Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 03:27:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 03:31:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 03:45:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 12:27:00, Anonymous wrote:You gonna pay the bills asshole? No...So deal with it or get the fuck outta here!
"Come on?if you need some extra money ask. But don?t put google ads on your site that support the programs you so strongly disagree with! I am REALLY surprised to see this."
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 06:08:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 06:26:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 15:08:00, Anonymous wrote:Simple solution- YOU PAY THE BILLS THEN..
"Are you kidding me? Why am I an asshole? I think that?s totally crazy to run a site like this and then link to the people you are speaking out against. The money she would get off adsense is dirty money, that?s all there is to it. I love Ginger and what she has done for the cause, but this is wrong in my opinion."
Post by: try another castle on December 30, 2005, 08:45:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 12:27:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Come on?if you need some extra money ask. But don?t put google ads on your site that support the programs you so strongly disagree with! I am REALLY surprised to see this."
I must be totally blind because I can't find what you are talking about. I also couldn't figure out how to get to a WWASPS site 2 clicks away.
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 08:46:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 08:49:00 PM
Ads by Google
Troubled Teen Camps
Troubled Teenagers
Free PHPBB
Boot Camps
Wwasp
:tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: Antigen on December 30, 2005, 09:00:00 PM
And I don't think it's wrong to take their money. Honestly, I doubt seriously that their ads in this site will be very effective. And it's actually a convenience to some Fornits users who like to keep up on things like the latest corporate/facility names, marketing scams and the like. And, of course, it adds just that much more in the relavence ranking, as we'll get a bit of credit for all of their keywords (as sites linked to) and that will draw us before more of those eyeballs that sallied forth initially to find a boot camp to which to ship their kids.
It is experimental, though. I'll keep an eye to the horizon, an ear to the ground, a shoulder to the wheel and my nose to the grindstone. If it turns out to be counterproductive, well then I'll knock it off. Meanwhile, look out! If I fart the whole world's gonna shake!
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... miamithem' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/040303082X/circlofmiamithem') target='_new'>H. G. Wells
Post by: Antigen on December 30, 2005, 09:03:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 17:45:00, sorry... try another castle wrote:
I must be totally blind because I can't find what you are talking about. I also couldn't figure out how to get to a WWASPS site 2 clicks away.
"
Maybe it's java dependent?
If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the
government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.
--President Bill Clinton
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 09:04:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 09:06:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 09:08:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 18:04:00, Anonymous wrote:Great point!!
"Ginger, you fuckin rock!! Who cares about the ad's, no big deal..These people are cry babies :lol: "
Post by: Antigen on December 30, 2005, 09:08:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 15:08:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Are you kidding me? Why am I an asshole? I think that?s totally crazy to run a site like this and then link to the people you are speaking out against. The money she would get off adsense is dirty money, that?s all there is to it. I love Ginger and what she has done for the cause, but this is wrong in my opinion."
But people link to their sites all the time for free. I do it too. If you're quoting something off of Lon's site or another parent bitch session bbs or something. And why not? How can you really examine an issue without looking at the subject?
I just don't see how this benefits the Programs at all. Do you think it helps them in any way to turn up in this context? I don't think so. I think it hurts them.
Oh, and while we're on the topic, here's an idea I like to promote from time to time. Anybody who just can't believe that these people think and talk the way they do should burn up a few minutes on their 800 marketing lines. I'm not saying to spam call them just to run up their bills. I'm saying to legitimately call them up and ask them a lot of questions, see what they say. You call once and ask about an A student who's just a tad depressed, then call the same mindfucker and ask how they'd deal with a violent kid who runs. Just see and hear for yourself. They'll lie like a cheap rug and tell you their place is just the perfect match for each of these imaginary kids.
Check the laws in your state and consider recording these calls for the edification and entertainment of all of your friends, too.
Those who control the past, control the future; and those who control the present, control the past.
--George Orwell
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 09:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 18:04:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger, you fuckin rock!! Who cares about the ad's, no big deal..These people are cry babies :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 10:45:00 PM
1) Sleep Away Camps
2) Boarding Schools
3) Troubled Teens
4) Juvenile Boot Camps
5) Cross Creek Manor
If you click on any of those they bring you to a page that lists links to behavior modification programs and EDCONS that many of us disagree with.
Ginger, I started this thread and I am sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. I just strongly disagree with your decision to place these ads on your site. I have a real problem with Lon of strugglingteens choice to advertise such programs as WWASP, and you are doing the same by putting Google ads on your site.
I never was suggesting you would have a membership or a fee. Why not put a donate link at the top of each page?
Post by: Anonymous on December 30, 2005, 10:49:00 PM
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... =10#159938 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=13230&forum=1&start=10#159938)
Post by: Antigen on December 31, 2005, 12:01:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 19:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
If you click on any of those they bring you to a page that lists links to behavior modification programs and EDCONS that many of us disagree with.
Or, if you're looking at the web forum hosting forum, there are ads for geek wear. If you're looking at hot topics, lately, there are ads for term papers and other junk. I keep seeing ads for free forum hosting. Doesn't bother me. The more the merrier. Less load on my server and more diversity in the marketplace of ideas.
In a free market, good ideas thrive and bad ones suffer. That's my gambit right there. Always has been. So now I'm testing it in nearby new waters.
Quote
Ginger, I started this thread and I am sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you. I just strongly disagree with your decision to place these ads on your site.
Oh, no need to apologize at all! But please be responsive to my answers and questions. I think I made a pretty good argument toward overcoming some of the objections and now I want you to further support them.
Quote
I have a real problem with Lon of strugglingteens choice to advertise such programs as WWASP, and you are doing the same by putting Google ads on your site.
Different in two regards that I can think of. If the book Come Clean turns up in a google ad, it'll turn up here. If Help at Any Cost by Maia Szalavitz has an ad, it'll be there.
Lon only accepts ads from private payors. I don't think he could afford to let in a random sampling of what the market reflects.
People around here will buy those books. But you couln't pay us to take private teen gulags. We're not buying. Do you think a prospective mark stands a better chance coming out of the encounter unscathed if they come accross the pitch here or somewhere else?
Quote
I never was suggesting you would have a membership or a fee. Why not put a donate link at the top of each page?
"
No, that was someone else's suggestion "why don't you pay the bills, then." And I don't want to panhandle. I've had to do that just once for this site, that's quite enough for me, thanks. Just ... distasteful to me, ya know? But I'll earn it and I'll earn it honestly or I'll see it through to bust and do something else.
O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make Gods by the dozen!
--Michel Eyqyem de Montaigne, French essayist
Post by: Antigen on December 31, 2005, 12:06:00 AM
It is criminal to steal a purse. It is daring to steal a fortune. It is a mark of greatness to steal a crown. The blame diminishes as the guilt increases
--Schiller (1759-1805)
_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
Post by: Antigen on December 31, 2005, 01:19:00 AM
Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul alike.
-- John Muir
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2005, 06:44:00 AM
Quote
On 2005-12-30 21:01:00, Antigen wrote:
"In a free market, good ideas thrive and bad ones suffer. That's my gambit right there. Always has been. So now I'm testing it in nearby new waters.
...
People around here will buy those books. But you couln't pay us to take private teen gulags. We're not buying. Do you think a prospective mark stands a better chance coming out of the encounter unscathed if they come accross the pitch here or somewhere else?
...
And I don't want to panhandle. I've had to do that just once for this site, that's quite enough for me, thanks. Just ... distasteful to me, ya know? But I'll earn it and I'll earn it honestly or I'll see it through to bust and do something else."
Sorry to be dense here, but which "free market" are you referring to exactly? Are you talking about U.S. economics or an idea about the free market of ideas on fornits, or what?
"People around here", "us", "we're"... Gosh Ginger, you're starting to scare me...
Let's think carefully about this idea that panhandling is less honest than propagating propaganda, if I have you right there.
Post by: Anonymous on December 31, 2005, 11:29:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on December 31, 2005, 01:16:00 PM
It's not that I don't care what you think, I do. I just disagree with your premise. I don't think that those ads appearing in this context equate to helping or supporting the industry, even in a round about way. I think it'll backfire. I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me.
And I think the faithful opposition is pretty much shooting itself in the foot by counting themselves out of the market. Why cede the entire economy to the bad guys? Why disallow yourself your birthright, as an American, to control that portion of the economy that you can gain without force or fraud? Taking a vow of poverty makes about as much sense as the Shakers' silly notion about lifetime celibacy. What, never heard of the Shakers? Well, it wasn't such a good idea after all.
If I spent lots of time and money and made my life an open book to sue them to get that money out of them, would that be better? I don't see how. If a thousand or three of us were to put ads in all of our private websites, we could accomplish the same thing without any coercion, stress or trouble. And it's fun, too!
There's something to the argument about repetition, brand familiarity and impressions. But it's not the WHOLE thing. Why do you think the industry spends so much time, money and energy on slapp suits? If all publicity were good publicity, why would they do that? They may be crazy but they ain't dumb. They do it because they have to in order to control the message. Well, I think this boneheaded move of mine will help to throw a little healthy chaos into that. If branding in negative context is just the same as promotional advertising, then how come those ad council ads against smoking are so damned effective?
So, I'm willing to take my chances, suffer the slings and arrows, be the guinea pig and see what happens with this.
It continues to amaze me to talk to law students -- college
graduates all and smarter than the average bear -- who will
seriously tell me about how dangerous mj is and how it
destroys the lives of those who use it and who, in the
very next sentence, will tell me how they and their
friends -- now CPAs, engineers, med students -- used
pot regularly through high school and college. And
they don't see the contradiction between these statements.
We're not just talking ignorance here -- we are talking
deep down, serious, religious indoctrination.
--Buford C. Terrell, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
_________________
Drug war POW
Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2006, 03:23:00 PM
View a list of many WWASP related sites at: http://www.tbfight.com/wwasp/index.php? ... 3&Itemid=2 (http://www.tbfight.com/wwasp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=2)
WWASP has a huge network of sites like some elaborate porn network and all your ads do is contribute to this trap for desperate parents.
How is it not a problem when a parent seeking information and help for their child is directed to a programs web site through this web site, and possibly thinks that web site is credible because they were referred through this web site?
Ginger I don?t understand your reasoning at all.
?I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me.?
Why would companies like WWASP etc. want to filter out ads on this site?? This site helps expose the truth about these programs (up until someone clicks on a google ad and is lead to some marketing site that feeds them nothing but bullshit and lies). This site is like the last stop on the train for a parent seeking info, and if they?re lead off to some for profit referral site, what good is this site? Who cares how much your making, that 0.73 cent click might make a company like WWASP $60,000 for a year of tuition.
So what if that 0.73 cent click from this site was the contributing factor to having Billy sent off to some program in Texas where he endures 2 years of hell.
NOT WORTH IT!
Post by: Antigen on January 03, 2006, 07:25:00 PM
The Christian God can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, evil and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed, beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. The are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.
--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat
Post by: Anonymous on January 03, 2006, 08:45:00 PM
Post by: Antigen on January 03, 2006, 09:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-03 17:45:00, Anonymous wrote:
you?re helping WWASP make money while they ruin a child life.
I'm not at all convinced of that. I think I'm hurting their chances, quite frankly. Just hunker and watch and see what happens.
It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God, but to create him.
--Arthur C. Clarke, author
Post by: Antigen on January 03, 2006, 10:39:00 PM
https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/ ... tx=sibling (https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=13249&ctx=sibling)
And, judging by the ones that are and aren't showing up, it looks to me asif they've been excluding this site. Also looks like they're biding top dollar on the particular keywords. My cost per 1k impressions went from well over $2 on day one down to .08 today. But we're getting a better class of ads, I think.
Based on this, I'd highly recomend anybody w/ a web page about the industry watch this issue closely. If it keeps going the right way, ya'll might consider doing google ads. The industry will kick you off w/ high rates till they notice then they'll have to filter each offensive site out by name. There could be thousands.
When dogma enters the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.
Robert Anton Wilson
Post by: Anonymous on January 04, 2006, 01:27:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on January 04, 2006, 12:46:00 PM
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Gandhi
Post by: Anonymous on January 04, 2006, 04:04:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-04 12:53:00, Eliscu2 wrote:Couldnt have said it better myself :tup:
"I think everybody that does not OWN this sight should mind their own Business!! Come and Lurk and Post, but leave the Webmasters alone!!
You would not expect others to use your business freely and then tell you how to run it!
So, shut up or go away! :idea:Speak gently! 't is a little thing Dropp'd in the heart's deep well; The good, the joy, that it may bring Eternity shall tell."
-- G. W. Langford: Speak gently.
Post by: Antigen on January 04, 2006, 04:05:00 PM
No, speak your mind. I'm fine w/ that. I'm not frail. I may or may not be influence by anything anybody says. But I do consider it all.
You can lead a camel to water but you can't make it stink (any more than it already does)
-- Job
Post by: Anonymous on January 04, 2006, 04:29:00 PM
You said:
?I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me. I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me?
In my opinion there is no chance that they will request to remove ads from the fornits.com address. It just doesn?t make sense. Desperate parents coming here looking for advice on what to do, and then CLICK there on a WWASP site. That?s great marketing for WWASP.
2nd you say ?they'll just have to go on paying me? Whats that all about? We all know they have the money to continue paying you and hundreds of other sites, that?s not the issue. All your saying is YES I will take money from WWASP to send a parent over to their site. The difference is, is that your not just one of those other 100+ sites, your site is an advocate site speaking out against such programs.
Post by: Anonymous on January 04, 2006, 04:47:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-04 13:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Ginger why would they want to exclude this site from their ads? I don?t understand this. It would seem like they would want to have ads on sites like this more than any.
Are you serious? They don't want ANY dissenting information attached to them in any form.
Quote
You said:
?I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me. I think they'll either demand from the ad providers (Google, in this case) a way to filter this site out of their allowed context or they'll just have to go on paying me?
In my opinion there is no chance that they will request to remove ads from the fornits.com address. It just doesn?t make sense. Desperate parents coming here looking for advice on what to do, and then CLICK there on a WWASP site. That?s great marketing for WWASP.
It looks like they already have. I haven't found one today that links to any WWASPS sites.
Quote
2nd you say ?they'll just have to go on paying me? Whats that all about? We all know they have the money to continue paying you and hundreds of other sites, that?s not the issue. All your saying is YES I will take money from WWASP to send a parent over to their site. The difference is, is that your not just one of those other 100+ sites, your site is an advocate site speaking out against such programs.
"
and that's exactly why they've apparently pulled them or filtered them out. Look around, there aren't really any of the ads popping up in the google bar for them at all.
Post by: Antigen on January 04, 2006, 05:22:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-04 13:29:00, Anonymous wrote:
2nd you say ?they'll just have to go on paying me? Whats that all about? We all know they have the money to continue paying you and hundreds of other sites, that?s not the issue. All your saying is YES I will take money from WWASP to send a parent over to their site. The difference is, is that your not just one of those other 100+ sites, your site is an advocate site speaking out against such programs.
You don't understand. I have a drawer full of letters demanding that I sanitize this site of every mention of the offended organization or individual. So far, it does look like WWASP has blocked this site from most of their ad campaigns, but some of the (thousands) of others haven't noticed yet, haven't gotten around to it or maybe are gambling that you're right and I'm wrong. Time will tell on that one.
Actaully, the first day I had the ads out there (and they were predominantly WWASP related ones, unless they were unrelated to the industry in any way) my ad revenues were close to $30/day. Today? $4.14. See, they bid on the ads. They're paying a set price per impression or click; evidently the big payors have opted out right quick.
The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.
--William Osler
Post by: Anonymous on January 04, 2006, 06:07:00 PM
?It looks like they already have. I haven't found one today that links to any WWASPS sites?
WWASP web sites are all over, they own hundreds of web pages. They promote many other web pages, not just wwasp.com.
Here are some web page ads I just found:
TEEN5000.COM
Registrant:
Crosscreek Programs
TROUBLED-TEENAGERS.ORG
Registrant Organization:Teens In Crisis
Post by: Antigen on January 04, 2006, 06:47:00 PM
You know....if the Seed was in Utah, who knows how many "wives" the old bastard would have.
Jupiter Survivor
Post by: Antigen on January 04, 2006, 06:47:00 PM
The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive.
--Thomas Sowell
Post by: chaking on January 04, 2006, 11:34:00 PM
You did bring up a good point about the initial interest losing ground... People do click more at first, but a 30:4 difference is extreme... I think ginger is accurate with her assumption that the high paying advertisers are locking her out...
It should also be known that these places do have a set budget for advertising (as do all business), so grabbing advertising money from them at a site that shows their ills, well I think its alright... It can only slow down advertising at other 'relevant' sites...
Also if a parent found this site in their research of the program they are considering... then I think its a safe bet to say they probably "surfed" the web a bit and will base their decision on much broader spectrum of information than the site they find by clicking on a link from this site...
So, yeah, I think it won't hurt anything... That said, I took down ads on my site just because it didn't feel right... But i have no problem with this... I actually am a bit jealous now lol
Post by: Anonymous on January 05, 2006, 12:11:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on January 05, 2006, 12:56:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-04 21:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Question for you Ginger: If we click on the ads will you get some money. If so I'll get to clicking!"
Well, theoretically, yes. I'll get paid per click, by whatever formula. But it would violate the agreement I made w/ them if I encouraged it, and that would eliminate all of it right quick.
Also, Google is all about AI. People use them because we find what we're looking for there. They manage that by an ever more sophisticated system that 'reasons' well enough to spot spelling errors and offer likely suggestions and, more importantly, to weed out all maner of attempt to play their system. I know they don't count clicks from my IP. I would imagine that, if they got the same IP hitting the same ad over and over, they'd just ban it. They only get paid if the ads get a return.
If you're gonna try and punk somebody w/ data, don't try the AI guys. That would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
When elephants ? ght, it is the grass that suffers.
Kikuyu proverb
Post by: Anonymous on January 09, 2006, 09:14:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on January 20, 2006, 11:30:00 AM
By Mark Motz
"Okay, ONE pic. I don't want to come out of this looking like an idiot!"
WASHINGTON - Mountain View-based Google has recently refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.
The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week ? a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Unknown to millions of unwary browsers, the FBI had already taken "samplings" of Google search queries in 2004, and the results were "somewhat embarrassing" according to FBI specialist Sid Farkas.
"We did this in an attempt to root out terrorists primarily, and what we found was that 95 percent of all Google queries that we sampled included the keywords 'tits', 'ass', 'blow job', 'blowjob', and 'snowballing'. A lesser, tiny minority referred to searches for online pharmacies, American Idol, free term papers, and at least one request for pipe bomb fabrication. With the exception of the pipe bomb, I'd say we allocated about 10,000 agent hours on porn and plagiarism. It was a lugubrious, time consuming effort, not to mention a bit embarrassing, to say the least."
IP analysis of random samples of Google queries by the FBI traced several especially bawdy requests to "the 3rd floor of our downtown Chicago office, and the entire floor of the entire House of Representatives, congressional page dormatories included."
http://www.smthop.com/articles1details.asp?newsnum=752 (http://www.smthop.com/articles1details.asp?newsnum=752)
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill it teaches the whole people by example. Crime is contageous. If the government becomes the lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
U.S. Justice Brandeis (1856-1941)
Post by: Antigen on January 20, 2006, 11:35:00 AM
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... cords.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1700AP_Google_Records.html)
Friday, January 20, 2006 · Last updated 2:47 a.m. PT
Google rebuffs feds on search requests
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP BUSINESS WRITER
Google CEO Larry Page introduces Google Talk Beta, a free global online instant messaging and talk software application Jan. 6, 2006, at the Consumer Electronics Show, CES, in a Las Vegas file photo. Google Inc. rebuffs the Bush administration's request, in a porn probe, for a broad range of information from the search engine leader's massive databases. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)
SAN FRANCISCO -- Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine - a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.
The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week - a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yahoo Inc., which runs the Internet's second-most used search engine behind Google, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.
Although the government says it isn't seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoena still raises serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.
"Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother," said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.
"Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too."
The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.
For instance, it's not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this."
Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren't identified.
Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."
Microsoft Corp. MSN, the No. 3 search engine, declined to say whether it even received a similar subpoena. "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," the company said in a statement.
As the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that "makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.
In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don't do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.
Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, (and) to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday
Google - whose motto when it went public in 2004 was "do no evil" - contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.
"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept," company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government's filing.
Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.
"This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Ramani wrote.
Dixon is hoping Google's battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines.
"When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said.
---
On the Web:
http://www.worldprivacyforum.org (http://www.worldprivacyforum.org)
Electronic Privacy Information Center: http://www.epic.org (http://www.epic.org)
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
--Denis Diderot, French encyclopedist
_________________
Drug war POW Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
Post by: Antigen on January 20, 2006, 11:50:00 AM
FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+the+G ... 29042.html (http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+the+Google+subpoena+mean/2100-1029_3-6029042.html)
Story last modified Fri Jan 20 04:00:00 PST 2006
Preparing to defend a controversial Internet pornography law in court, the Justice Department has demanded search logs from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online.
The department asked the search giants to hand over millions of records involving what search terms people have used on the sites and what Web sites are accessible via the search engines.
On one level, the situation involves a straightforward question of whether the department's demands are too onerous and therefore not permitted under federal law. On another, the dispute raises novel questions about search engines' privacy protections and the relationship that four tech giants have with the federal government.
What does it all mean, and what happens next? Read on.
Q: What is the Justice Department demanding from search engines?
A: Federal prosecutors have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to turn over two types of data: logs showing search terms used by people, and a list of Web sites indexed by the companies' search engines.
Q: Which companies have complied?
The Justice Department isn't talking, at least not yet. Google has opposed the request. Yahoo and AOL have acknowledged complying, saying that they went along with the government's request but did not turn over personally identifiable information. At the time this was written, Microsoft was refusing to say anything, but the ACLU has confirmed that the company did comply.
Q: What information was turned over?
We don't know. The Justice Department initially demanded that the four companies divulge "all URLs that are available to be located through a query on your company's search engine as of July 31, 2005." The subpoena also asked for "all queries that have been entered on your company's search engine between June 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005, inclusive."
But at least when trying to negotiate with Google, the Justice Department eventually narrowed that request to a "random sample of 1 million URLs" and "copies of the text of each search string entered onto Google's search engine over a 1-week period."
Q: So we don't know whether Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL went along with the initial request, or whether they negotiated a better deal?
Exactly. We just don't know, at least not yet, and they're not providing details.
AOL came the closest, saying it turned over a list of "aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly 1-day period." But it refused to elaborate.
Q: Is there any law preventing a company from talking to the press?
Nope. If they chose, they could disclose all the negotiations that took place, release the correspondence they exchanged with prosecutors and so on. It's a little odd that they're being so tight-lipped.
Or they could have done what Google did and fought the Justice Department in court.
Q: I used those search engines in June and July. Should I be worried about my privacy?
It depends. If you typed in search terms that you consider to be private or confidential, you should be concerned. Such terms might include personal information about you, such as your name or street address.
But what's important to note is that the Justice Department has not been asking for any information that would link those search terms to your identity. It hasn't requested Internet Protocol addresses.
So if you typed in search terms indicating that you, say, have a healthy interest in marijuana cultivation, the data turned over won't implicate you.
Q: The subpoena came from the Justice Department's civil division. Will the attorneys there share the data with their colleagues at the department's criminal division or the FBI?
No law would appear to prohibit them from doing so. A protective order does say that only Justice Department attorneys "who have a need" for the information may receive it.
If the disclosed search logs show evidence of criminal activity, that language may be vague enough to let prosecutors return with a second subpoena to demand the identification of one or more Internet addresses linked with those search terms. Terror-related searches are another likely area of information-sharing--President Bush likes to talk about how "law enforcement officers should not be denied vital information their own colleagues already have."
There has, however, been no evidence that the Justice Department has or has not done this to date.
Q: So the Justice Department could end up using it in a prosecution?
Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, says it may be fair game.
"That's one of the biggest questions in evidence law," Wu says. "It's like if you subpoena a book for another reason, and you find a murder note in it. Can you use it as evidence?"
If the records are in the hands of a third party such as a search engine, Wu says, "generally speaking they can use it to find out about other crimes."
Q: What does the Justice Department plan to do with this data, anyway?
A declaration (click here for PDF) by Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California at Berkeley, sheds some light on this.
Stark says he has been "involved in conversations" with attorneys and engineers at the companies targeted by the Justice Department to find "practical approaches to sampling their databases of URLs and user queries."
The point of the exercise, Stark said, is to evaluate "how often Web users" encounter pornographic material online, and "to measure the effectiveness of filters in screening those materials."
Q: Who cares about filtering software's effectiveness, anyway?
The Bush administration, for one. It's trying to defend a 1998 law called the Child Online Protection Act before a Philadelphia judge in a trial expected to begin in October.
In other news:
Feds seek millions of search records
Special report: Culture shock in the desert
Newsmaker: Defender of the GPL
Digital music spins new sales approach
Images: Where in the Google Earth are we?
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the COPA case in June 2004, the majority voted to send it back down to the lower court for a full trial. That would, the majority said, "allow the parties to update and supplement the factual record to reflect current technological realities."
That's what the Justice Department aims to do--by arguing in court that filtering software is not a realistic alternative to a federal criminal law because the concept of filtering is flawed and unworkable in practice.
Q: Are my search terms private?
If they're unlinked from your identity, and just part of a list of anonymous searches scrolling across a screen, the privacy concerns are minimized.
Google even displays a list of live search terms on a screen that visitors can view in its Silicon Valley headquarters. That's probably one reason why the company's lawyers have been careful not to raise privacy arguments.
Instead, in a letter dated Oct. 10, 2005, Google lawyer Ashok Ramani objected to the Justice Department's request on the grounds that it could disclose trade secrets and was "overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and intended to harass."
Q: Then why are privacy groups complaining? Your article includes I-am-outraged statements from the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
There are probably a few reasons. First, they'd say, private companies should not serve as convenient information repositories for trial attorneys hoping to win court cases. Second, it's not clear where this information will end up, and how far the protective order stretches.
Third, they simply believe that search engine companies are collecting too much information about their users. Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft set cookies, collect personal information, and retain permanent logs that could be used to create a kind of dossier about a person's search habits.
Deleting cookies is one option. So is preventing your browser from accepting them in the first place. The Firefox browser, for instance, lets you block certain sites so they'll never set cookies.
Q: What will happen next?
The ball's in Google's court. The company will have to respond to the Justice Department's request, and then a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., will rule on the matter. Appeals are also a possibility.
Q: Will there be any political fallout?
Well, the U.S. Congress is controlled by Republicans, and the Bush administration made the request, so the political math is pretty simple. It would probably take more evidence of privacy invasion or wrongdoing for congressional Republicans to do anything substantial.
But the Democrats may. Sen. Daniel Inouye, a Democrat from Hawaii, on Thursday asked the Justice Department about this topic during a Senate hearing.
"On the Google case, what is your reaction to Google's position that (the Justice Department's request) is an invasion of their privacy?" Inouye asked. The Justice Department representative, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Laura Parsky, declined to comment.
Q: This law that the Justice Department is defending talks about "child protection." Is that related to child pornography?
No. Child pornography is already illegal, and the ACLU is not challenging that law in this case. Some of the initial news reports were wrong.
The Child Online Protection Act makes it a crime for a commercial Web site to post material that some jurors might find "harmful" if a minor stumbled across it.
That vague requirement has alarmed mainstream Web publishers and civil liberties groups, which have supported the ACLU's lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the COPA case include the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Salon.com, ObGyn.net, Philadelphia Gay News and the Internet Content Coalition. Founding members of the now-defunct Internet Content Coalition included CNET Networks (publisher of News.com), Adobe, Reuters New Media, Sony Online and the New York Times.
Q: What material might be viewed as "harmful to minors?"
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals looked into this when ruling the law was unconstitutional based on preliminary evidence (a full trial is scheduled for this fall).
The judges said that even portions of a "collection of Renaissance artwork" could be viewed as harmful to minors if a prosecutor was sufficiently zealous.
"Thus, in our opinion, the act, which proscribes publication of material harmful to minors, is not narrowly tailored to serve the government's stated purpose in protecting minors from such material," the judges said. (Click here for PDF).
Q: How long does Google have to respond to the government's motion in federal court?
In general, the defendant would have two weeks to reply and then the government would have one week for its response. This is an unusual case, however, because no hearing has been set. So the deadlines may be extended.
Q: Are my search results normally disclosed?
Yes, though generally in the context of "most popular search terms" totals. SearchEngineWatch.com has a long list of examples. Dogpile actually lets you review live search terms of the type that the Justice Department also wants to see.
Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis.
--Sigmund Freud, Austrian-born psychologist