Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Google Defending The Kiddie Porn Trade?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 boopme

boopme

    To Insanity and Beyond


  • Global Moderator
  • 73,530 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ USA
  • Local time:05:49 AM

Posted 20 January 2006 - 10:08 AM

I am interested to find out why they won't turn over the evidence the Gov't wants on these kiddie porn creeps!
The Justice Department is asking a court to make Google turn over information on millions of its users Web searches to help uphold an online pornography law. (The New York Times).Three of the search giant's rivals -- AOL, MSN, and Yahoo! -- said they complied but protected users' privacy. Google said it would "vigorously" fight to keep the records private in the latest test of Internet companies' ability to shield their users from outside eyes. (The Wall Street Journal).

Why they'd start a lawsuit and fight for these creeps rights? I feel there is no way to justify hindering any chance of incarcerating even one of these horrors. Do they feel they're doing any one of these children a service? If you consider for a moment what these children had to experience and now live with,I can't comprehend their attitude.
Isn't it precisely......they're hiding evidence for a criminal? If I have evidence of a crime you perpetrated in my home and the police want to search my home for it, (with a warrant) they're coming in. and rightfully so. If I refuse them, I'm at least willfully hindering a criminal investigation. Not to mention aiding and abetting.
How do you all feel?
How do I get help? Who is helping me?For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear....Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:04:49 AM

Posted 20 January 2006 - 12:28 PM

Because the scope is such that they want all search terms for a given time period, and they want a completely random sampling of one million websites. Then from that information, then it will be up to some comittee to try and determine (arbitrarily) if something is deemed offensive/vulgar/etc. Not only "might" it reveal some staggering figures on child porn (which by the way, the FBI has countless URL's of questionable websites..and you can quote me on that), it is going to gather information on others that have nothing to do with porn. There are many extremist groups (although completely law-abiding) that I bet the government would like info on also.

There are too many issues with what they want to do. Not to get too Orwellian, but just what else may they be looking for in that data? What may be contained within that data that will aid them in other less visible anti-privacy endeavors.

Allowing the government access sets a dangerous precident.... remember the RIAA? Anybody wonder why we have not heard from them lately? Could it be because the legality of how their information was obtained is still being questioned? And just because there may not be any personally identifiable information this time, what about next time? It's a slippery slope.

#3 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:49 AM

Posted 20 January 2006 - 05:03 PM

...they won't turn over the evidence the Gov't wants on these kiddie porn creeps!..


In point of fact, the government is not investigating child porn, but is asking for an aggregated section of Google searches to have evidence to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the Supreme Court blocked from taking effect two years ago (The law prohibited Internet companies from knowingly making available obscene or pornographic material to minors). The law was designed to prevent a certain class of people from viewing pornography, not aimed at pornography itself. Note: this is NOT even a criminal case!

Why they'd start a lawsuit and fight for these creeps rights?


The lawsuit was brought by the DOJ, not Google, which is fighting the request not "to fight for creeps rights," but for the right of all citizens to have some reasonable expectation of privacy in their daily lives.

The fear with this seemingly innocent request by the Government is, and I certainly share it, that if they can obtain this information now, then they may later ask for more and more information from search engines, and for more and more detailed and personally identifiable data (and most likely without a search warrant). For what was thought to be the best of reasons---AT THE TIME---we have seen a subsequent erosion of individual privacy.

What surprises me, given Google's acquiescence to internet censorship in Mainland China, is that it is taking a stand on this issue, while helping the Chinese government curtail freedom of learning and speech on the internet.

Regards,
John

Edited by jgweed, 23 January 2006 - 10:51 AM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#4 Andrew

Andrew

    Bleepin' Night Watchman


  • Moderator
  • 8,260 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Right behind you
  • Local time:02:49 AM

Posted 20 January 2006 - 06:47 PM

The Constitution prescribes the scope of search warrants must specifically state the persons, places, things, etc. that will be searched and what they are looking for. That's why the DOJ didn't get a search warrant, they issued a subpoena because they just want to snoop.

Hurrah for Google, too bad they didn't have the same cajones in China.

#5 rms4evr

rms4evr

  • Members
  • 812 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:East Coast
  • Local time:06:49 AM

Posted 20 January 2006 - 10:33 PM

The fear with this seemingly innocent request by the Government is, and I certainly share it, that if they can obtain this information now, then they may later ask for more and more information from search engines, and for more and more detailed and personally identifiable data (and most likely without a search warrant). For what was thought to be the best of reasons---AT THE TIME---we have seen a subsequent erosion of individual privacy.


Because the scope is such that they want all search terms for a given time period, and they want a completely random sampling of one million websites. Then from that information, then it will be up to some comittee to try and determine (arbitrarily) if something is deemed offensive/vulgar/etc. Not only "might" it reveal some staggering figures on child porn (which by the way, the FBI has countless URL's of questionable websites..and you can quote me on that), it is going to gather information on others that have nothing to do with porn. There are many extremist groups (although completely law-abiding) that I bet the government would like info on also.


I totally agree with both of the above. You all may have heard the saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." While the government's goal is good, they could use this as a precedent to gather more and more invasive data. And you know that the feds will want to look at the data for activity from various anti-government groups. And while I do want to stop terrorists and kiddie porn, I don't think that this is the way to go about it. The constitution gives us the right to privacy. And, as someone who uses Google, I don't want the gov snooping in on my searches when I have done nothing to justify this action.

But that's just me.

#6 boopme

boopme

    To Insanity and Beyond

  • Topic Starter

  • Global Moderator
  • 73,530 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NJ USA
  • Local time:05:49 AM

Posted 20 January 2006 - 11:04 PM

Well I appreciate the new ( to me) information you people have provided. You have enlightened me on some of the ideas at work here. I am perhaps a bit blinded when I hear of someone that appears to be helping the"creeps" out. I have a martial art academy and work with a youth group. I've heard sad stories first hand from some children at the group. Those stories and some from some of the females that come to join our school, keep me a bit angered about it all. I am very concerned for their security. I instruct them very intensely on getting free from an aggressor.
Perhaps then, as I see the picture of our privacies being increasingly jeopardized, I can have new appreciation for the standoff. Yet, I still feel there is great unique ability of something as Google to help in such matters. They are ( Google ) already keeping a file or profile on you and I for their purposes. If in some way that info would indicate a very high probability that you are involved with child porn, I don't feel that that info has any right to privacy and even could be forwarded for investigation.

Edited by boopme, 20 January 2006 - 11:04 PM.

How do I get help? Who is helping me?For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear....Become a BleepingComputer fan: Facebook

#7 groovicus

groovicus

  • Security Colleague
  • 9,963 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Centerville, SD
  • Local time:04:49 AM

Posted 20 January 2006 - 11:32 PM

I understand your outrage though, because many people I have talked to feel the same way. I'm all for what the government is trying to do, just not how thye are doing it. I'm not surprised Microsoft caved in (especially since the US government is a huge client), but I'm a little disappointed with Yahoo. There are otherways to go about getting the information that they need.

I think it should also bother people that the US government would resort to subpeonas in order to find the justification to pass new laws.

#8 yoopergirl

yoopergirl

  • Members
  • 54 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:49 AM

Posted 21 January 2006 - 01:08 AM

I totally agree with jgweed (sp)

"The fear with this seemingly innocent request by the Government is, and I certainly share it, that if they can obtain this information now, then they may later ask for more and more information from search engines, and for more and more detailed and personally identifiable data (and most likely without a search warrant). For what was thought to be the best of reasons---AT THE TIME---we have seen a subsequent erosion of individual privacy."

Privacy must be protected, ya give an inch they'll take a mile....

Also, have any of you guys ever clicked on a seemingly innocent link and come up with the worst images you've ever seen? Or, just about anything you can think of to type into a search box has a link somewhere leading to some type of porn or the other... I certainly would not want to be investigated because I innocently clicked on a misleading link. Gawd, the more I think about this the worse it gets... What about others using your comp, imagine being brought up on charges that weren't even rightfully yours. I dunno, this whole thing could get messy.

I think they should crack down on the sites distributing this kind of pornography, start from there. If the sites weren't there to begin with, no one would be searching.

#9 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:49 AM

Posted 21 January 2006 - 11:37 AM

If in some way that info would indicate a very high probability that you are involved with child porn, I don't feel that that info has any right to privacy and even could be forwarded for investigation.


Assuming we can strictly define what child porn is, I would certainly not want Google to forward whatever THEY think it is, to the authorities for investigation. The criteria would be just too vague, and seems akin to third party testimony or the use of rumor. One remembers the Nazi or Communist police state using informants and the disastrous effect of creating a "spy society."

Neither childporn nor terrorism is something any sane person supports, but allowing a government excessive powers and intrusions to prevent those two, is to create an unchecked authority that will soon assume it can use "special powers" every day and for every reason.

"Everywhere man is free, but everywhere man is in chains," writes Rousseau; it is far worse when each link is forged by people allowing the government to take actions "for our own good."

Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#10 phawgg

phawgg

    Learning Daily


  • Members
  • 4,543 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Washington State, USA
  • Local time:02:49 AM

Posted 21 January 2006 - 02:49 PM

I appreciate the question, boopme
I'm happy additional information & opinions of members has broadened your initial reaction to the matter.

I'd go out on a limb here myself by saying I am a confirmed Lutheran.
As such I have "declared" within the practice of a religion that I believe in it's validity.

Like many religious organizations, Lutherans abide by "tenets" of their faith.
Tenets are much like accepted theorems are in scientific disciplines.
They are subjected to somewhat rigorous debate and discussion,
often for long periods of time and by many, to establish that they
are indeed fundamental to other "extrapolations" beyond them.

One such tenet is a belief that the teachings of Christ represent
a summation of what was taught by others before him.

(an example being his "new commandment" to love your neighbor as you would yourself
was intended to clarify the relative importance & value of practicing the first ten)

I believe (meaning I think, but can not prove) the human race has inherent flaws and weaknesses.
One of them being that organized humans that lead other humans, like governments & religious bodies,
do tend to practice establishing themselves as authorities in matters that have far-reaching impact.
Assuming powers that might intellectually be determined by other independent individuals to be in excess
of powers that are appropriate. Sorta like human nature being what it is, a desire to be "above it" exists.
That desire has reinforced itself in countless examples.

The Romans created gods of many kinds.
Citing those gods' communications, from above us, in turn authorized governmental
actions per the mechanism of Senatorial Debate.

A real danger lies in the focusing/ targeting of power to change an existing reality.
It seems humans would rather have gods or a God that could influence matters.
It also seems some humans would rather be thought of as having those powers when indeed they do not, nor should they ever be given practical justification in support of such foolishness.

Child porn is big business profiting from exploitation of human weaknesses.
So is slavery, and traffic in the buying & selling of people continues.
So is credit & insurance to some degree, at least it's been proven as effective when "misused".

I admire the Google organization's reaction to the subpeona as justly defending a principle.
I wish them good luck and perserverance in light of the uncomfortable position the government
has placed them in this year.
patiently patrolling, plenty of persisant pests n' problems ...

#11 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:49 AM

Posted 22 January 2006 - 02:02 AM

I live it Baton Rouge Louisiana. The local Best Buy turned over a computer to the State's AG Office when they found child porn on it while transferring files for a customer. Would you consider this different from AOL turning over profiles of customers to the Feds? How do you feel about John Q. Tech scougering your computer for illegal information when you that it into have repairs? I have transferred may file and never had reason to view them. Could you compare this to someone patrolling the streets with a pistol and handcuffs, apprehending felones and then turning them over to police?
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#12 jgweed

jgweed

  • Members
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:05:49 AM

Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:52 AM

I think it is one thing for an individual to report a violation of the law to police when evidence crosses his path, and an entirely different thing all together to allow the government to spy on its citizens.
Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#13 acklan

acklan

    Bleepin' cat's meow


  • Members
  • 8,529 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Baton Rouge, La.
  • Local time:04:49 AM

Posted 22 January 2006 - 02:08 PM

Assuming we can strictly define what child porn is, I would certainly not want Google to forward whatever THEY think it is, to the authorities for investigation. The criteria would be just too vague, and seems akin to third party testimony or the use of rumor. One remembers the Nazi or Communist police state using informants and the disastrous effect of creating a "spy society."


I'm confused? Would not Google just be a good corporate citizen reporting what they detect as violations of law? Everything report is what someone thinks until proven in a criminal court. Willful blindness, reactive, or proactive action to breeches in the law should be left to the individual or company, unless mandated by Law. After all, membership to these services is optional.




?
"2007 & 2008 Windows Shell/User Award"

#14 phawgg

phawgg

    Learning Daily


  • Members
  • 4,543 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Washington State, USA
  • Local time:02:49 AM

Posted 22 January 2006 - 03:52 PM

If I came across child porn on a PC when somebody wanted me to fix some problem on it I think I'd treat it on an individual basis rather than automatically pushing it forward into the judical & law enforcement system for determination of penalty. Meaning I'd weigh in the balance extenuating circumstances ... premeditate my actions first.

ask myself:
was this a case of some individual who had personal issues but not likely a predator/stalker/online?
any evidence of this being a person who was seeking profit with those or related files?
would I be considered a criminal by not running to the cops or State AG?
could I consider the source of this unpleasant reminder of internet reality & make some notes instead,
so perhaps a poor, weak maladjusted husband or father who'd never impose upon others his
particular "sin of lust" wasn't put through a scandelous ruination ... but be in a position to provide information about the matter in some way that would assure my customer's anonymity?
Still be able to testify if the guy actually was caught down the road raping a 7 year old?

I don't think the government has a right to spy on citizens, sifting through sand or clutching at straws to remedy a problem that I honestly do not have enough information on to draw meaningful coorelations about how one thing might really be 100,000 things ...

I value person rights, privacy & worry that someday it might come down to it being extraordinarily difficult to even comprehend what was once known as practicing freedom. I also shudder at the thought of a society of too many people living too excessively under wildly disproportional conditions of debt to other sources demanding "creative" solutions like recruitment of yet another 10% of the total population to work for the government as contract-information providers in select categories of targeted "defined crime" as a means to balance the budget or manipulate the gross national product figures to forestall a tangible collapse of "normalcy". :thumbsup:
patiently patrolling, plenty of persisant pests n' problems ...

#15 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:05:49 AM

Posted 22 January 2006 - 10:49 PM

Here is how I feel about this situation.

I think the government has other reasons for asking for this information. I think they are just using the "COPA" law to access this information.

I think Google is making a good decision in this situation. If the search engines just start handing out the information all willy-nilly then next thing you know the government is going to ask all ISP for logs of ALL activity. Or they might ask for all ATM transcations across the country. So they now exactly when and where your taking your money out. Just to make sure you're using the right banks.

I think the government is trying a little to hard on an outdated law. I'm sure there are other ways to bring Child Pornography to a hault.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users