A little harsh eh? I think he was kidding and forgot to add a smiley. And if not. . . err. . . -backs away-

 

Burt: Your right I was alluding to a slippery slope, because I am a firm believer in that particular hypothesis. History has shown that when people stop caring about the little things they lose the big ones.

I would not object to the government gathering the data itself through a random survey system; nor would I object to them gathering it the old fashioned way, hands on research.

I do however object to them demanding that a corporation turn over the data, because in the legal world precedent rules. Just look at the Roberts hearings if you want to see proof of that.

 

Eh, I'm not saying moving EVERYTHING out of USA and firing people. No sane goverment would allow something like that to happen, be it legal or not.

I was thinking more like moving corporate headquoters to Switzerland or Norway or someting and leaving the bulk back in America. Something like when people work all over the world, but open up accounts in Swiss banks. So, if all the personal data is stored outside the US, then Bush can't require something to be delivered that is out of his jurisdiction, right? But I don't know anything about large-scale economy and corporate laws, so this probably isn't possible...

About pornography - I'd say that Sweeden has it right - what's the harm in kids seing porno pictures and stuff? Yes I'm not a parent so I shouldn't be speaking and all that, but I still think that Larry Flint had it right - these days in Western Europe and especially in US, it's OK to show to kids a guy's head getting blown away by a shotgun, but everyone starts screaming if female tits are visible...

So yeah, the whole pornography deal is overinflated, but outright allowing it isn't feasable. I'd say some restrictions are in order, but parents should be the one to educate and control their children, not laws and buerocrates...

 

first of all, i did say possible ways that bush infringes on our rights, not just definite. i am well aware of the fact that they seem to be only taking random sites, and not the personal info of the people who make those searches. but it does make one feel paranoid, especially with the pending renewal of the Patriot Act, as to what extent they could use the power to collect information from corporations (in this case, Google, Yahoo, etc.), information that could potentially be private. Now that's a violation of privacy policies of the major internet companies, and would be a violation of our privacy rights.


Ya, fine, there isn't anything in the Constitution that corporate data cannot be requested by the Judiciary. But this is a little far-reaching, even with the supposed motive of trying to protect children from porn. They have other, better ways to collect the information. I support Google and the fact that they are actually trying to fight the unfair demand.


as for the rest of my post, *shrugs*. it was just speculation. say what you will. i don't support the idea that minors should be able to watch porn without any restrictions, or anything like that, but it's like what ip82 said, tho - the issue is just way over-inflated...

 

It's not the judiciary branch requesting the data though... Its the executive branch.

If a COURT asks for it, then its judiciary... Otherwise executive, even if the branch of the executive is the "justice department"

 

wait...didn't the bush admin get a subpoena to force Google to comply? so, kinda sorta the judiciary is forcing Google to give up the info, even tho the executives are the ones who asked for the subpoena..

or i might be wrong.......

 

They asked for a subpeona, I am not sure if they got one or not.

 

they got one.

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=41053



the subpoena is what Yahoo, MSN, etc. complied with and what Google is fighting.

 

Bleh.

I'm still opposed to it, and I am certain that my uncertainty is backed up by the constitution.

If the gun nuts can have their assault weapons, then google should have a right to with-hold information.

 

haha. ya, i too am opposed to it.

 

The Constitution says nothing about business at all. Companies have zero Constitutional rights, except those ensured to each person working for or having stock in the company. So your uncertainty isn't backed up by shit, to speak frankly. The companies do, however, have many rights ensured by the law. But Google is breaking the law, the very thing that keeps them safe. There's no way around the fact that that's totally rude.

While I agree with you all that the subpoena sucks, it's still the law. Cool though it is that they're sticking up for us -- although Google says that they're just trying to keep their trade secrets a secret, and never mentioned anything about protecting anyone but themselves, sofar as I'm aware -- they can't just ignore the law.

And by the way, how exactly can the government gather that data themselves? Weren't you complaining about the wire-tapping that the government's been doing? And now you're suggesting that they put spyware on our computers? -- for that's about the only way that I can think of that they could go about this information-collecting that you're suggesting.

Violent: What I thought was stupid was the idea that making porn legal would reduce the amount of porn viewed. While this might work among some tribes of the Amazon Rainforest, I'm not sure that it'll work in the western world quite so well. Also, is there any proof that alcohol consumption was greater when the 18th amendment was in effect?

 

Actually private corporations ARE backed up by the Constitution. Or at least the Supreme Courts interpretation of it over the past hundred years ago. Its why it was so damned hard for the progressives on the early 20th century to get any serious reforms that were passed to stick. They still got them, but they had to change the language of several Child Labor laws, as well as other factory regulations. In fact both Congress even considered attempting to ammend the Constitution to get some of their more serious legislation through; however the progressives lacked the necessary support in order to get this passed.

Later on during FDR's presidency he too attempted to go after buisnesses, but was blocked by the Supreme Court. In response to this he made one of his few political faux pax's when he attempted to increase the number of Justice's on the court to 15. Congress and the American public reacted with outrage and he was forced to scrap his plans. The Supreme Court meanwhile overturned large chunks of his reform legislation, forcing congress to come up with new legislation that was missing several of the more controversial areas.

And as for your assertion that Corporate Entities have NO Constitutional rights http://www.ratical.org/corporations/demoBrief.html#p3

Or more specifically in a series of cases starting in 1866 http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html

14th Ammendment applies to corporate entities.

Now onto the matter of Google. I was not advocating spyware, I was advocating random surveys of search habits in teens... They make us fill them out for alcohol, guns, and drugs; the addition of this question wont make a big difference as the surveys are ANONYMOUS. Google has a right to protect their corporate secrets that is protected under the Constitution; the same way we have a right to keep our own privacy under the constitution. Google has a right under the constitution to Due Process, and therefore until they have exhausted ALL appeals they are not breaking the law by refusing to turn over their records.

Now onto your next assertion about the pornography. I tend to see a middle line on that issue; in order for Violent Sea's suggestion to work a societal change would need to be made. It would go up short term; but long term (like 2 or 3 generations) it would actually end up going down far below the point that it is currently. Frankly the only reason it is so popular now is because in America we are extremely uptight about sex when compared to the rest of the western (and parts of the eastern) world.

Now lets just agree to disagree because I REALLY don't feel like digging through any more Supreme Court decisions/transcripts of oral arguments than I already have had to for my speech/presentation (its in 20 days now and at the moment I am hammering out my conclusion).

If you want fun reading try http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.html

Those are the oral arguments.

Here is another great source http://library.law.smu.edu/resguide/supcourt.htm

Good Day.

 

The fact is that what they want to accomplish could be done properly by actually searching using the terms children use and seeing what content is displayed on the top returned sites. They want information that does not give indications on how often harmful to minor content is encountered. As the links I posted earlier described this in greater detail, as well as how one government agency has already conducted a similar survey and then tested by searching the terms (for something a bit different but the principle is the same).

 

i remember reading it in a few places...but right now, i neither have the time or energy to look for it with midterms and SAT's in the next two days.....

 

I too have midterms... I just really don't care about them; they are only worth 20% of my semester grade.

Seems like a lot but since I have straight A's and B's in my classes (except) Calculus, it doesn't matter what I get as long as I dont get an F on any (except calc... it doesnt matter if I even bother to take that one)

 

I feel bad for you having to take the SAT's and midterms...I had to do the last year in my senior year and the year before that...It gets better thought..when you get too college no midterms or SAT's just two finals a year. :?

 

*phew* finally done with the SAT's ........i hope...

 

Sorry, that was misinformation. Alcohol consumption did, in fact, decrease. Mostly in the rural, suburban areas, and members of the KKK (they were advocates of temperance)...but i don't think there was any real reduction of alcohol consumption in cities if consumption didn't, in fact, increase.

 

it's not the law about the internet, it's the action that bothers me.
Bush should've OD'd on coke, so we would'nt be going through this crap.
he makes me do the following: