"?? WTF could they be hoping this

would reveal? Random?!?
A giant, unconstitutional fishing expedition, is what it seems to be...

[Mithras61]

28. Just for grins...

google "Judge James Ware"... here's the first link in the list:

Lying Federal Judge James Ware of the Nineth Circuit Court of Appeals
US District Judge James Ware withdrew his nomination to the nation's largest appeals court Thursday, after admitting that he lied about being the brother of ...
www.fa-ir.org/ai/judgeware.htm - 10k...

[gkhouston]

39. recommend you start a separate thread on this (in GD)... n/t

[DemInDistress]

31. DOJ should specify that they want only child porn hits.

and google should comply with only child pron hits not carte blanche for any and all searches for people like us who denounce the imbecile daily. DOJ wants to see how close Americans are to uncovering the truth behind 911,Iraq,Plame,and Spygates. To say we need that info in a blatant lie, just ask google to give up www. kiddie fuckers .com.. and leave us all alone. NO?

[xultar]

34. Let's search on George W. Bush sucks donkey balls and see if

that makes the cut.

[Judi Lynn]

32. U.S. judge in Google case sides with gov't in part

U.S. judge in Google case sides with gov't in part
Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:42 PM ET

SAN JOSE, March 14 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge said on Tuesday he intended to partly support the government's scaled back request for data on Google (GOOG.O: Quote, Profile, Research) customers search habits, in a hearing on whether the company must comply to a subpoena demanding the information.

"It is my intent to grant some relief to the government," said Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Ware was referring to the government's move on Tuesday to scale back the amount of data on Google's searches to just thousands from the millions or potentially billions of search requests the government had initially sought.

The judge said he expected to make a decision "very quickly."
(snip/)

http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&storyID=2006-03-14T184239Z_01_WEN2717_RTRIDST_0_TECH-GOOGLE-JUDGE-URGENT.XML

[Kailassa]

55. Dunno about America, but here giving relief = doing hand-job.

[peacetalksforall]

35. Remember, this admin is planning a parallel internet.

If the U.S. is planning a parallele internet, why not take a short-cut and get Googles' secrets. Then, they have will have more money to spend on weapons and secret campaigns against the citizens and bases in Iraq, and hospital and therapy and compensation money for thousands of victims and lawsuits to come in the future, etc. Why spend years developing their own search code and parameters?

I see this as theft - they are stealing again. And they will do it all in the name of Homeland Security.

This is a high alert against Google and us.

[Kokonoe]

38. Is that also a scrubbed clean version?

[woodsprite]

36. They should make the "oo" in their header into handcuffs. nt

[gauguin57]

37. "I'm Feeling Lucky"!

NOT!

Let's see ... search for ... "impeach his chimpy a**"

Shoot! No matches!

[Piscis Austrinus]

56. Google "miserable failure" and see what you get...

As a side note, I'm wondering whether the DoJ is going to turn out a big, honkin' report like the Meese Commission did. The Meese report was probably the greatest single index for every type of blue material ever compiled in this country prior to the advent of the internet. (Without the Meese Commission Report, I would never have considered the possibility of the existence of something like, say, "Big Tit Dildo Bondage.")

Still... If I could believe that this was an effort to curb (a) underage access to adult material and (b) depiction of illegal prurient activities, and I felt that I could trust the DoJ to stick to that mission, I probably would say, "fine, knock yourselves out." Problem is, I don't.

This looks like a two-pronged effort to me: first, the administration is looking to troll for information on potential rivals or detractors that could wreck their credibility, and (b) the porn industry is a HUGE business with a lot of money that is, well, not always easily traced. I rather think this is a variation on Iran-Contra, a way to funnel cash through a business or industry that makes it almost impossible to trace. Look at the top people in this administration and consider their ties to Iran-Contra. Whaddayathink?

Some years back, there was a lot of speculation into the idea that the Cuban secret police had taken over the Cuban black market. This might be the same kind of operation. Porn is too big, too shadowy, too unprotected, too popular, and too available a plum for it to go unnoticed. Under the guise of a "crackdown" it would be easy for someone in power with a Christofascist following to engineer a kind of hostile takeover. Given the amount of money involved right now, that wouldn't surprise me at all, though it might prove difficult to make a complete takeover work in practice.

Moreover, this is a growth industry. One of the reasons this business is so lucrative, and so pervasive, is its very availability. I would bet right now that somewhere between 5% and 15% of all adult American males have some degree of addiction to porn. Imagine being able to tighten the supply, then charge what the market will bear.

Remember, however, that this administration has shown itself unable to do anything for any length of time without royally screwing it up. They always get caught. Imagine James Dobson having to justify his support of an administration caught in an "Iran-Porno" scandal. That might be enough to make the whole mess almost worthwhile.


Peace
PsA
on edit: spelling error corrected

[eppur_se_muova]

63. "George W Bush miserable failure"-first hit is official WH biography! LOL!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=George+W+Bush+miserable+failure&btnG=Search

Ah. Google bombing explained here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

"
In the run-up to the Iraq war, internet users manipulated Google so the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" led to a joke page saying "These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed."

The site suggests "clicking the regime change button", or "If you are George Bush and typed the country's name in the address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly (IRAQ)".
"

[TechBear_Seattle]

40. On what grounds?

A quick look at the article shows no legal or constitutional grounds for forcing Google to comply. So why must it? Is the Junta's whim now unviolable law?

[fshrink]

43. At the end of the article one can read:

"The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web." Well, the test, probably the real one, is to test how far you can go toward controlling all aspect of individuals' life. And it's positive. Looks like "underground" will have to take on more meaning than a catchy reference.

[Arkansas Granny]

46. Just how big a problem is porn on the internet? I am on line every

day for varying lengths of time and have been for years. In my entire on line experience I have gotten directed to a porn site fewer times than I can count on one hand. Maybe I've just been lucky. Does porn ordinarily just pop up all that often or do you have to go looking for it? When does a parent's responsibility come into play? Aren't there filters that can be set to block certain types of website?

I guess what I'm getting at here is whether or not there is a problem here of such magnitude as to require turning over private records to the DOJ. I don't have children accessing the internet so I don't really have a feel for how prevalent it is for children to access porn. But in light of the recent illegal wiretapping revelation, I am very uneasy about the government "requesting" private records from any source.

[Mizmoon]

48. Don't worry, they don't even know their own CIA agent's

addresses are online. Think they're going to track your visits to goatse?

[Piscis Austrinus]

57. That occurred to me as well

I suppose in theory it would be possible though. I think our problem is that we're visualizing a bunch of DoJ grunts sifting through this material for days on end, looking for something that will give them a lead. I don't think that's how this would work.

The idea is to collect all the information you can, then pull it out at need. The data is there; all you need to do is run a query or three against the database. Then, when someone wants to run for a local election in his hometown, the local GOP HQ gets a little email note from the RNC. Next thing you know, Republicans are running unopposed everywhere. And they'll be the "right" kind of Republicans, too. Anyone the party bosses don't want will be quietly taken aside and shown the errors of their ways. And everyone who is allowed to proceed will know that they can have their legs cut out from under them at any time.

Peace
PsA

[BR_Parkway]

49. Judge to Order Google to Turn Over Records

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/google_doj;_ylt=An4X_.WDcLHRRBJT2UeD4I2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

32 minutes ago

SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to order Google Inc. to turn over some of its Internet records to the U.S. Justice Department, but expressed reservations about requiring the company to divulge some of its most sensitive data — the actual requests that people enter into its popular search engine.

U.S. District Judge James Ware told the Justice Department it can expect to get at least some of the information sought from Google as part of the Bush administration's effort to revive a law meant to shield children from online pornography.

But Ware stressed he was "particularly concerned" about the Justice Department's demand for a random sample of search requests entered into Google's Internet-leading search engine.

The judge said he didn't want to do anything to create the perception that Internet search engines and other large online databases could become tools for government surveillance. He seemed less concerned about requiring Google to supply the government with a random list of Web sites indexed by the company.

[Rich Hunt]

50. what are they looking for?

What is the pretext for this again? Do they just want to see the content of searches, or do they want to see who searched what?

[Mithras61]

52. The DoJ claims that they...

are looking for evidence of how easy it is to bypass porn filters (like Net Nanny) by using Google to search for sites. They claim to be trying to resurect COPA.

I don't understand how the results of a Google search can provide any info, though, since the google search doesn't filter the results. The function of filtering programs (at least last time I checked) was to block access to sites that contain objectionable content. The link or content on Google isn't objectionable, so even if it shows up, what does THAT prove? The real test is if the filtering package allows you to access sites that have objectionable content, and the answer is that they almost always will because they either block by site/domain or by loose content (e.g. - so you can see breast cancer but not naked breasts), but not both. If it blocks by site/domain, then any undefined domains will slip through. If it blocks by loose content, you can figure out the method and bypass it.

The fact is that the only 100% sure method of preventing people from seeing porn on the Internet is to take away their Internet. Since we believe (according to the courts) that accessing sites on the Internet is a protected activity, then the rethugs "have to" figure out how to block access to "nasty" sites without trampling the rights of the adults to access those sites (they're afraid you're using their tax dollars via the libraries, etc, to get a thrill or get your jollies). Their solution was COPA, but the courts threw it out. Now they want their COPA back. It's the same thing as trying to ban "Catcher in the Rye," "Lilith" and others in a similar vein.

[Piscis Austrinus]

58. And even then that doesn't work

Filters work in multiple ways... the most effective combination is a remotely-maintained database of "permissible" sites. This is used in a lot of schools to prevent this kind of issue from cropping up (though occasionally a fox is guarding the henhouse and some sites manage to find their way onto the "allowed" list). Most individual adult users don't go for these since they basically demand that you surrender your ability to search to an outside party, with which you may later find you disagree vis-a-vis what is "acceptable." I was on a service like that years ago (in my charismatic-evangelical days) and dropped them when the Starr Report was issued. I couldn't access it online because the service thought it was unacceptable. My thought was, WTF? You want to tell me that this document shows what a nasty person Bill Clinton is, yet you won't let me see this for myself?

The most common type of filter used in a general sense combines a database of unacceptable sites/servers with a URL search mechanism. When you enter a URL, first the filter looks to see if you've entered something that is automatically disallowed (e.g. the letters "xxx" appear in the URL). Next, the URL is checked against the database to make sure you're not going somewhere they don't think you should. If you get through both filters, you're allowed to proceed. The service I was on had such a gaping hole in their filter setup that it might as well not have been there at all - if you knew what the hole was. I warned them of the problem, but they never fixed it (and it would have been extremely easy to fix), so we dumped them. Ironically, it was much more interesting to surf for that kind of stuff when it was a challenge to get to it; once we went to a more standard provider, it became boring pretty fast.

Peace
PsA

[Mithras61]

59. The only things I've ever used as filters...

were Net Nanny and Surf Control. Neither of them seemed to be able to stop anyone from accessing inappropriate sites. The only thing that worked was "no Internet browsing" (blocked several ports on the firewall - although I understand a few people even figured out how to get around that, which isn't really all that hard).

[Karmakaze]

54. Wait a minute? Isn't this the very definition of unreasonable search...

and seizure?

The government is not even investigating a crime, all they claim to be doing is trying to determine how easy it is to bypass filters. In what way does that become probable cause for a search warrant or subpoena to be issued? Can we now go to this court and require Diebold to hand over their source code because we want to see how easy it is to hack?

Land of the free...

[tom_paine]

61. The corpse of the Old United States is beginning to stink

and stink quite badly.

We must look elsewhere to dream of freedom...

[goforit]

66. Don't do it Google!!!

[dethl]

67. Google should wipe their logs...

They're not under investigation for any crime (unless having a really damn nice search engine that everyone uses is), therefore it's not obstruction of justice. :)

On Edit: If the DOJ really wants to test filters, then why don't they hire some people to use Net Nanny and do some freaking google searches? They're wasting taxpayer money.

[Miss Chybil]

69. Wasn't the Bush admin just bitching about Google giving its records to the

Chinese government, where they were being used to stifle dissidents?

So, we truly are in China, Toto, and I want to go home.

[hunter]

70. So fucking stupid. It seems they are looking for child porn "key words."

What kind of idiocy is this?

What do they expect to find by integrating google's database into the government's hush hush pattern identification software?

White House Memos:

Send a list of all democratic politicians who are looking for child porn...

Urgent! Send a clean up crew to the house of the guy posting pictures of POTUS fornicating with sheep.

Urgent! Urgent! More comprimising pics of POTUS and BULLDOG!

Urgent! Urgent! Urgent! Nuke the Democratic Undergorund!

:nuke: