Mercnbeth
Posts: 11766
Status: offline
|
quote:
If you are not doing anything you are not supposed to, why would you care? After posting the link to the article yesterday in the "News" section, I looked into this a bit more. The suit that will be brought against google initially will not seek the names or email addresses of the persons making the inquiry it will only ask for the inquiry and the results of the search. The stated intent is to determine the extent and ease of access to "child porn". The Justice Department, the name reminds me of the "Ministry of Love" in Orwell's '1984', requested a "random sampling" and claims the results will not be used to prosecute individuals but instead will be part of a government report about the pervasiveness of this problem. By the way, those going to MSN or Yahoo shouldn't feel safe. There is a link to the original story in the News Section but this article says that MSN and Yahoo have already complied. quote:
Google said no; Yahoo, AOL, MSN yes. Update: Earlier today, I asked a Justice Department spokesperson which search engines other than Google received requests to provide search records. The answer: Yahoo, AOL, and MSN were also asked to supply search records information, and all complied. Google did not, and that is why the DoJ asked a federal judge on Wednesday to order the company to do so. Another fact to consider as you sift through news coverage: Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound. See article:http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/19/_doj_search_requests.html Why worry? Well, if you wanted to find out if there was a child predator in a neighborhood you were considering moving with your "unmentionables" would it be reasonable to search google for convicted child sex offenders? Searching "child sex offenders" will trigger surveillance, in the same manner as if you post with the words "President, shot, killed, or bomb" in a post. Now I don't have any desire of downloading child porn, and I'm not part of an assassination plot; but there are some depictions of beth that would be considered illegal "abuse". Based upon recent blanket surveillance regarding phone taps are you confident that can't occur if the Ministry, whoops I mean Department of Justice gets their way? Excuse me someone in a black suit, white shirt, black tie, and sunglasses just knocked on my door...
|