U.S. Demands Files From ISPs, Tech Firms - GoFuckYourself.com

directfiesta · 03-30-2006, 07:58 PM

By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 35 minutes ago

PHILADELPHIA - The Justice Department is demanding internal files from dozens of Internet service providers and other technology firms as it seeks to defend a controversial Internet child protection law.

The subpoenas are similar to one given to Google Inc., which waged a partially successful battle over the government's request for millions of pieces of information about search engine requests and Web site domains.

InformationWeek magazine unearthed subpoenas that show the government also demanded information from at least 34 other companies, including Internet service providers such as Comcast Corp. and EarthLink Inc., security software firms and other technology companies.

The subpoenas, which the magazine obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, show the Justice Department preparing for an October trial in Philadelphia over the 1996 Child Online Protection Act. It is not clear which companies are complying, and to what extent.

"That money could be spent so much more wisely on giving software away to parents that are having these problems," Dan Jude, president of Security Software Systems, said of the litigation costs.

The 12-person firm, which makes filtering software, spent more than 40 hours trying to comply with the subpoena, he said. The company refused to provide some information on proprietary grounds, fearing it could make its way into the court file.

"If that information gets out in the public, we've just lost our competitive edge," Jude said Thursday. The subpoena also sought information the company does not keep, such as customer satisfaction, he said.

Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller did not immediately return a message Thursday afternoon.

The subpoenas also went to companies including AT&T Inc., Cox Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Symantec Corp.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice said the law ? which would criminalize Internet material deemed "harmful to children" as defined by "contemporary community standards" ? is likely to violate First Amendment protections and granted preliminary injunctions.

Critics say that definition is so broad it would stifle free speech, and also note that pornographers and others could simply base their operations offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. authorities.

Online publishers who are challenging the law argue that filters are a less restrictive way to protect children. The publishers, which include sexual health sites, a gay newspaper and the online magazine Salon.com, are represented by the
American Civil Liberties Union.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/internet_...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

chupacabra · 03-30-2006, 08:31 PM

bump, typical that an important topic drift downward amidst the various 'would you hit it' threads and other ilk..

Webby · 03-30-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chupacabra

bump, typical that an important topic drift downward amidst the various 'would you hit it' threads and other ilk..

Agree chupacabra!

It's also a pity that people actually get paid to come up with such utter crap instead of actually enforcing the laws which have already been passed.

Obviously they have too much time on their hands and a credit card to burn out.

Peaches · 03-30-2006, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

"That money could be spent so much more wisely on giving software away to parents that are having these problems," Dan Jude, president of Security Software Systems, said of the litigation costs.

StickyGreen · 03-30-2006, 08:39 PM

damn man they're always trippin...

Webby · 03-30-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

But hey!! That would be overwhelmingly logical and make too much sense!

Scootermuze · 03-30-2006, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

The subpoenas are similar to one given to Google Inc., .........

and probably similar to the ones given to the Bush administration where they refused to turn over documents...

Hopefully they'll get decent lawyers that not only fight it, but know HOW to fight it..

Bansheelinks · 03-30-2006, 09:06 PM

fuck them all. refuse.

03-30-2006, 07:58 PM	#1
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Punta Cana, DR Posts: 29,591	U.S. Demands Files From ISPs, Tech Firms By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 35 minutes ago PHILADELPHIA - The Justice Department is demanding internal files from dozens of Internet service providers and other technology firms as it seeks to defend a controversial Internet child protection law. The subpoenas are similar to one given to Google Inc., which waged a partially successful battle over the government's request for millions of pieces of information about search engine requests and Web site domains. InformationWeek magazine unearthed subpoenas that show the government also demanded information from at least 34 other companies, including Internet service providers such as Comcast Corp. and EarthLink Inc., security software firms and other technology companies. The subpoenas, which the magazine obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, show the Justice Department preparing for an October trial in Philadelphia over the 1996 Child Online Protection Act. It is not clear which companies are complying, and to what extent. "That money could be spent so much more wisely on giving software away to parents that are having these problems," Dan Jude, president of Security Software Systems, said of the litigation costs. The 12-person firm, which makes filtering software, spent more than 40 hours trying to comply with the subpoena, he said. The company refused to provide some information on proprietary grounds, fearing it could make its way into the court file. "If that information gets out in the public, we've just lost our competitive edge," Jude said Thursday. The subpoena also sought information the company does not keep, such as customer satisfaction, he said. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller did not immediately return a message Thursday afternoon. The subpoenas also went to companies including AT&T Inc., Cox Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Symantec Corp. The U.S. Supreme Court has twice said the law ? which would criminalize Internet material deemed "harmful to children" as defined by "contemporary community standards" ? is likely to violate First Amendment protections and granted preliminary injunctions. Critics say that definition is so broad it would stifle free speech, and also note that pornographers and others could simply base their operations offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. authorities. Online publishers who are challenging the law argue that filters are a less restrictive way to protect children. The publishers, which include sexual health sites, a gay newspaper and the online magazine Salon.com, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/internet_...kxBHNlYwN0bQ-- __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

03-30-2006, 08:31 PM	#2
chupacabra Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 3,626	bump, typical that an important topic drift downward amidst the various 'would you hit it' threads and other ilk.. __________________ ...promise her a defamation, tell her where the rain will fall..

03-30-2006, 08:39 PM	#5
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	damn man they're always trippin... __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

03-30-2006, 09:06 PM	#8
Bansheelinks Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,023	fuck them all. refuse.