If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about


[align=left]American Chronicle / Scott Bannon | January 21 2006
[/align]
[align=left]So, why are they looking then?
[/align]
If you haven't heard, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has asked a federal judge to order search engine giant, Google Inc., to hand over millions of search results and other possibly individual-user identifying records so that the government can use the information for research as it braces to restore proposed Online Child Protection laws previously ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Several other search engines, reportedly including Yahoo, MSN and AOL have already complied with the government's requests for records.

Several points and questions come to mind for me, and I hope for you as well.

First, the timing. Personally, I think the timing makes this appear as a smoke and mirrors effort to focus-shift attentions in an election year. The administration's coat-tails aren't what they used to be and support for war has wavered recently. Add in that trust in our leadership has suffered some serious blows by out-of-control spending, accusations of federal privacy invasions and indictments of corruption, it's easy to see why members of both major parties who's terms are up this year may be seeking ways to rebuild support.

For some conservatives who may feel their job security is in question and aren't comfortable with simply relying on turning another election into a national debate of same-sex marriages, it seems they have found a new angle to solidify the conservative base with--"protect the children because our opponents are protecting the evil pornographers and pedophiles".

If that last statement sounds harsh, think about it logically. Given that this request for private information--made with no specific criminal activities declared, the normal requirement behind such a request--has been wrapped around the notion of fighting children's access to pornography it's easy to see how anyone who opposes the government's move to collect private and business records which is unprecedented, perhaps even unconstitutional, will be labeled "friendly to" and a "protector of" pornographers and pedophiles. That's right, demand that the government act within the constitution and you're not a good American, you're a 'champion of kiddie-porn'!

Second, the underlying proposed 'protection laws' were not only ruled unconstitutional already, it was shown that software solutions which are freely available to every parent and child guardian are much more effective at preventing children from accessing adult materials than placing publishing restrictions on the adult entertainment industry could ever be. And that's the core issue behind this whole fiasco, to prevent children from accessing adult materials. It has nothing to do with the prevention of child-abusing-pornography.

The argument here becomes, parents and other child guardians aren't always wise or skilled enough to know what parental controls are available to them on the family PC, so limited in protecting their own children.

So-what? I mean that sincerely. What ever happened to 'ignorance is no excuse'? Try using the "I didn't understand the forms" defense in an IRS audit, see how far it gets you there. So, why should it be an excuse here for the government to forcibly demand access to private individual and business data which it allegedly intends to use in making a stronger case for getting the ability to forcibly demand more control over legitimate business actions in the future? The whole notion reeks of an Orwellian brew.

Here's a thought regarding the core issue of creating laws to protect children from accessing adult materials online--watch your own kids folks!

I don't have children, but even if I did I wouldn't want the federal government wasting time babysitting them for me. They usually have more important issues at hand and don't need to be concerned with what my little Timmy sees or doesn't on the family PC monitor. If I, as the parent, care what Timmy's viewing I'll spend a little quality, family time surfing the web with him. But if, like most American parents, I'm just glad he's being quite while locked away in his room doing and viewing only God knows what, that's my decision.

Third, hypocrisy rides again. The current administration has refused congressional requests and demands to information and records on appointment nominees such as John Roberts and Samuel Alito. They've also stone-walled access to information regarding lobbyist Abramoff's activities, Vice-President Cheney's energy meetings, the status and identity outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Iraq prison tortures (including still-image and video evidence). They're also still hiding the actual content of the Constitution that they claim gives President Bush authority to order unwarranted wire-tapping on lawful Americans.

Fourth, the case has yet to be clearly made how this information could actually aid in pushing any meaningful legislation through. Coupled with the NSA wire taps scandal and President Bush's known paranoia--after all, he does keep a "Political Enemies" list that includes over 10,000 dossiers of American citizens--and I doubt any rational thinking individual can conclude that the government should get this requested data.

I'm also saddened to believe that other major companies have already complied with the requests. Those decisions will certainly influence where and how I search the web from now on.

You have to wonder, no, you have to now acknowledge that Big Brother is watching everything you do, even from the privacy of your home.
pisshead Reviewed by pisshead on . If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about American Chronicle / Scott Bannon | January 21 2006 So, why are they looking then? If you haven't heard, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has asked a federal judge to order search engine giant, Google Inc., to hand over millions of search results and other possibly individual-user identifying records so that the government can use the information for research as it braces to restore proposed Online Child Rating: 5