InformationWeek | Pornography | Yahoo Gave Search Data To Bush Administration Lawyers | January 19, 2006 — This story has been going on since Wednesday. The way I see it, if the government wants to know about the results of porn searching they should simply sit down and search for porn! This is not “about the children” it’s the government trying to make book on the citizens. If it was about the children they’d simply write a better law and pass it. Hey, they own the Congress and the Executive branch! What is the problem? Why this?

These people promoting this old act are the sames ones who are against the XXX domain. Something is wrong weith this picture and it has nothing to do with anything other than political hanky-panky. Good for Google!

I should mention that Yahoo and MSN SAY they did not give out personal data, but does that include “impersonal” IP addresses? Are they just parsing the term “peronal?” I’ll be looking into this. Yahoo and MSN appear to be closer to selling out their users than Google, whatever the case. To just casually hand over confidential information like this on a whim is pretty odd. This is not the Justice department working on a criminal case here. This is the Bush Administration on a genuine fishing expedition abusing the office of the Executive.

Two of at least three major search engines subpoenaed by the Bush administration acknowledged Thursday that they handed over search data in the government’s efforts to revive an anti-porn law that was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Microsoft Corp., which owns MSN, and Yahoo Inc. said they complied with the orders, but insisted no personal information on users was given to government attorneys. The disclosure followed reports that rival search engine Google Inc. had refused to comply with a similar subpoena, issued last year.



  1. Locke says:

    I say we boycott Yahoo, MSN, and the US of A.
    But, seriously, I never though I’d see Microsoft bend so easiely to the will of the law. Yahoo’s decision isn’t all that surprising, since they weren’t exactly the best at keeping a universal view of things. Just read the new’s they have on there. Baised beyond beleif.

  2. Sounds The Alarm says:

    Regardless of your personal view on this subject – you have to love the pic.

  3. Dingo Dango says:

    Who uses msn or yahoo searches anyways? Seriously?

    Like 8 people. Tops.

  4. Many think Google is becoming the dark empire, I think that this is proof that it isn’t. Go Google!

    P.S. We need to impeach Bush.

  5. Eideard says:

    Paul, you’re becoming obsessed. The Krispy Kremes proves it.

  6. Pat says:

    I applaud Google’s stance. I sincerely hope that Google prevails in their legal argument that the search warrant is overly broad and a fishing expedition.

    I know several people who use Yahoo search. Their computers are usually full of spyware and viruses too. I can’t say I know anyone that uses MSN Search. Well I suspect there might be Bill and maybe half a dozen others at Micro$oft.

    I wonder if the Justice Department uses Google?

  7. It doesn’t surprise me that Microsoft complied–they don’t consider it a big deal to breach the privacy of it’s user. Does anyone remember the “Phone Home” technology that reported everything on the user’s hard drive upon installation of Windows 98?

    I am so pleased that Google is standing up for all of us!!

  8. RocRizzo says:

    Look, if you believe this is about porn, I have a bridge to sell you…

    There aren’t enough prisons on the planet to house all the people searching for porn on the search engines.

    This is really about who is viewing alternate news sources, like AlJazzera, The Guardian, The Nation, and others, that the administration is opposed to. Typically these news sites do not preach the gospel that the Bush Crime Syndicate wants US citizens to read.

    It seems to be another method that this criminal organization is using to control the population via fear, uncertanty and doom.

    And finally, if I’m not on their lists, I’m sure that I am now with this comment.
    Rocco Rizzo
    Rosendale, NY

  9. Smith says:

    This is really disturbing. Now the government is “googling” for “criminals”. What’s next, wiretaps on all addresses that scored in the top one thousand for porn searches?

    Ooh, I hope my son didn’t buy that fuzz buster on-line.

  10. Patacchia says:

    Indeed, it is disturbing, and I’m afraid to believe that the majority of the citizen will actually support this administration on “the saving of the poor children over the internet porn”.

    Please people, start questioning!

  11. How many generations do we have to revel in the Bush’s campaign to heal the world of Porn? All subject to interpretation, let me end this for you George, by Quoting Bill Hicks:
    “Pornography doesn’t breed sexual thoughts! You want to know how sexual thoughts started…. drum roll please…. Having a dick.”

    It’s a tired, dated witch hunt that we’ve been over so many times more.

  12. estacado says:

    Is porn illegal?

  13. Nick says:

    Hey lefty Kool-aid drinkers, the statute in question in this evil Bush bash session was enacted during the Clinton administration in 1998. Bubba did it!!
    I betcha Jon Stewart didn’t tell you that one.
    You guys crack me up.

  14. Greg says:

    Um, no. The issue is not the law itself but the fishing expedition amongst search engines, trying to coerce them into handing over reams of data that has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution or defense but just trying to salvage a failed law.

    The fact that a law was passed under the Clinton administration which was later deemed unconstitutional doesn’t speak well of him, but that’s not the issue.

    Another Kool Aid test is the knee-jerk “Clinton did it too!” defense against anything bad this administration does, as if that in any way justifies their behavior. And that’s if the assertion is even true to begin with, since in some cases it turns out not to be.

  15. laineypie says:

    hey nick- thats what all republicans say: clinton did it! yeah right shut up sit down. even if it did arise in 1998, it was NOT PASSED and now Bush is trying to revive it how do you justify that? not only, but why is bush against sex? im sure he looks at porno, im sure he isnt sleeping with lara bush anyway he porbably has a few hookers on the side. he’s human just like all of us.

  16. site admin says:

    Krispy Kreme? That explains it.

  17. AB CD says:

    It was passed, and the Supreme Court threw it out. The article I’ve seen on it mentioned a subpoena which suggests the Justice Department is involved. I’m guessin the reason they aren’t just sitting down and doing searches is because they want to show that kids could accidentally find porn online, which is what one of the judges suggested would make the law OK. But if they need to do that with all the data, then they need to be able to identify which users are kids and which are not…

    Aren’t Yahoo and MSN the ones that handed over Chinese journalists?

  18. Floyd says:

    Maybe Dubya never learned how to spell pr0n, so he needs to have Google find the sites “for research purposes, of course.”

  19. Eideard says:

    John — Bravo!

  20. Pat says:

    Nick

    Get a grip guy, but you sure blew this one. Typical Republican reaction is to blame Clinton for the neo-con excesses.

    This was from one of those “Republicans know what is best for you” laws passed by the Newt Gingrich neo-con, bible thumping, fundamentalists in 1994. When the Supreme Court rejected it in 1998 Congress came back with another law. When Clinton signed it he expressed reservations about its legality. The Federal courts agreed and have refused to uphold it. It is now at the stage where the Bush Administration is trying to prove to the court that it is warranted.

  21. site admin says:

    Crack cocaine! That explains it.

  22. site admin says:

    Photoshop tips…this one took a little work and I’m not certain I could reproduce it exactly eagain. I generally take notes on this. Essentially it is a pretty normal, but creepy, pic of Bush that I re-lit with some filters from the 55mm collection that I have as a plug in. I also ran a normal stylize “glowing edges” then backed them off with “fading” as an overlay. Then I began to apply some glow and mist filters (from 55mm collection) until it creeped me out and I stopped and posted the result. next time I’ll take exact notes. I did not do any physical manipulation of the pic itself. (bending, changing eyebals etc.). It’s all lighting.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4454 access attempts in the last 7 days.