meh

[textualdeviance]

You know, what with this Bush and Gonzales wanting Google's porn search records stuff, I have half a mind to start putting in random searches with bizarre and inflammatory word combinations just to see if I get arrested.

Something like, oh, Hussein Dorito Suppository. Or Iraqi Amputee Passion. Or "how to" + "Weapons of Mass Destruction" + Dildos.

Come 'n get me 'Berto. I'm hot and ready.

;P

Comments

[pantslessfez.livejournal.com]

Oh, man. "Hussein Dorito Suppository" cracked me up XDDD That's some hot shit right there.

I'm a Long-time blog stalker, by the way =)

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

*waves*

Yo. :)

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

Even if Google had complied, there'd have been nothing to link users to the searches they did. Just an endless list of search keywords, with neither context nor continuity - it's not a very useful list, actually.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

No IP records, then. Good to know. Have you guys gotten pestered about this?

From what I can tell, their theory is that they want to find out how often people are searching for kiddie porn. But I can't see how that would get them anywhere. It's a waste of time and resources for an end result that will probably come to: yep, some people are stupid enough to use a generic search engine to look for pics of naked kids. But considering the number of people who are probably also using similar searches to find out statistics, news stories and other legit information, I can't see how the results wouldn't be confounded anyway.

Which is why I think there's more to this than they're saying. I think they're trying to track down sites that violate federal obscenity laws so Gonzales can do his Ashcroft, Jr. routine and pretend that the world is going to hell if he doesn't get pics of watersports and rimming off the net.

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

What I don't understand is how searching for porn using contextually accurate, if not in fact Actually accurate terms is dangerous. As a Regular consumer of heterosexual internet porn of both the garden and slightly kinkier varieties, I'm well aware of the fact that about 98% of porn is labelled in some incriminating way. Do a generic search using key words like "teen" "lolita" "daddy" "lollipop" "schoolgirl" or "nymphet" and you will come up with 30 year old women in pleated plaid skirts and pigtails. No matter how you spin that, those are adult women lisping about being naughty. Someone looking specifically for pornography that involves adult women dressed like catholic schoolgirls should not be treated like someone who anally rapes preadolescents.

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

Oh, and the vast vast vast majority of people collecting and distributing kiddie porn are police departments doing it to try and bait "pedophiles" into accepting it.

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

Can't talk about what MSN has or hasn't done, am afraid. That would be violating company policy.

But, very bluntly - Google isn't a hero for refusing this. Yahoo isn't a villain for providing it. This data is worthless to individuals, though it could be somewhat dangerous were it to fall into the hands of one of the competing search engines. This data is more useful as trade secret than as privacy invasion.

[pixxelpuss.livejournal.com]

That specific data, no. But I worry about setting legal precedents. I worry about them saying LOOK: 4 million searches with "bad" words in them this month! Think of the Children! We must put into law that all internet searches must be saved indefinitely along with User ID number.

I'm paranoid, but I'm not wrong.

[aprivatefox.livejournal.com]

Here: My team's manager (who can talk for MS) has made the official statement.

[textualdeviance.livejournal.com]

Cool. Figured that would be addressed eventually.

[waterfaery.livejournal.com]

Ha--you could be the Guantanamo embedded journalist.

I'd metaquote you if they hadn't been such freaks about the boob thing.