You are a Republican, however you are NOT a conservative. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:19 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Feds Subpoena Google > > 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:5:193376 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
