|
Mercnbeth -> Google Warning (1/19/2006 12:16:18 PM)
|
Here it is. It appears this will be the test case regarding personal privacy. Expect this to heard at the Supreme Court within five years. Of course the litigation has at its point the indefensible child porn industry, but the blade gets wider very quickly. Successful, it has far reaching consequences. It may be required that each and every picture posted be accompanied by a certification of the age of the person. It may result in any site considered "adult" to certify the age of it's users. The most obvious, and I'm guessing the reaction we'll see first, is that "adult" sites will just disappear.
You know, on some thread recently there was a reference to the 1969 NYC "gay riots" in reaction to the June 27th closing of the Greenwich Village gay bar, the Stonewall Inn. 1969 was the year of Woodstock. It was a time for civil disobedience against prevailing injustice whether it was for sexual orientation or skin color. The Stonewall Inn was the flash-point. It was successful in starting the "Gay Rights" movement. The reason it was successful was because until that day in June, gays were an easy target. It was thought that they were a VERY tiny minority. It was only until the community got "mad as hell" and shouted that they "refused to take it anymore!"; that their real numbers became known and the "movement" was started.
I wonder, if everyone who had a "dirty" movie tucked in their underwear drawer, everyone who uses clothesline and clothespins for reasons other than hanging clothes, everyone who kept and uses that "gag gift" spanking paddle or furry handcuffs they received at their bachelor or bachelorette party; decided to get "mad as hell" how many our numbers would be? The problem is we just don't refuse to take it anymore.
Suggestions?
quote:
Feds after Google data
By Howard Mintz-Mercury News
The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.
The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''
Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy.
``The government can't even claim that it's for national security,'' Everett-Church said. ``They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.
Entire Article: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13657303.htm
|
|
|
|
