<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Judge to Rule Soon in Google Case
- To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Judge to Rule Soon in Google Case
- From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:31:28 -0500
- Cc: "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>, "vinton g. cerf" <vint@xxxxxxxxxx>
- References: <441BA865.D34FB44F@ix.netcom.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Companies should resist anytime the government wants access to user's
private information. If Google was doing it for that noble purpose, it was
be phenominal. However I suspect that is not their only motive.
Chris McElroy
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "General Assembly of the DNSO" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "icann board address" <icann-board@xxxxxxxxx>; "vinton g. cerf"
<vint@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 1:27 AM
Subject: [ga] Judge to Rule Soon in Google Case
> All former DNSO GA members or other interested stakeholders/users,
>
> Is vint and google harboring or kiddy porn customers, or is this a odd
> manner of a real interest in consumer privacy?
>
> 15/14/10 March 2006)
> US District Judge James Ware says he is likely to order Google to
> provide the US Justice Department with at least some of the data it has
> requested. Google initially refused to provide the Justice Department
> with the data it requested, claiming it would violate customer privacy
> and could potentially expose the company's trade secrets. The
> government's initial request was for one million random web site
> addresses and one week's work of query terms. The request has been
> scaled back to 50,000 web sites and 5,000 terms, with the Justice
> Department examining just twenty percent of those. The government has
> also agreed to compensate Google for eight days of programmers' time.
> AOL, Yahoo and MSN have complied with the government's request, which
> is being made in an effort to support its contention that filtering
> software is not effective in protecting children from inappropriate
> Internet content. The government is trying to defend the Child Online
> Protection Act (1998), which was blocked by the Supreme Court.
>
> see: http://www.silicon.com/0,39024831,39157220,00.htm
>
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/internetprivacy/2006-03-14-google-judge_x.htm
>
> http://news.com.com/2102-1030_3-6048488.html?tag=st.util.print
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4804182.stm
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> Abraham Lincoln
>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|