Interestingly, Cambria's testimony seemed to be as much centered on "rating systems" as anything else. I think that a modified COPA that would require (a) the adult industry to use a meta tag or similar that states "adult content" (not IRCA or whatever, as it is insanely burdonsome to register each individual HTML pages and to put these individual codes into pages) and that (b) the browser manufactures might be legally obliged to filter based on that tag.

The real question I guess comes down to the unlock mechanism. Some have suggested that individual ISPs might be responsible to "allow" adult content on a per user basis, but that would seem to be both extreme and likely to be found to unduly restrict free speech (indivudal ISPs could make it almost impossible to access adult material, or for religeous or personal reasons decline to allow access to any adult material). It would also make it a free for all for all states, which could possibly enforce community standards in the types of sites permitted or not, which would effectively block all porn.

A simple meta tag "rating" with value = "ADULT" or value = "XXX" or 14+, 18+ NA/AO or whatever there system is (matching to Vchip, example) would certainly go a long way towards making our industry look smart.

Alex

if you can watch more than a half hour of Cspan I take my hat off to you...

Hey, I used to keep C-Span on 24/7 until the Clinton hearings. Every other "news" channel is entertainment-based BS dumbed down for the masses :D

Are there any news channels left in the US? I thought they were all political activist shows.

With al due respect to your opinion I wouldn't care more or less if it was 20 - 40 years with the same families as long as the right family is doing the right thing for our country. There is a big difference between when the clintons ran this country and when the bush family ran it. If we get Hillary Clinton as our president it means we also get Bill as our unofficial Vice President. As far as I am concerned when Bill was president Hillary was the unofficial Vice President so all that means is we would just be getting the band back together for one last tour.

Plus I would rather have the clintons fix what bush has done to our country before we give the country to someone else as it is. Among other things who else is better to deal with the terrorist problems than someone who already knows the players and peaces in the game.

This is just my opinion tho and I hope whichever way the leadership of this country goes they will have a better plan than this one did or should I say didn't.

Either way I wish us all the best.

Actually MSN has released a statement and won't say one way or another whether they did or didn't (my bet is that they did) and Yahoo said they gave the info requested less IP #'s or any other identfying info.

Since I'm on a "censorship post" kick today:

Bush couldn't have picked a better opponent to go up against. Google is going to get a kick ass PR benefit out of the fight and has the deepest pockets to fight it successfully and I'm betting will win. Not only is the request outrageous on its face but its also proprietary information and will never be pried loose since they are not a party to the originating challenge to the law that is being fought. I've said it before: How the American people are not rioting in the streets over the outrageous attacks on privacy by the Bush admin. is completely beyond me.
I look around and wonder "what are you people thinking about?" Nobody seems to even remember that we're in a second war in Afghanistan, oh yeah that's right I mean a third war on drugs, oh yeah also a fourth war on terrorism worldwide, oh yeah and gearing up on Iran and half of South America too... ooops forgot about Sryia

For everybody that wants to know:

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Jack Perkins

Can you see a trend?
Can you say globalzation and corporate servitude?

Google stands up to US government porn probe
 

Nice new moves of the bush administration.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/softwar...9234228,00.htm

I find this part very disturbing:

"The Bush administration's request is tied to its defence of the Child Online Protection Act, which restricts the posting of sexually explicit material deemed "harmful to minors" on commercial Web sites, unless it's unavailable to minors"

In the matter of privacy consern google is also part of the problem.

"Google has a massive database that reaches into the most intimate details of your life," he said. "What you are searching for, what you are reading, what you are worried about, what you enjoy. People should be able to use modern tools like search engines without the fear of Big Brother looking over their shoulder."

What is your opinion?

My opinion is we already have a thread about this lol

ooooppss, didn't know it was that old

I totally agree... shes pretty smart and seems to be a good leader. also, I hear she is one of the better senators in terms of working with members of the other (republican) party.

but a lot of people cant stand her, esp republican men

http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebu...124google.html


Internet
Why Google Won't Give In
Chris Kraeuter and Rachel Rosmarin, 01.24.06, 6:00 AM ET


BURLINGAME, CALIF. - Microsoft has a message for consumers who use its search engine: Don't worry, your stuff is safe.

Any information the computer giant hands over as a result of a U.S. Department of Justice subpoena will contain "absolutely no personal data," according to a statement posted on a company blog over the weekend by Ken Moss, general manager of MSN Web Search. "Privacy of our customers is non-negotiable and something worth fighting to protect. We tried to strike the right balance in a very sensitive matter."

Microsoft's (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) assurances follow those from Time Warner's (nyse: TWX - news - people ) America Online and Yahoo! (nasdaq: YHOO - news - people ), which said much the same thing last week. So why is Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ) the lone holdout?

Perhaps the company really is worried about protecting your privacy. Much more likely: It is worried about protecting itself.

The federal government's requests--which amount to a list of 1 million random Web addresses and a week's worth of search queries--is supposed to help the government build a case that Internet porn is readily accessible to minors, thus creating a need for its once-denied Child Online Protection Act (COPA).

Google's claim that the subpoenas could reveal trade secrets is up for debate. Aitan Goelman, partner with the Washington, D.C.-based law firm of Zuckerman Spaeder, says he doubts the data the government is looking for would reveal how Google executes its searches. But he adds that a clever competitor could sift through the reports and might "be able to get from Point A to Point B and have insight into Google's methodologies."

It's more likely that Google is worried about the results of its search queries and not the technology that powers them. The compromise the Department of Justice has worked out with Google's rivals calls for the search engines to let the government see how often certain search terms were used, but won't let it look up specific Internet Protocol addresses to what individuals looked for.

That alone could prove embarrassing enough for Google. A public disclosure of exactly how much pornography is on the Internet and how often people look for it--the two data points that will result from fulfilling the government's subpoena--could serve to make the Internet look bad. And Google, as its leading search engine, could look the worst.

None of the search engines make a full disclosure of how much porn users are looking at. When America Online lists its most popular searches, for instance, porn references are scrubbed out. But Nielsen/NetRatings says that porn sites attracted 38 million unique viewers in December--or a quarter of all Internet surfers.

Google and its competitors all benefit from porn sites, which help generate search queries and page views. But Google is the only portal company that makes nearly all of its revenue from click-through advertising. Restricting porn and porn advertising--the likely aim of COPA's sponsors--could hurt Google disproportionately.

And filtering in general would also hurt Google more than its competitors. The Google brand is built on the notion that the engine gives users the clearest picture of the Web, without playing favorites. Restricting content in any way could hurt Google's carefully burnished image, its 60% market share for search queries and its share price.

Want to track news by this author or about this industry? Forbes Attache makes it easy. Click here.

Thats a damn good article.

I think there is alot of truth there

i'm hearing lots of persecution of porn in US lately , does you government forgets that they are trying to establish democracy and freedom world wide ?

these days i'm just happy not to be US citizen :)

Actually, I'm kinda thinking ust the opposite on that. Revealing just how much and widespread porn search is, the politicians will see a message and get the idea to move off and focus on something of a little importance.

I'm not even going to touch that!|badidea|

I have an interesting question on these searches. Are they for Americans only?

I know from my traffic stats that some niches are like 75% European, and other niches are mainly Asian. Are they trying to get "private" information on non-US surfers?

I think American conservatives need to realize it's ok to be conservative but you can't force other people to have your beliefs