Re: OT: This Administration is starting to worry me.

Kevin W. Miller wrote:

In news:dc2dnS-ok_F45EneRVn-og@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
bill horne <redydog@xxxxxxx> typed:

<snip>

Read the motion and get back to me with those questions that it
doesn't answer satisfactorily for you, and we can bat them around.


I only see one side of the issue. When you (or I) can prduce the legal response to these arguments from Google we'll have more to talk factually about on this issue.

Kevin W. Miller

I think Kevin, Ben, Tom and other outragees won't look too hard since their entire argument has been based on illusory paranoia.

Here's a few pointers (from a blog) so they can get up to speed.
I think this guy summarizes the argument quite well and so we should have no further excuses of ignorance from the outragees.
***********

* The motions requests that Google comply with a subpoena filed by the Attorney General and "produce" for inspection and copying the materials the Government is asking for.

* After the lead government attorney conferred with Google, Google has chosen not to comply with subpoena.

    * Google is asking the court to make Google comply

* The filing then goes into a background explanation about the Children's Online Protection Act (COPA) and how the government is developing its defense of the constitutionality of COPA. They believe that COPA is, "more effective than filtering software in protecting from harmful exposure to harmful material on the Internet."

* In preparation of the case, subpoenas were issued to Google and "other entities" that operate search engines to produce two sets materials.

* First, the subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file contain, "[a]ll URL's that are available to be located on your companys' search engine as of July 31, 2005.

* However, after "lengthy negotiation" the government changed and "narrowed" their request and asked for a "multi- stage random sample of one million URLS from Google's database ie, a random selection of the various databases in which those URL's are stored, and a random sample of the URL's held in those selected databases.

* Second, Google was asked to "produce an electronic file containing [a]ll queries entered into the Google engine between July 1 and July 31 inclusive.

* Again, after lengthy negotiations the government the government changed their request and asked for an electronic file "containing the text of any search string entered into Google's search engine for a one week period (absent any personal information identifying the person who entered the query).

    * Google has still refused to comply with these requests in any way.

* The Government says that access to this information would be of "significant significance" in the preoperation of the their case.

Specifically why?
* "The production set of queries entered into Google's search engine would assist the Government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users, to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches, and to measure the effectiveness of filtering in screening that material."

* This information would also help the Government understand what, "web sites people find through the use of search engines, to determine the character of those sites, to estimate the prevalence of harmful-to-minors material on those sites, and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software on that harmful to minors material.

* The document continues into a discussion with plenty of legalese and citations and again points out the Google has failed to comply and lists some of the reason Google objects to this.

    * Google first objects to this on the grounds of relevancy.

* Google also objects on the grounds that if they would provide what the government asks for, they would be required to produce information identifying the users of its search engines.

* The Government claims that this is "illusory" since they have specifically asked for a random sample containing no personally identifying information to any search string.

* The Government said that it has received compliance from search entities with files containing no personally identifying information.

* Google also contends that the information they're being asked to produce is "redundant" since the Government has asked other engines to produce similar files. The Government argues that this "misunderstands" what's being requested. "The production set of queries from Google's database, in combination with similar productions from other search engine operators will assist the Government in developing a sample of the overall universe of search engines queries, while accounting for the potential of any variations in the type of queries that are entered into different search engines."

* The Government says that since Google is the market leader, its response, "would be of value" in developing the Governments overall sample of queries.

* Google says that complying would also force Google to share trade secrets because the total number of queries receives in a day is a trade secret. The Government adds that if this was the case, a district court has said that these numbers would not be disclosed.

* Finally, according to the filing, Google says that it will be subject to an "undue burden" in complying. The Government claims that this is not the case whatsoever. The Government adds that they would be "willing to work" with Google to specify a multistage sample. They are also willing to compensate Google for its work and complying with the subpoena.

* The filing ends with the Government saying that, "This court should require Google to comply with the subpoena on the same terms it's competitors have."
***********
If you need more, just ask.
LZ
.

Relevant Pages

  • Google Agrees to Censor Results in China
    ... SAN FRANCISCO - Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to ... Because of government barriers set up to suppress information, ... Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as ...
    (soc.culture.vietnamese)
  • Re: OT: This Administration is starting to worry me.
    ... When you can prduce the legal response to these arguments from Google we'll have more to talk factually about on this issue. ... * The motions requests that Google comply with a subpoena filed by the Attorney General and "produce" for inspection and copying the materials the Government is asking for. ... * First, the subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file contain, "ll URL's that are available to be located on your companys' search engine as of July 31, 2005. ... * Google says that complying would also force Google to share trade secrets because the total number of queries receives in a day is a trade secret. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Could anyone explain this please?
    ... used search engine) to REMOVE 'Hate-sites' from their lists. ... Have a look at the below article about google censorship: ... What is happening is that a government is saying to Google: ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • [Article] U.S. Limits Demands on Google
    ... on Tuesday that he intended to approve at least part of that request. ... The government first subpoenaed Web data from Google last August, ... At a hearing in Federal District Court here, Judge James Ware said ... The government is now requesting a sample of 50,000 Web site addresses ...
    (alt.internet.search-engines)
  • Re: 3 evil axes of humanity: Bush, Google, sectarianism and children
    ... Booglebush Google, threat psycho of totalitarian scale Orwell- ... cultural regards, all culture, villages eliminated for a government ... Google informant and power psychopath. ...
    (sci.astro)
Loading