On 1/19/06, William Bowen wrote: > You don't see a problem with doing an end-run around the > Constitutional checks and balances?
Show me where in the Constitution anonymous search patterns are mentioned. > >They aren't asking to identify people, > > They aren't? Really? Yes, they are not. > > just search > > patterns to determine if the child filters are working. > > So, then how is the government, you know the one that manages to net > domestic calls in an international call monitoring scheme, going to > accomplish this? What does this have to do with that??? > Are you saying that the governemnt will be satisfied with just knowing > how much "porn" was found? Or are they going to want to take it > further and try to find out where the request came from? After all, > the fact that the request was made means nothing if you can't > prosecute the person that made it. They aren't looking to prosecute. They are presenting their case that filters are not good enough. The Supreme Court requested they present their case that filters don't work in courtroom. That's all this is. > Given the administration's track record, I'd believe the latter before > I'd believe the former. That's because you don't have all the facts. > And if the intended goal is to determine which "child" filters are > working or not, then wouldn't it logically follow that an age for the > user has to be established? No. If a search for Barney pulls up three porn sites in the first 20 results then they would check those porn sites against filters. If one gets through the filter there's a problem. If it's three out of a thousand and one gets through it's not much of a concern. > Oh yeah, and without "[identifying] people" how is the government > going to determine which of the requests were made by children? They don't care at this point, just need to know if the filters catch most of the porn. > Which frankly scares the living shit out of me. They rolled, great, so > Google should too, in the interest of the public good? They didn't roll, they saw no threat to privacy and felt protecting kids from porn was a good thing. Whether it proves the filters work or that we need new laws protects the kids in the end. > Good! Apparently no one else did! > > Do you use Google? If so, you've consented to their terms of use. part > of that is that they don't give up personal data collected. They didn't ask for personal data. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193374 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
