Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [Article] Google throws out US data demand

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 02:43:08 +0000, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>__/ [canadafred] on Monday 20 February 2006 17:12 \__
>> "Paul B" <lamewolf2004@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:7kqjv1tn4g4tcfqgmc86ga1kl7p7it2eq0@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4731640.stm
>I was going to post that URL myself, but soon changed my mind... *smile*
>> Thanks for the article Paul, makes for a good read. Personally, I am on the
>> fence with this one. I see the need for the governments to crack down on
>> some types of porn, but I don't understand how getting search query results
>> will help.
>I didn't follow this closely enough, but I believe they sought enough
>evidence to suggest children were in risk on the Net. In the past week, I
>have come across several articles (well, feeds) that explicitly mentioned
>the risk the WWW imposes on youngsters.
>I can only imagine that the Government wants to know the aggregated number of
>searches for terms like "child porn". They can then pass the figures to the
>DoJ and get funding for means of prevention. Google logs are probably where
>most of that filthy stuff resides, but they could possible extrapolate the
>numbers they already have (AOL, Yahoo, MSN) to get a good estimate, even
>without Google.
>>> The DoJ has made the request to shore up attempts to show that
>>> voluntary regulation is not doing a good enough job of keeping
>>> children free of the unsavoury material, largely pornographic, that
>>> exists online.
>> A person doesn't have to do a porn search to get porn sites. I don't know
>> about anyone else but I end up getting some rather unsavoury suggestions
>> from "normal" searches. I've tried some filtering systems but the language
>> and spelling of "bad" porn changes quickly.
>Not everyone uses the Internet in the same way. Believe it or not (I know you
>know this, so excuse my phrasing), some people just out their spew out their
>minds at the Google search bar, so logs are also valid way or reading
>people's mind for subsequent, suitable response.
>Person searches for "I want to shoot down USS Cole" and, as the Government
>perceives it, it's a darn good reason to chase that IP address. Rumsfeld
>expressed dissatisfaction yesterday with the state of IT-'savvyness' among
>the government and maybe the military too. I think the US army wants to
>enhance the effectiveness spying and... if I recall correctly, the BBC
>resported that they want to increase control of the media and use it for
>brainwash which annuls that of hate.

We're already brainwashed by the media. Poiticans are good, law and
order is desirable, working all your life is the natural thing to do,
never question. Oh no, sorry, that last one was school.

>> I find Usenet groups worse. I'm forever tweaking my message rules filters
>> when I am in Newsgroups to adapt to the ever changing use of the english
>> language. One of my newest hobbies is nature photography. I want to find
>> out ways to attract rare birds for photography opportunities.
>> http://www.bird-watching-canada.com ( still in development ). It may not be
>> too difficult to imagine some of the pages that have opened up on my
>> monitor lately.

fnarr fnarr!


    kruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx       Gifty! Shiny! BB!   

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index