Why is it that when the U.S. government asks for material regarding porn searhes Google says no because its against their beliefs or w/e but when China says to censor all the info Google says "okey dokey".

Fuck Google.
Bunch of hypocrits, they're just in it for the money now.  Quite ruthless of them to do such a thing for millions of dollars so obviously.

We have certain freedoms in the United States that they do not have in China.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143169#msg143169 date=1138239953]
Why is it that when the U.S. government asks for material regarding porn searhes Google says no because its against their beliefs or w/e but when China says to censor all the info Google says "okey dokey".

Fuck Google.
Bunch of hypocrits, they're just in it for the money now.  Quite ruthless of them to do such a thing for millions of dollars so obviously.
[/quote]

I think privacy violations and censorship are extremely different concepts, and I don't see how supporting privacy and not supporting censorship is hypocritical in the least. 

Google is bowing to the almighty growing Chinese economy which they want a huge part of.
If Google was a growing here & the US economy was growing as much as China's Google would do w/e the US said just to get an in & be able to make money here, that is the hypocrisy of it.

I understand that we have freedoms & I agree that the government shouldn't be flipping through search records...but I also think that Google shouldn't be bowing to the Chinese (insert currency)

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143181#msg143181 date=1138241249]
Google is bowing to the almighty growing Chinese economy which they want a huge part of.
If Google was a growing here & the US economy was growing as much as China's Google would do w/e the US said just to get an in & be able to make money here, that is the hypocrisy of it.

I understand that we have freedoms & I agree that the government shouldn't be flipping through search records...but I also think that Google shouldn't be bowing to the Chinese (insert currency)
[/quote]

God your posts are irritating to read.  Can't you just type out "and" and "whatever"?  It drives me crazy. 

Anyways, Google is respecting the policies of China, and they're respecting the policies of the US.  There's no problem. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143188#msg143188 date=1138243119]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143181#msg143181 date=1138241249]
Google is bowing to the almighty growing Chinese economy which they want a huge part of.
If Google was a growing here & the US economy was growing as much as China's Google would do w/e the US said just to get an in & be able to make money here, that is the hypocrisy of it.

I understand that we have freedoms & I agree that the government shouldn't be flipping through search records...but I also think that Google shouldn't be bowing to the Chinese (insert currency)
[/quote]

God your posts are irritating to read.  Can't you just type out "and" and "whatever"?  It drives me crazy. 

Anyways, Google is respecting the policies of China, and they're respecting the policies of the US.  There's no problem. 
[/quote]

They aren't respecting the policies of the United State...the searches were subpoenaed...that means BY LAW they're supposed to be handed over because there was probably cause for them to be requested by a court

Side ntoe:
Why didn't Google just stop keeping records of the searches if they wanted to REALLY keep our pivacy.  What happens if someone hacks into Google?

The search info Google has is far to valuable to not keep or even to release.  If they release info they lose costumer base.  The customer base they'd lose would be a HUGE part of the online porn industry, a multi million dollar industry that I'm quite sure ends up paying Google millions in some way or another

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143196#msg143196 date=1138244064]
Side ntoe:
Why didn't Google just stop keeping records of the searches if they wanted to REALLY keep our pivacy.  What happens if someone hacks into Google?
[/quote]

Because Google's method of making money is data-mining.  If they started deleting search data, they'd destroy their entire purpose. 

I don't like that fact about Google, but it's the truth. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143210#msg143210 date=1138248779]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143196#msg143196 date=1138244064]
Side ntoe:
Why didn't Google just stop keeping records of the searches if they wanted to REALLY keep our pivacy.  What happens if someone hacks into Google?
[/quote]

Because Google's method of making money is data-mining.  If they started deleting search data, they'd destroy their entire purpose. 

I don't like that fact about Google, but it's the truth. 
[/quote]
It jsut bugs that they were all "we're not gonna be evil", now they're totaly evil & VERY obvious about it

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143223#msg143223 date=1138257679]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143210#msg143210 date=1138248779]
Because Google's method of making money is data-mining.  If they started deleting search data, they'd destroy their entire purpose. 

I don't like that fact about Google, but it's the truth. 
[/quote]
It jsut bugs that they were all "we're not gonna be evil", now they're totaly evil & VERY obvious about it
[/quote]

I guess it goes back to your definition of "evil" then.  Why is data-mining for the purposes of advertising evil?

It's not, but censoring their results in China is a gray area, if not just completely bad. It's a really disappointing decision.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14015.msg143235#msg143235 date=1138283970]
It's not, but censoring their results in China is a gray area, if not just completely bad. It's a really disappointing decision.
[/quote]

China has a number of laws reguarding pornography... I'd imagine Google was just adhering to those laws.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14015.msg143235#msg143235 date=1138283970]
It's not, but censoring their results in China is a gray area, if not just completely bad. It's a really disappointing decision.
[/quote]
It's hard to say.  I suspect that if the US or Canada made some law that restricts access to certain content on the Internet, Google would filter it out if requested.  It's not really our right or responsibility to critisize China's laws.  Like them or not, they exist. 

Its not our right to critisize Chinese laws, then why do SO MANY other countries critisize U.S. law & even Bush.  "Like them or not, they exist."



Google isn't just censoring porn, they don't return any info that might possibly ever make the Chinese government look bad.
They're catering to every whim of the Chinese just to make money while not helping victims of child pornography in the U.S.

Google is just saying "screw the little kids" just to make some more money, I think that is evil.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143240#msg143240 date=1138289452]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14015.msg143235#msg143235 date=1138283970]
It's not, but censoring their results in China is a gray area, if not just completely bad. It's a really disappointing decision.
[/quote]
It's hard to say.  I suspect that if the US or Canada made some law that restricts access to certain content on the Internet, Google would filter it out if requested.  It's not really our right or responsibility to critisize China's laws.  Like them or not, they exist. 
[/quote]

I disagree.  It is both our right and responsibility to criticize tyrannical laws wherever they exist, Canada, USA, Britain, China, Korea, doesn't matter where.

It is not our right to disobey those laws when doing business in their borders, no matter how much we disagree with them.  It is our responsibility to comply, or stay out.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143169#msg143169 date=1138239953]
Why is it that when the U.S. government asks for material regarding porn searhes Google says no because its against their beliefs or w/e but when China says to censor all the info Google says "okey dokey".

Fuck Google.
Bunch of hypocrits, they're just in it for the money now.  Quite ruthless of them to do such a thing for millions of dollars so obviously.
[/quote]

Because people go to prison in China for anything porn-related.  I'll dig up the case of it I saw on another forum later.

Also, you're a Capitalist supporter?  Why should you be surprised that Google is in it for the money?  Who gives a shit about pleasing the ethics of their customers when they are still willing to use their products and produce revenue for Google?

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14015.msg143265#msg143265 date=1138307320]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143169#msg143169 date=1138239953]
Why is it that when the U.S. government asks for material regarding porn searhes Google says no because its against their beliefs or w/e but when China says to censor all the info Google says "okey dokey".

Fuck Google.
Bunch of hypocrits, they're just in it for the money now.  Quite ruthless of them to do such a thing for millions of dollars so obviously.
[/quote]

Because people go to prison in China for anything porn-related.  I'll dig up the case of it I saw on another forum later.

Also, you're a Capitalist supporter?  Why should you be surprised that Google is in it for the money?  Who gives a shit about pleasing the ethics of their customers when they are still willing to use their products and produce revenue for Google?
[/quote]

Because we all know that money makes the world go 'round.

[quote author=Mephisto link=topic=14015.msg143265#msg143265 date=1138307320]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143169#msg143169 date=1138239953]
Why is it that when the U.S. government asks for material regarding porn searhes Google says no because its against their beliefs or w/e but when China says to censor all the info Google says "okey dokey".

Fuck Google.
Bunch of hypocrits, they're just in it for the money now.  Quite ruthless of them to do such a thing for millions of dollars so obviously.
[/quote]

Because people go to prison in China for anything porn-related.  I'll dig up the case of it I saw on another forum later.

Also, you're a Capitalist supporter?  Why should you be surprised that Google is in it for the money?  Who gives a shit about pleasing the ethics of their customers when they are still willing to use their products and produce revenue for Google?
[/quote]
I'm only complaining because Google is setting a double standard by obeying the Chinese anti-freedom of the press laws but disobeying U.S. subpoenas (which means they are breaking US laws) and because they claimed they aren't evil

I am sure if the US government asked Google to censor porn search data Google would do it, or if China asked for the data Google would refuse them it.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14015.msg143257#msg143257 date=1138295941]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143240#msg143240 date=1138289452]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14015.msg143235#msg143235 date=1138283970]
It's not, but censoring their results in China is a gray area, if not just completely bad. It's a really disappointing decision.
[/quote]
It's hard to say.  I suspect that if the US or Canada made some law that restricts access to certain content on the Internet, Google would filter it out if requested.  It's not really our right or responsibility to critisize China's laws.  Like them or not, they exist. 
[/quote]

I disagree.  It is both our right and responsibility to criticize tyrannical laws wherever they exist, Canada, USA, Britain, China, Korea, doesn't matter where.

It is not our right to disobey those laws when doing business in their borders, no matter how much we disagree with them.  It is our responsibility to comply, or stay out.
[/quote]

You're right, I said it wrong. 

[quote author=Falcon[anti-yL] link=topic=14015.msg143340#msg143340 date=1138330976]
I am sure if the US government asked Google to censor porn search data Google would do it, or if China asked for the data Google would refuse them it.
[/quote]
I agree.  That's why this isn't a double-standard, and there is no hypocricy involved. 

The government has asked Google to turn over porn search data, by law they're supposed to

Hmm, I'm unsure whether or not it's illegal, or if the government themselves are breaking civil liberties in trying to get that information. 

I guess we'll find out, eh?

I see it like drug trafficking/meth lab house kinda things.

The government knows that it is going on there, they just have to wait til they have probable cause to issue a search warrant (which they've done obviously) & then bust them.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143394#msg143394 date=1138375564]
The government has asked Google to turn over porn search data, by law they're supposed to
[/quote]

If it was a request, that does not imply forced compliance.
If it was a court order, then by law they must.

Which one are you saying it is?  Which law requires Google to comply with the government's request?

The government can ask you to do anything, but without the force of law, they can not require you to do any of it.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=14015.msg143420#msg143420 date=1138390051]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143394#msg143394 date=1138375564]
The government has asked Google to turn over porn search data, by law they're supposed to
[/quote]

If it was a request, that does not imply forced compliance.
If it was a court order, then by law they must.

Which one are you saying it is?  Which law requires Google to comply with the government's request?

The government can ask you to do anything, but without the force of law, they can not require you to do any of it.
[/quote]

I believe that the records were subpeonaed, but Google is fighting the subpeona before handing them over. 

Oh that's fine then.  As long as they're complying with the law.  The remedy is correct, take it to the courts and let them decide, then comply with whatever the judge rules.  Sounds like Google is acting within the law, much like Mr Bush claims to be acting within the law when he spies on Americans without a court order.

Google is not a government agency, Google is not under persecution by the government, Google has no responsibility or authority to withhold information.

IF the records are finally turned over to the government & child pornographers are caught using this info then Google is an accomplice to that crime.

I don't think there is any kind of precident for this type of thing.  I think that we have to wait for the courts to decide before we can make any sort of judgement. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143457#msg143457 date=1138403568]
I don't think there is any kind of precident for this type of thing.  I think that we have to wait for the courts to decide before we can make any sort of judgement. 
[/quote]Its withholding information & so long as the child porn crimes are felonies (which I think they are) Google CEOs could end up in a "federal pound me in the ass" prison

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143459#msg143459 date=1138403590]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143457#msg143457 date=1138403568]
I don't think there is any kind of precident for this type of thing.  I think that we have to wait for the courts to decide before we can make any sort of judgement. 
[/quote]Its withholding information
[/quote]
No, it's going to court in an attempt to withhold information.  If the court rules that they have to give it up, then they likely will.

AH, you posted before I editted.

"Its withholding information & so long as the child porn crimes are felonies (which I think they are) Google CEOs could end up in a "federal pound me in the ass" prison"
Theres my editted post.


Tell me what with holding information is if it isn't what Google is doing

I don't know what the legal definition of withholding information is.  But it must be unclear enough if they're going to trial over it. 

I repeat: we are in no position to judge it.  We'll see what is decided in the courts, then make a decision.

[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143464#msg143464 date=1138403792]
I don't know what the legal definition of withholding information is.  But it must be unclear enough if they're going to trial over it. 

I repeat: we are in no position to judge it.  We'll see what is decided in the courts, then make a decision.
[/quote]
Uhm, ok, we're not in a position to judge the validity of Google's decision to with-hold information from the government but you can accuse Bush of lying to the American people when it is just as likely, if not more, that everyone was just mis-informed?
How are you able to judge racism in America?
How are you in any position to judge anything to do with America?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143471#msg143471 date=1138404793]
[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143464#msg143464 date=1138403792]
I don't know what the legal definition of withholding information is.  But it must be unclear enough if they're going to trial over it. 

I repeat: we are in no position to judge it.  We'll see what is decided in the courts, then make a decision.
[/quote]
Uhm, ok, we're not in a position to judge the validity of Google's decision to with-hold information from the government
[/quote]
Why would it be taken to court if it was so obvious?  There has to be a reason, and, as I said, we aren't legal experts.  Do you know the laws about withholding web logs?  I sure don't, and I doubt anybody here does.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143471#msg143471 date=1138404793]
but you can accuse Bush of lying to the American people
[/quote]
He has admitted that they used known bad sources for information, and he has put together events that didn't go together (Sept. 11 did NOT involve Iraq! At all!!)

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143471#msg143471 date=1138404793]
How are you able to judge racism in America?
[/quote]
Huh?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143471#msg143471 date=1138404793]
How are you in any position to judge anything to do with America?
[/quote]
Huh?

With holding information is with holding information, period.
Google's basis AFAIK for with holding the information is for privacy, but they aren't the ones with the responsibility to do that...the one being accused of the child porn crime is whom would have to protest the information.


Links that show where Bush says "we tricked you into voting to attack Iraq"?


You said we can't judge China cause of their laws & what not, why are you judging American law?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143476#msg143476 date=1138405808]
With holding information is with holding information, period.
Google's basis AFAIK for with holding the information is for privacy, but they aren't the ones with the responsibility to do that...the one being accused of the child porn crime is whom would have to protest the information.
[/quote]
Then, as I said, why is it going to court?  It's obviously not as cut and dried as you are makig it out to be, otherwise it would already be resolved. 

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143476#msg143476 date=1138405808]
Links that show where Bush says "we tricked you into voting to attack Iraq"?
[/quote]
I showed you the resolution which uses known information that was known to be fraudulent at the time.  Find me a link between 9/11 and Iraq.  I assure you, there's nothing.  Why would Saddam Hussein be involved in a religious war, when he has persecuted and killed people of the same religion?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143476#msg143476 date=1138405808]
You said we can't judge China cause of their laws & what not, why are you judging American law?
[/quote]
I'm not judging your laws! 

Its going to court because Google is breaking the law.

At the time the information lead people to believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11 terrorists.
Saddam has his own religious type wars, he killed the other religions to keep them quiet.

You're judging our resolutions which are basically the same as laws

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143478#msg143478 date=1138406774]
Its going to court because Google is breaking the law.
[/quote]
I guess it comes down to: does Google have the right to dispute the court order?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143478#msg143478 date=1138406774]
At the time the information lead people to believe that Iraq was connected to 9/11 terrorists.
Saddam has his own religious type wars, he killed the other religions to keep them quiet.
[/quote]
What evidence?  This is a conversation for another place, though, it's way off the point. 

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143478#msg143478 date=1138406774]
You're judging our resolutions which are basically the same as laws
[/quote]
Well, Chinese laws don't involve declaring war on another country.  As soon as it involves war, it's important. 

In any case, Grok corrected me, and I agree with him, that I was incorrect on that point.  I still try not to judge internal laws, unless they're fundamentally stupid (annoying on the Internet?), but a resolution to go to war is quite different.

I've seen Crazed repeatedly (crazily) stating that Google is "with holding" [sic] information to protect child pornographers, yet I've seen no evidence of that in any of the articles I've read about this.  When pornography is mentioned at all, it's in the context of a request by the government to review Google's logs to attempt to determine how often children performing searches come into contact with pornography in the data returned by Google.

Crazed, please link to
[list][li]A (reputable) article indicating that the request is about child pornography, not children encountering pornography.[/li]
[li]A copy of the law(s) which you believe Google is violating by challenging this request.[/li]
[li]A dictionary, for your own purposes.  Withholding is one word, not two![/li]
[/list]

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143454#msg143454 date=1138403347]
Google is not a government agency, Google is not under persecution by the government, Google has no responsibility or authority to withhold information.[/quote]

I'll grant you that Google's not part of the government.  I'm not entirely sure they're not being persecuted for refusing to roll over. ;)  Recall that the other major search providers (AOL Time Warner, Microsoft, Yahoo) rolled over and submitted their logs without even announcing it.  Given the supposed purpose of determining the frequency with which pornography is encountered, it's not strictly necessary for all the search providers to comply.  It's only necessary that a statistically meaningful sample comply.

As I understand the law, Google is within its rights to challenge the government's request.  Such challenges often have practical reasons as well, such as the cost of processing all the information into a form consumable by the government.

Although Google has no responsibility to withhold that information, they're certainly making a name for themselves in doing so.  Even at the cost of the lawyers Google's using to fight this, it's probably worth more in PR than they're spending on legal costs. ;)

[quote]NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The Justice Department is asking Internet search giant Google to turn over search records in an effort to defend a child pornography law, according to a report published Thursday.[/quote]
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/technology/google_suit/?cnn=yes

Child porn involvement is a law.  By protecting the perpetrators Google is aiding the felons.

[quote] 
aid and abet
v. help commit a crime.[/quote]
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2377&bold=||||
I suppose Google is even just helping the felons by have child porn even turn up in their searches.

I can see that the Government just wants a sample, but with Google being the largest search engine it is only logical to look at their results as well.

Google's stock dropped $40 the day they announced they wouldn't turn over data.  I bet their stock drops immensely if they lose the lawsuit.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143519#msg143519 date=1138464160]
[quote]The Justice Department is asking Internet search giant Google[/quote][/quote]
They're just asking?  I thought it was a court order?  If they're just asking, then of course Google can turn them down.  I'm more interested in what that law specifically says, though. 


[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143519#msg143519 date=1138464160]
[quote] 
aid and abet
v. help commit a crime.[/quote]
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2377&bold=||||
I suppose Google is even just helping the felons by have child porn even turn up in their searches.

I can see that the Government just wants a sample, but with Google being the largest search engine it is only logical to look at their results as well.
[/quote]
"aid and abet" can mean an awful lot of things.  For example, without my eyeglasses I couldn't kill somebody very well since I have extremely bad eyesight.  Does that mean that if I murder somebody, Westwood Optical is aiding and abetting me? 

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143519#msg143519 date=1138464160]
Google's stock dropped $40 the day they announced they wouldn't turn over data.  I bet their stock drops immensely if they lose the lawsuit.
[/quote]
I would think that it would go up.  At least, I'm thankful that Google is protecting my privacy as best as it can.


I'll repeat this again: It's going to court where it'll be decided by experts in the field of law.  Why don't we wait until they make a decision until WE pass judgements? 

1) http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/19/google.recrods.ap/
2) http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/aiding_abetting_accessory.html
3) Well it didn't, it went down
4) You can't seem to stop judging the war on terror, why don't you wait til its over to judge???

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143532#msg143532 date=1138466496]
4) You can't seem to stop judging the war on terror, why don't you wait til its over to judge???
[/quote]

Because that's a totally separate argument.  You can't put two different things I say on this board together, but often they don't go together.  As I've said before, I generally argue the weaker side of an argument. 

The main reason for letting others make decisions about Google?  It doesn't affect me. 

The main reason for being worried about terrorism?  It will very likely affect me. 

[quote author=iago link=topic=14015.msg143536#msg143536 date=1138467984]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143532#msg143532 date=1138466496]
4) You can't seem to stop judging the war on terror, why don't you wait til its over to judge???
[/quote]

Because that's a totally separate argument.  You can't put two different things I say on this board together, but often they don't go together.  As I've said before, I generally argue the weaker side of an argument. 

The main reason for letting others make decisions about Google?  It doesn't affect me. 

The main reason for being worried about terrorism?  It will very likely affect me. 
[/quote]
Google is now like the largest Internet company, you're on the Internet, it effects you

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143519#msg143519 date=1138464160]
[quote]NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - The Justice Department is asking Internet search giant Google to turn over search records in an effort to defend a child pornography law, according to a report published Thursday.[/quote]
http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/19/technology/google_suit/?cnn=yes

Child porn involvement is a law.  By protecting the perpetrators Google is aiding the felons.[/quote]

OK, you're getting rather annoying.  If you read that article in full, you'll see that they can't even get simple facts like years correct.  The article you linked claims the law was struck down in 1994; everything else I've found says 1998.  If the article can't even get the year correct, I don't have a lot of faith in it to get anything else right either.  Further, if you look at what COPA required, it was not about children involved in pornography.  It was about denying children access to pornography.  Claiming it is a "child pornography law" because it happens to involve pornography and happens to relate to denying children access to the same is a stretch at best.  Incidentally, I got both the year and the better summary from the other article that you linked to!

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143519#msg143519 date=1138464160][quote]aid and abet
v. help commit a crime.[/quote]http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=2377&bold=||||
I suppose Google is even just helping the felons by have child porn even turn up in their searches.[/quote]

So by refusing to give up information which the government is seeking to try to revive a currently-ruled-unconstitutional law, Google is aiding whom?  As I've stated multiple times, there are no child pornographers involved in this case.  Arguably, Google is giving the operators of pornographic sites a few more days of reprieve from the measures COPA requires, by virtue of delaying the government's attempts to revive the law.  Beyond that, ...?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143519#msg143519 date=1138464160]I can see that the Government just wants a sample, but with Google being the largest search engine it is only logical to look at their results as well.[/quote]

Sure.  It's also quite possible for Google to return a stripped version of their results which contain only the information the government truly needs for its case.  Based on its requests, all it needs is a list of terms submitted to the engine and a list of what was returned.  It doesn't need dates, times, IP addresses, cookies, user-agents, or any of the other information that typically goes into a web server's log.  Assuming Google's logs are machine parseable, it'd be no more than a couple hours for a decent Unix programmer to whip up something to pull out the fields the government wants.  Google might well do this if they lose the fight to withhold the information entirely.  There are still some privacy implications to yielding up the search terms, but without date/time/address, the implications are much weaker.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=14015.msg143537#msg143537 date=1138468093]Google is now like the largest Internet company, you're on the Internet, it effects you[/quote]

*affects.  Please, it doesn't take that long to proofread your posts, and it looks much better when you don't make such simple mistakes.  Of course, such simple mistakes pale in comparison to your ability to misread articles that you link us to. :)

He basically skims through the articles, and posts an idiotic opinion. Not only that, but he goes off subject.

I've read both "children lookin at porn" & "child pornography" but the majority of times I've seen "child pornography" on the news, I went with what was acknowledged the most.

The COPA is just trying to be revived, they aren't using it specifically to get the serarch terms, they're just maybe working on making it better.

I concede that there are no child pornographers involved in the matter.



I suppose it could still be an issue of privacy if Google turns over the search queries, but still, none of it can be linked to anyone.

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=14015.msg143549#msg143549 date=1138470625]
He basically skims through the articles, and posts an idiotic opinion. Not only that, but he goes off subject.
[/quote]
The news said child porngraphy, I assumed it meant what I've come to know as people w/porn images of kids.

Where did I go off-topic (other than here)?

Google does not aid child pornographers. Because of their illegal activities, the last thing that child pornographers want is to be discoverable on Google. It would expose them.

Google aids law enforcement by providing a tool to help them locate peadophiles.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=14015.msg143591#msg143591 date=1138490164]
Google does not aid child pornographers. Because of their illegal activities, the last thing that child pornographers want is to be discoverable on Google. It would expose them.

Google aids law enforcement by providing a tool to help them locate peadophiles.
[/quote]Not when they dont comply with the subpoena they araen't helping