In June, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court injunction against enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). EPIC joined a coalition of plaintiffs in a challenge to the Internet censorship law in 1998 and has served as co-counsel in the case. SCOTUS found that the government failed to show that there are no "less restrictive alternatives" to COPA.
The statute criminalizes access to "obscene" content by minors and requires commercial publishers and ISPs to protect themselves against prosecution. It also authorizes a fed commission to advise on (determine) the terms and scope of COPA compliance.
DOJ steered clear of joining its apparent victory to the reach of illegal NSA surveillance and data collection. Spokesman Charles Miller said the agency looks forward to Ware's decision.
We hope his opinion will demonstrate the government's belief that this information would be helpful in protecting the nation's youth against potentially harmful material.
Ironically, it appears that the conservative Ware is conflicted: perhaps more wary of DOJ's propogation of data than immediate DOJ action to restrict Google marketing; more amenable to lionizing child safety than First Amendment freedom. Although Google is said to have seized on the case to underscore a commitment to privacy rights that differentiated it, counsel lost sight of the litigation objectives. DOJ's.
Stats. The government planned 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, the statistics professor at the UC/Berkeley who advised DOJ and avoided scrutiny.
DOJ doesn't need identifying info to open a backdoor to COPA. In its 2004 ruling, SCOTUS invited DOJ to prove it had methodology (ergo hypothesis rather than evidence) to enforce the legislation.
The purpose of the test is to ensure that speech is restricted no further than is necessary to accomplish Congress' goal. The District Court's conclusion that respondents were likely to prevail was not an abuse of discretion, because, on the record, the Government has not met its burden. Most importantly, respondents propose that blocking and filtering software is a less restrictive alternative, and the Government had not shown it would be likely to disprove that contention at trial. Filters impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source.
Ware did not immediately say whether the data will include words that users entered into the Internet's leading search engine.
In another AP account, DOJ is said to be requesting a random selection of 50,000 Web addresses and 5,000 random search requests from Google, a small fraction of the millions the government originally sought. Why? Google keyword and URL results "empirically" enhance DOJ analysis by filling out the set previously acquired from MSN, Yahoo, AOL. The impression that its "content" stock is a valid sample may well impress SCOTUS which is still willing to entertain the idea that "Promoting filter use does not condemn as criminal any category of speech, and so the potential chilling effect is eliminated, or at least much diminished. Filters, moreover, may well be more effective than COPA."
While Google asserts its defense forced 11th hour "concessions", DOJ lawya Joel McElvain admitted in the LA Times that the data would be used only for the purpose of testing how well Internet filters prevent children from accessing websites that are harmful to minors.
That said, it is as if Congress has been asleep for the last 10 years of "filtering fever" and botched rating schemes around the world. Filtering is programmed to fail.
UPDATE 3.16.06
Note that the fed first subpoenaed google august 2005. MSN, Yahoo! and AOL rollovers were readily maligned in press which also did nothing to align PAT I powers to the reality of doing post-9/11 business.
PATII_specter.pdf (S 1389, July 2005) is a 64 pg draft of PAT II sponsored by Mr. Specter. It illustrates, by strike-through and italicized language, "improvements" debated by the House prior to vote, March 2006.
PATII_chart.pdf was prepared by Wiley Rein & Fielding, Jan 18 2002. It is a matrix of changes to public and procedural law, including demand for business records, affected by PAT I.
The fed's revised request for a lesser Google dataset appeared in a footnote to a declaration filed by Philip Stark, february 24, 2006. (NYT print ed., Hafner, 3.15.06) in the same article hafner reports Google lawya Albert Gidari stating, "this would have been a very different case if the government walked in the door and said, 'we need 50,000 URLs and a thousand searches." also "it's doubtful we would have been in court. we got to where we wanted." unrelated to ware's "concerns" as reported, DOJ has even offered to pay Google for the specified dataset.
PATII_CRS120905.pdf was prepared by the Congressional Research Service, December 2005 -- before PAT II was enacted. It isolates ambiguous authority (Consistitution and case law basis) promulgated by proposed a/emendments to PAT I.
sweet, huh? now, if you still believe shrub LLP gives a crap about google's "trade secret" algorithms, consider Yahoo!'s transparent market. and consider the source of google et al inventory and revenue. it's not the algorithms. it's not the cost of joe google franchise. it's independent web publishers whose businesses are identified by URL not IP address. it's keyword capture. (a) a URL is public record, created by ICANN and delegated to domain retailers. that record identifies real addresses. (b) dailykeyword value derives from market-driven ad bids not search results which are sooooo stale. NOW, if you were a fedVC wonk, what set would you choose to test the hypothesis that a business can be shut down if public searches cannot?
JMJ, dkos, don't mumble about "free market" and "level" playing fields. don't you dare utter "free speech" and google in the same breath. start talk about "gaming the system" if you think it's so important to hitch "democracy" to the internet. give short shrift to IP technologies that structure the net, and readers will be left wondering where all the "media" went . this google vs US is yet another episode of bread and circuses played out eyes wide shut.