The court documents in the case are here (scroll down):
http://news.com.com/Feds+take+porn+fight+to+Google/2100-1030_3-6028701.html
I wrote a FAQ that's up here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-6029042.html
Danny Sullivan has two good posts here:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-060352
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060120-105609
Though I think he's a bit dismissive of the privacy interests of search
engine users, which are explored in two editorials on Friday:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/20/EDGEPGPHA61.DTL
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/OPINION01/601200328/1068/OPINION
Perhaps visits to a search engine can be thought of as somewhat akin to
thumbing through a dictionary, or an encyclopedia, or a phone book.
You'd want privacy in those cases, especially when doing financial or
medical research.
But because the Supreme Court has said you don't have privacy when your
records are held by others, the virtual equivalent of thumbing-through
information is available to curious prosecutors or divorce attorneys.
Thanks a lot, Supremes:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/do_no_evil_and_1.html
-Declan
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
