The court documents in the case are here (scroll down): http://news.com.com/Feds+take+porn+fight+to+Google/2100-1030_3-6028701.html I wrote a FAQ that's up here: http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-6029042.html Danny Sullivan has two good posts here: http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-060352 http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060120-105609 Though I think he's a bit dismissive of the privacy interests of search engine users, which are explored in two editorials on Friday: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/20/EDGEPGPHA61.DTL http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/OPINION01/601200328/1068/OPINION Perhaps visits to a search engine can be thought of as somewhat akin to thumbing through a dictionary, or an encyclopedia, or a phone book. You'd want privacy in those cases, especially when doing financial or medical research. But because the Supreme Court has said you don't have privacy when your records are held by others, the virtual equivalent of thumbing-through information is available to curious prosecutors or divorce attorneys. Thanks a lot, Supremes: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/do_no_evil_and_1.html -Declan _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Mon Jan 23 2006 - 12:17:44 PST