The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.Hey, Bush. I love ya, but DAMN. Why don't you hire 1000 Ashcrofts to sit at their computers for a week and, you know, Google. It would be cheaper. And, maybe I'm dumb, but when an adult hunts for you-know-what, what does it mean if he actually finds some?
...
In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
...
government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is ``harmful to minors.''
The QUANTITY of stuff available has no relationship to accessibility. This is just plain DUMB.
And do you have any idea what you've done to the artist community? (like anyone here cares) The sites I frequent have gone overboard in their fear of Ashkroft's Amerika (no matter he isn't AG anymore). There's a Gorelick wall mentality in place now. Credit Card companies have gone bonkers as well and have made extremely strict rules about what sites they associate with.
Most of the rules are fine. But in their zeal they even forbid unclothed infants. I mean, not just diapers are required, but t-shirts as well.
This has gotten out of control.
25 comments:
I've been wondering when the right side of the Pubs would get around to net porn. There's really no solution to the freedom vs child-welfare problem. About all ya can do is make certain the kids know that it's a byproduct of liberty, and not a thing that's endorsed by society.
But it (porn in general) is endorsed by society. So I don't think kids will be fooled.
It's definitely endorsed by the segments that control the marketplace. This of course is one of the beefs-of-record of our enemy in the GWoT.
It's definitely endorsed by the segments that control the marketplace.
Okay. If that's true, then why have I never ever in my life seen a piece of porn? Ever?
I've seen renders of nekkid women (fewer these days for sure) but they're in fantasy settings and all make believe.
So if the 'segments that control the marketplace' REALLY endorse porn, then they're doing a pretty lousy job of it.
And, btw, the renders of nekkid women I've seen aren't doing anything beyond holding a sword in a temple, or fluttering around flowers with wings.
I heard about this and thought there has to be more to it.
You know I actually thought about posting a picture of my brother and I taking a bath when we were little kids. One of those, guess which one I am kind of pics and then I thought someone might not like this. A strange feeling because the picture itself is so innocent.
I guess it's a matter of definition, Syl. Loosely used, a lot of advertising and a lot of violent video games aim at the base instincts.
For example, the kids at the local high school are passing around a movie called "The Devil's Rejects". It's all Goth--glorifying slasher-murder, meth, and hard sex. No, I didn't watch it--I googled it. Some guy named Rob Zombie, 40-something, makes these movies for 15 yr olds. The kids don't think twice about it--it's 'just a movie'.
I personally feel like this stuff should be as it was in the 50s--nowhere to be found.
I'd move to one of the Outer Planets, to keep my kids away from this stuff, and away from the kids who watch it, if it was possible.
But, that ain't gonna happen. It's everywhere, uncontrollable, and we're all just gonna stand by and hope all this turns out not too badly.
terrye
I know what you mean. That's the thing with the little baby 3d model I have. So many sweet innocent pictures I had in mind but sheesh.
buddy
We're talking about different things. I hate the slasher stuff and really think it's dangerous.
Who was it that said when it came to porn he would know it when he saw it?
Okay. If that's true, then why have I never ever in my life seen a piece of porn? Ever?
It depends on your defintion of porn I guess, but it may also be a question of, how can I put this delicately, age. Or at least the circles you move in.
Modern pop culture is very pornified. The "Girls Gone Wild" videos are an example. Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson have starred in their own porn videos. A lot of rap and hip-hop culture is unbelievably crude; not just the lyrics, but the music videos and the behavior of the people who go to the nightclubs. Having a girlfriend in the porn business is considered very cool for todays male music stars. And it seems to be a requirment for a woman in the pop music world to be good looking and be willing to pose in a mens magazine. Really, porn is hard to miss.
There are some interesting books which have come out recently on the porn topic. I'll hunt up some links later.
Call me an old fool, but the older I get, the more I see why those particular books were chosen for inclusion in the bible. The story of Soddom and Gommorah is there because the lesson had already been learned, several thousand years ago, about hedonism's relationship to the life arc of a gathering of people as an entity. Used to think it was just a taboo related to keeping folks working on the crops. Later, I realized what exactly 'working on the crops' meant about trying to help build a better future.
I think the older we get the more easily offended we are. Hell if I know why.
But I could just smack that Paris Hilton. That girl pisses me off.
terrye - the legal definition has developed some since Justice Stewart's famous turn of phrase. see here, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
syl - notice the art exception.
Knucklehead
We could film it and put it on the web. I smell a moneymaker!
Time and Newsweek would fly to your rescue--right?
flenser
And it seems to be a requirment for a woman in the pop music world to be good looking and be willing to pose in a mens magazine. Really, porn is hard to miss.
So nudity fits your definition of porn?
knuck
They are telling Google, as far as I understand this, to cough up a million records from one week, any week, so that we can show that kiddies are hammering at porn sites and the porn sites are doing anything to keep them out.
But that's not what the records will give them, Knuck. If you read my posting, that's basically my point. How would these records show WHO is searching? The only information the govt can glean is what percentage of searches on the 'net are for porn. Then they'd have to examine the sites coughed up and make a judgement as to which are porn. Say 12,456 links pop up in the results . Are they going to claim that someone was thus exposed to 12,456 porn sites?
julian biggs
notice the art exception
Tell that to VISA. Then you have the problem of who decides what is art.
The thing that annoys me here isn't really that the government is asking for the data; It's that Google doesn't want to give it up, while at the same time, I am willing to bet cash money they (Google) have done similar analysis and sold it to porn purveyors.
Yahoo seems to have already complied, from something I read this morning.
Syl: you *really* have never seen any pornography, ever?
eric
No. Now I feel left out. I've seen plenty of nudes, but they aren't doing anything. Sexual explicit stuff has never been allowed at the sites I visit and post to. There _are_ sites specifically for that using the same software I do. But I never joined up.
No photos...this is all 3D. So there isn't even the possibility of a human being harmed by having a photo taken.
(Though some humans do pose, nude, for photographers who use the photos for making skin textures for the 3D models.)
My first version of Poser had a little bug in the export routine. The male model was anatomically correct and you could toggle the 'parts' on and off. Well, I made myself a character and dressed him then exported the object for use in Bryce.
Imported into Bryce and his, um, parts were sticking out of his jeans. LOL
It's like me and guns. I don't like 'em (Joe has one though) but I'll defend your right to have one.
I used to teach Poser. It has a lot of quirks and a beginner can easily get frustrated. (I've since switched to DAZ Studio which is much friendlier.)
So to break the ice the first thing I showed them was how to load a figure then load and conform (fit) a skirt. Then be sure the skirt is selected and hit CTRL-D.
That's the Drop to Floor command, and the skirt would drop to the floor. (just showing the importance of selecting the item you want to work with.) And it always made everyone giggle.
Then one of their first asignmnets was to report the weirdest thing that Poser did. And the reports were usually hilarious. It got the students relaxed and able to laugh instead of getting frustrated when weird stuff happened.
All the human figures load bare nekkid. It's an art program and the original purpose was to use these instead of arranging a studio and hiring models to draw. Load a figure, pose it, and use it as your model.
The program has expanded considerably since the first version over a decade ago. Not it's got clothes even! :)
BTW, 'Drop to Floor' is for the times when one applies a preset pose to a figure, and it's feet end up off the ground. Stuff like that. It wasn't written to drop clothes off the figure specifically. LOL The clothes came a couple versions after the command.
"Google": "Go Ogle"?
Tha's ok, Cotton Mather--i'm sure Mae West can decipher ya.
\;-D
Syl, I can hook you up. Just let me know.
syl
As I said;
It depends on your defintion of porn I guess
What is yours? The answer may explain why you claim never to have seen any.
Post a Comment