Justice Dept. subpoenas more tech firms (porn search)

[NashVegas]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12087220/

PHILADELPHIA - The Justice Department is demanding internal files from dozens of Internet service providers and other technology firms as it seeks to defend a controversial Internet child protection law.

...

InformationWeek magazine unearthed subpoenas that show the government also demanded information from at least 34 other companies, including Internet service providers such as Comcast Corp. and EarthLink Inc., security software firms and other technology companies.

...

The subpoenas also went to companies including AT&T Inc., Cox Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Symantec Corp.

...

"Our overarching concern over what the government is doing (with the subpoenas) stems from the 'why,' — what is it they're actually trying to accomplish?" said David McGuire, a spokesman for the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington. "It doesn't seem reasonable."

[ugarte]

1. It's all about the kids

:rofl:

[marmar]

2. Good Grief...

This country becomes more and more of a joke by the day.

[babylonsister]

3. So call it 'child porn' and

use that as an excuse to infiltrate communications companies?
I call bull shit!

[TomInTib]

4. I second that call!!

Thin edge of the wedge.

[NashVegas]

5. Yeah

Can someone explain to me what Symantec has to do with internet searches?

[AndyTiedye]

9. Some Email Antivirus Tools Pump ALL YOUR Email Through THEIR Servers!

If they are subpoenaing Symantec, they may be after those logs.

Check your email configuration after you install AV software
that looks for email viruses. If your mail server has changed
(usually to something in the AV company's domain), then the AV
software you have works by piping all your incoming email through
one of THEIR machines.

[Poll_Blind]

11. Just as an FYI not even one Symantec antivirus tool does that.

I'm familiar with all the Symantec antivirus products from consumer to corporate. Very familiar. No Symantec product has ever done that, nor will it- it would be an obscene waste of resources to do so and give customers who use the software just about the slowest response time possible for mail threats.

All Symantec mail products process files/mail on the client/customer's side. They are compared to rulesets (i.e. list of viruses/threats) which the customer download.

At no time does ANY mail get processed by Symantec directly. Ever. Without a doubt. Symantec, along with consumer software, sells software to government entities. They would simply not be able to purchase a product which sent mail/material back to a central Symantec computer for processing- their security model would be shot to hell.

Just some thoughts. None of my views relfect the views of Symantec, of course. However, the information I'm giving you now is Spot On (TM).

Now, you want to get nervous, find out why Zone Alarm sends your firewall log data to Israel.

See more HERE.

PB

[newscott]

6. Yet noone in govt has the time to subpoena Diebold to find out

why their software is crap?

[Baja]

7. Hmm perhaps they will find this! (Snicker)

WARNING GRAPHIC ADULT PARODY!

http://assholebush.typepad.com/photos/george_w_bush /

[FVZA_Colonel]

8. "Won't somebody please think of the children?!"

[Occulus]

10. I think I know what they're gonna try, and it'll snare shitloads of

DMCA violations. They'll demonize it all along the way, of course, and thereby create national outrage.

Here's what I think their plan is:

We have to make one very reasonable assumption here: most pornographic images on the internet- the ones you "stumble across" without paying- are in fact NOT "legal" under the DMCA. Just take a gander over to the .binaries sex forums on Usenet or look up "____ porn" on the various filesharing networks to see what I mean.

If you know to look for, and then actively look for it, there's lots and lots of "free porn" available online.

What I think Justice might be trying to do here (and I truly do hope I'm wrong) is nail a few million people under the provisions of the DMCA. It's a neat trick: pass a law making copyright violation a severe crime. Then, use that same law, in conjunction with a law passed to "protect the children" (which makes its passage in the first place more certain, as it happens) to go after something else online you happen to have a moral objection to.

This will end in a classic authoritarian bait-and-switch: they'll use rules not passed for their purposes in a way that suits them. While outrageous, I'm afraid they may be technically correct if they try this.

They're going to go after "free porn" because they don't like it. They'll use this child protection law as an excuse to get the neceessary IP addresses and use the UMCA as an excuse when they "happen" to find a "crime" was committed.

I hate our laws. Only lawyers can possibly hope to understand them, yet we're all supposed to abide by them. IANAL, so can someone please tell me this can't possibly happen?

Please?