Anyone want to tell me where this argument goes wrong? I can't seem to put a finger on it.

Quote :

"Last week, when it was revealed Google - the Internet's number one search engine - had refused a Bush administration’s subpoena to turn over information about what its users were searching, they went to bat for a fundamental right to privacy. They also, finally, helped to raise concerns about the role technology firms have played in assailing these rights across the globe. Since last summer, when Microsoft began censoring bloggers in China, technology firms have stepped up their invasion of personal privacy. First it was the words "freedom" and "civil rights" and "democracy" in the posts of Chinese bloggers. Then, last September, Yahoo!, search engine-cum-police informant, helped to jail a journalist for sending foreign-based websites the text of an internal Communist Party message. Not to be outdone, Microsoft returned to the fold earlier this year, tattling on and banning a Chinese blogger from its MSN Spaces. This is a big deal. Not only do the actions of Microsoft, Yahoo!, and others show a lack of concern for basic human rights from technology firms, but also illustrate their eagerness to jump into bed with the over-reaching hand of a government half-way across the planet. Now China, like every country, has its own laws and regulations. Some are more egregious than others. Some are indefensible. And, no doubt, there are business concerns built into each of the decisions made by Microsoft and Yahoo! These should never outweigh a sense of ethics or morality or common decency. Even Google - whose informal and refreshingly earnest motto is "don't be evil" - has agreed to censor searches in China. China is, after all, the Internet's fastest growing market and a hefty profit stands to be made. However unlike other companies - whose informal mottos appear to contain the words "greed" and "Yes, sir, if you say so" - they've drawn the line there. Google refuses to offer blogging or e-mail services in China so not to risk being ordered by the Chinese to turn over personal information. A situation which would compromise Google’s own sense of right and wrong. Which is precisely their contention with the U.S. government, a government no-way across the planet. As Google continues to fight for the privacy of its users, they continue to illuminate the shadowy line between the business of the Internet and the privacy of its consumers. With more and more people concerned over their internet privacy and a majority of internet users supporting Google’s decision, every technology firm needs such a firm grasp of this line between morality and business. To ignore privacy concerns and rights and laws for profit or to draw a line in the sand? At home, this remains a line not yet crossed and a question unanswered. But, as the issues in China and on the front page illustrate, it is one rapidly approaching. This is a decision left to individual corporations and those select few in charge. But the only hopes here are that they face this decision knowing well that greed, like fear, should not be let to decay freedom, here or abroad. And that they face it with one maxim-for-the-ages in mind: Don't be evil. "

1/25/2006 2:46:54 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/03/14/google.hearing.ap/index.html

Quote :

"Google-Justice Dept. to face off in court Tuesday, March 14, 2006; Posted: 12:36 p.m. EST (17:36 GMT) SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The Bush administration is renewing its effort to find out what people have been looking for on Google Inc.'s Internet-leading search engine, continuing a legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government. Lawyers for the Justice Department and Google were expected to elaborate on their opposing views in a hearing in San Jose scheduled Tuesday before U.S. District Court Judge James Ware. It will mark the first time the Justice Department and Google have sparred in court since the government subpoenaed the Mountain-View, California-based company last summer in an effort to obtain a long list of search requests and Web site addresses. The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration hopes to revive a law designed to make it more difficult for children to see online pornography. Google has refused to cooperate, maintaining that the government's demand threatens its users' privacy as well as its own closely guarded trade secrets. The Justice Department has downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it does not want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business. The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google -- and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties. Although the Justice Department says it does not want any personal information now, a victory over Google in the case would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law. "The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally," Berman said. "While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be." Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines -- Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information. Cooperating with the government "is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down," Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month. Even as it defies the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena. The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department has indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further. Ultimately, the government plans to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case. The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around the filtering software that is supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web. "

thought this was interesting. completely understand the child porn angle but curious as to other areas it will be used. wonder if one day i'm interested in (not wanting to, just interested in) "how to make a bomb" or "fertilizer" and the next, i'm arrested for looking it up. just seems like a slippery slope to me.

[Edited on March 14, 2006 at 1:08 PM. Reason : e]

3/14/2006 1:07:57 PM

the bush administration, building a slippery slope?

nooooo

never

kinda like the USA PATRIOT act would never be used to target meth labs


[Edited on March 14, 2006 at 2:17 PM. Reason : `]

3/14/2006 2:15:51 PM