Easiest way to get anyone in troubles. ^_^ Kiddies!

what is a google

A search engine.

A googol is a 1 with a whole lot of 0's after it.

A googel is a bad spelling of google, and will get you infested with adware and viruses.

A gor-gor is a bad song by GWAR.

Have you had enough? I could go on for days. Really. I've had *that* much caffeine. You'd get a buzz just walking by me. I'm like that with people. I could walk into a room of sleeping folks, and we'd be partying in 10 minutes. For hours. Days, even. Unless there was beer. Beer makes me tired. They should put caffeine in beer. Like Buzz Beer, from that one show with the clown-chick. I hate clowns. The scare me. I think it's because I saw IT when I was a kid. I lvoe Stephen King books. Just not the movies. They tend to stink. Caffeine makes you stink. That may be why people geta buzz when I walk by. It's like a smelling salt. They use that to wake up people who are unconscious. Perhaps I should be an EMT. Then I wouldn't need smelling salts. Could save the hospital billions. Okay, maybe just a few buks. I exagerate sometimes. Like may Dad used to say, "if I've told you once, I've told you...

...Oh Look! A butterfly.....

too much of it is bad

Heretic!!

Blasphemer!!!

How dare you speak ill of the Mighty Bean.

You, sir...will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Yeah.... just another frivilous lawsuit from a no-name politician trying to get his 30 seconds of fame.

Welcome to America....

FOR CHINA IT IS OK.
FOR AMERICA IT IS A NO NO.
GOOGLE IS EVIL, AND THEY SUCK.

if they can filter whatever china wants them to filter, then there is no reason to complain about not being able to filter child pron in their search results.

technologies like bittorrent and search engines are known to promote them self by providing pron.

Google should act responsibly and they should stop whining,
and what happened to DO NO EVIL. ?

AS FAR AS OTHER ENGINES ARE CONCERNED, THEY WILL ALSO HAVE TO FACE THE SOCIETY.

I didn't know Google was the only search engine on the internet. But I guess they are, since they're the only ones being sued.

It is not Google's responsibility to hunt down and stop child pornagraphy. I am sure that Google does everything in their power to ensure that CHILD PORN does not advertise on their site(s). And that searches for such return no hits. Maybe GOOGLE logs (or should) such search requests to forward to approprate authorites. Many legitemate sites advertise as TEEN pornography. The polititian is trying to profit from CRYING WOLF when the WOLF needs to be hunted down and stopped via different means.

maybe we should use our time to go after the countries that legalize using minors in porn and make them change instead of going after a search engine. its not thier fault, they dont selectivly add stuff, their web spider just finds everything it can. and as for paid advertising of child porn, i have yet to see any advertisement of that type.

no, your right, they don't have to. However, from the standpoint of a theoretical mega-megamoral corporation, you still feel the obligation to. Google feels insulted by this, either insulted or shamed (if this was a case) and we should not shun a corporation capable of feeling insult or shame. Lets see how this pans out before we cry foul on on the corporate entity, or the political power player.

Refrain from absolutes like "is". They imply you know what is going to happen. You are making a prediction that google is not at fault. Say it as such and move on. Don't pretend "this" or "that" will happen, Make your predictions and give the reasons behind your opinions.

Besides, wouldn't you feel s***ty if you found out that this politician was not calling wolf? Crying wolf is exactly what You are doing. Given no particular personal knowledge of either of your characters, I my self have no real reason to believe on wolf calling over the others.

One word about the lawsuit. SILLY.

I agree. see above.

Just a politician wanting to increase his profiule IMO

A corporation must show responsibilty for it's action.If giving names to the Chinese authorities is compatable with Google's sop then it should follow suit on the serious problem posed to our youngest and most vulnerable.

Well said. I agree. :)

Wow, Google says they ensure access is made difficult? I guess difficult equals more hits for their ads down the side :)

This is dumb Google is a search engine they don't support child porn!

I would sued the Government this is just a scam to get data of users that Google would not fork over. Since when should the private section do the Government job?

They get paid big bucks for nothing. US will bomb Iraqi but don't care to protect use from Mexico. What happen to Irqi oil was suppose to pay for the war?

And why do you think that Google didn't want to show the feds their data on searches? Because they are profiting from them and make it easy for children to access porn.

Google is not more different than the spyware and adware we try to remove from our computers. They are not different then the feds that want to spy on us and track our movements. The only difference is that Google is getting rich over their use of the data and people are so blind in giving it to them.

back it up buddy. This suit will answer whether or not google is profiting from child porn. Where do you get off calling them guilty already? Show me your proof.

You are an idiot. Read my comment again. Just because 'child' and 'porn' are in the same sentence doesn't make the sentence about child porn.

The comment was in relation to Google and their search results. The fact of the matter is that they are driven by ads and their revenue is from ads. They do make it easier for anyone to access porn than before. If you don't believe me, then do a search on their website and "shut up".

edit:
and they don't ask for your age before giving you the listed sites they have in store for you.

The search results aren't driven by ads, they are driven by indexed content relevant to the terms used in the search as are the ads displayed. How does this make it easier to access porn than before?

If the feds want to stop access to child porn then why don't they go after child porn? We pay billions for a state department and literally hundreds of different federal law enforcement agencies and the best they seem to do is run around catching these local bumpkins that have some kiddie pics on their computers. Why is it the feds cant take off their $400.00 suits, roll up their sleeves, get off their soft executive chairs and actually go after the web sites and web owners that provide this crap? Have we totally lost our ability to work with authorities overseas? If the feds can't do anything about it how the heck do they expect Google, MSN or anyone else to do the job for them? They seem to have no problem tracking down pirates. Sounds like good old fashioned cop work is below them or something.

I'm sure that the feds have put some thought into this already. Since our tax dollars are now used to litigate google, doesn't this mean that our money is actually being put to need? This is either a good thing, or wastefulness.

Finally, the ultimate frivolous lawsuit!

Uh-oh.....little boy didn't get his campaign contribution? What a jackass!

How did this politican find the site to begin with? surfing for porn on the tax payers dollar?

I think this New York politician needs to sue the oil companies instead and let Google take care of its child porn issues.

rijp wrote... (LOL. Dude you have no idea.)..Why are you wasting your time on these people. Most of them think that shooting the messager will solve all there problems.

Politicans love to be in the news.

I can't even imagine how insanely difficult it would be to filter everything that goes through your system. Especially if you have automated filters that block 99.9 percent of it. No filter is perfect. Now if someone else found some kind of child porn on google's systems. I don't know how it could have been prevented. I am sure though we don't know the whole story. I don't think google would intentionally let something like this through it really wouldn't make sense. I also find it hard to believe that the other search companies don't have this problem as well. No one cares though because they are a much smaller player in the search world.

the point that the politician is trying to make, in a round about sense, is that "if you are going to operate this niche, you have to be able to keep up our laws or get out."

google is the best server in the internet, they cannot be held responsible for perverts who find the way into the ever,worsening of child porn. it is the fault of the leaders of this electronic revolution.if control is the answer, why is there no control.?

time for a new leader. I CHOOSE GOOGLE.

I HAVE JUST KILLED MY WIFE AND CHILDREN, MY NEXT KILL IS THE FIRST PERSON IN MY SIGHTS,OH N0, THE PROGRAM HAS TERMINATED.WHERE SHALL I GO ON THE INTERNET NOW?.NOT TO GOOGLE,THEY OFFER NOTHING BAD. MABEY TRY THE 0THERS, NO , I CANNOT, GOOGLE IS MY HOMEPAGE.

DEAD RIGHT M.SW.YOU SHOULD TASTE THE WEB IN SPAIN. DONT THINK ITS DIFFEREENT?. POP UPS ARE ALL ABOUT SEX.

I hate to state the obvious - you must surf a lot of porn to get only porn popups. It also should indicate to you that you have not cleaned out your cache in sometime and there may be a few ad programs on your computer.

A thorough cleaning of your computer will take care of this problem. Popups are program and site specific. If I am on Best Buy's website, I can guarantee you there are not porn ads being served to me by them or any other company that advertises on their site.

Sounds like a politician on the payroll of M$ and Intel. Time to get rid of the hillbilly's and redneck's in the legislature. Replace them with Google personnel and Asians :P

Your comment includes absolutely 0 intelligence. Go back where you came from.

I see TV commercials every day that outright lie and rip people off and that is apparently perfectly legal. Why doesn't anyone target them?

Everything that goes around, comes around..

You point has merit, my point also supports what you just said.

So lets analyze that.. why is Google a target? Ask yourself why?

I have my reasons... even some proof.. but other people think I am just anti-google, and I am not.

I liked google from the start...until.. Well let's just say, it was a 250 watt flourescent bulb mere milimeters from my vision.. and it wasn't drug related! Well maybe prescriptions, but no haluc.. haulicen. halluci.. stuff that makes you see things that aren't there.

Anyway, they don't get target, becase they can be dismissed as bogus.. Google, these types of things happen for a reason.

Could you please elaborate? What is this proof, and about what? Do you have proof that google is/isn't assisting child pornographers, or is this proof about something else?

He's asinine. He has none. Claims he "can't" without getting someone in trouble.

...how convenient, eh?

Sorry, rijp. I wouldn't me if I didn't call you out on this sh1t.

From - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=31482

"The lawsuit fails to mention other sites such as Yahoo or Microsoft's MSN which also do the same thing."

yes yes, this is just a re-gurgitated version of the above story. From reading above we already know that google is the only one being charged.

So, what's this a-hole running for?

To: Gabias; An advertiser could still be approved and then maliciously change the routing of the click.

All child pornography should be banned outright and not just 'difficult to access'!

How do you ban something that you don't know about. I could start a web page tomorrow, and you would NEVER know I was conducting illegal activity.. until I was busted..

So how EXACTLY can you ban things before they are considered bad? As the other user said, they could be legit one minute and be illegal on the next..

ITs like SPAM its impossible to stop..

Are you sure your not running a kiddie porn site rijp? You sure do sound convinced it's impossible to stop like spam? Are you a spammer too? Spam would be easy to stop, just get all those people who actually buy the crap to not buy anything from them. Obviously there are some people out there like you rijp that like kiddie porn and well, buy the horrible downright evil content. Which it seems according to the dateline special the psycho's exist with a vengeance.

rijp, normally i think your comments are way off based. But I actually agree with you on this. It is impossible for one person to be responsible for this. And it is impossible to stop, along with every other illegal thing.

Spread the word: rijp runs a kiddie-porn site and advertises it by spamming your inbox.

I wouldn't, personally. Libel is a serious matter.

Now, THAT would be a frivolous lawsuit!

If the domain registors checked out the sites they host, they could easily shut them down, but they dont want to lose revenue.

http://www.whois.net/ caches every site on the net, could this database not be used to shut these sites down?

This is not like SPAM because websites dont usually spoof its IP address. How would you get to the site if the IP/DNS was not valid?

The responsiblity comes back to the registor. They are the ones that have to power to allow or stop this sh#t.

Of course, I am only talking about American and our Allies countries, because we won't be able to get the other countries to cooperate on this. Of course, this can be blocked by the ISP's if the gov't forces them to!

A lot of you are missing the point. It's not about someone searching for kiddie porn, it's about people using Google ads for kiddie porn. That is a lot more controllable than search terms, as each advertiser has to be approved by Google, as it is a private transaction. Google's profiting on child porn is referring to Google selling advertising space through AdWords and the like, and as it has specific references in the terms of service, this is simply an unnecessary case.

Yes, so they profit from ads that invite people to break the law, because Google doesn't care where their next dollar comes from..

That's even worse... but good point.

Its Googles job to make sure their advertisers ALSO are in compliance with the law, then Google would become an accessory.

But I contend Google is far deeper involved in this than anyone realizes.. but evidently I am the only one (well there are a few others I know) and this goes way way deeper than what the news is telling us...

Google, is deep seated, evil. Just keep watching the headlines, in the coming months, you will be shocked.. But I tried to let everyone know and I *know* what they are up to..

All in good time, more agencies will become involved, and we aren't talking conspiracy theory. This is the first company in about 20 years, that I have seen this type of behavior from...

Google has some deep pockets, and they are being financed by some VERY skillful, unscrupulous people. VERY VERY bad...

Not a conspiracy theory....

Of course not. Even those tend to have a shred of truth to them. ;)

You my friend, couldn't be more correct.

I wish everyone I tell would stay away from everything Google.

Don't run any of their applications and don't use their email.

GOOGLE IS THE DEVIL!!!!!!

It pains me to think you might actually be able to influence people.

hmm.. true.

Cigarettes. Why do people smoke them? Even when people know they have problems, why do they persist? Its human nature to do whatever the hell you want anyway! So if you know the truth its nothing, unless you ACT on it.

Theories, are the same way. Its only an idea, until someone does something about it, then if you choose to ignore it, well that's why companies like Enron do what they do, every single day. It "Can't" happen to you, right? Why because you don't want to believe you can be duped? We are all vulnerable.

Gabias, how do you contend with the argument that "Advertisers who have broken the law, could have been legit, turned illegal" I have not seen any direct or specific evidence of google setting up contracts with nefarious agents, who contained indisputable illegal content before contracts were signed. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Thanks in advance, because I'm sure you wouldn't put forth such allegations without proper backing.

I'm tired of vague finger waving at dark, nebulous targets. Who, with what theoretical intentions, Who is responsible for what, and why?

"Why do people smoke them?"

Uhhhh...They're addictive?

If people acted on someone elses unproven rants and tirades against someone they've shown obvious bias towards in the past, well....

We'd be at war with Iraq. *grin*

The point is, you've been marked, man. No-one's going to believe a word you say. You claim you have proof, yet you refuse to back it. You rant and rave, but have nothing solid. Ever.

Give any of us here one good reason why we should belive your wild accusations when *all* available facts point elsewhere.

You can name a hundred "conspiracy theories" that panned out. I can name a hundred that didn't.

Impasse, indeed.

Pffft...

I don't know if realize this or not, but you have to read the ad and then click on it before you are taken to the site advertised, this stuff doesn't get piped into your head while you sleep.

The fact that you feel that a search engine and email service can have enough of an impact on your life to consider them "deep-seated, evil" is scary.

As a former and convicted purveyor of such pornography, I can say this from experience.

Google's sponsored searches (AdWords) do not contain child pornography or positive references to it. Google's indexes contain very little actual child pornography, which is very difficult to find even to those who know how to use the search engine the most effectively. 99% of all publicly findable "child pornography" websites are just "topsites" (directories of websites, which is how searches were done before modern search engines were around) that reference each other in giant circles but not containing actual illegal materials.

They are trying to make it illegal for people like you (not being cynical here, just stating fact) that you should have not have access to the internet AT ALL once convicted.

That may be a little harsh, but then how else do you remove the tempation..

Even so, if you were convicted, you know how to steer clear of such inticement, therefore you are less likely to be tempted, because you are concentrating on NOT getting caught. You would be a bad example of such behavior, because you are conscious of trouble, and therefore you won't allow yourself to be swayed.

A person on the fence, however, who hasn't experienced such guilt might want to become involved, to dabble. *NOTHING* on the internet, *NOTHING* is hidden if you know where to look. I can buy arms, drugs, hookers, alcohol, anything I want.. you keep thinking "American sites".. but look closer, and you will see countries like Iraq, Iran, China, some of things are not only NOT illegal, but endorsed by their corrupt governments..

So you may THINK Google is protecting its people, but anytime you can allow a domain outside of the US, its suspect. Anything can be had, and if you are intent on finding it.. IT's there, right in front of your face. We are all "innocent" until something gets the better of us, and we are consumed by it.

We have people in the clergy that rape young boys and that very day, they can be held in high esteem and given an award for their "community service".

I don't condemn you at all. If you admit to a problem, I think you are working to stop it. Its those people that are quiet about such things, that bother me..

But do NOT pretend these sites are non-existent. There are hundreds and hundreds of cases of peopel being busted for these things EVERY day.. you just dont' hear about them, we are jaded by such news...

I cannot prove my case for this one. I am not touching the search engine. I *know* with 100% certainty, I could give you 2, just 2 key words, and you will see an entire list of child Pornography... But I am not going to illustrate my point.

I find it amazing that even when people know these things go on, they dont' want to believe there are more sources of the very same. I find that amazing...

Where do you think they find these people, in some hollywood movie? People are doing it EVERY SINGLE DAY. They manage to find porn, sell children, and buy drugs over the internet.. Where do you think these people find this stuff?

Word of mouth is one way, but if you search, and you WANT to see it, its there. Trust me. Or don't trust me.

I *know* the stuff is there, and its closer than you think. *you* refuse to acknowledge it, and you personally don't want to be a part of it, so it's going to much more difficult because you know what the consequences are.

I don't think anyone here is in denial about can be found on the internet, the questions, to keep on topic are

Is google partially responsible?
Does good profit from child porn?
Does Toback have his hand in some one else's pocket?
Does google have their hand in some one else's pocket?
What can be done against child-porn trafficers?
Would legal action open the door to abuses (Who will watch the watcher concept) of our civil rights?

Find out next week - same time, same channel, in the next thrilling installment of...

BETANEWS : The Series!!!

;-)

rijp, you use more words to say nothing than I ever seen before.

He didn't say the sites aren't there, he said they are hard to find and that Google's ads won't get you there.

These things that can be found and purchased on the Internet can be found and purchased on many streets around the world. Should automobile makers be held responsible for your being able to get to them? A car and a search engine will get you there, but neither has anything to do with your desire or the avaiibility of such things. We need to stop blaming others for everything and learn to think for ourselves and be responsible for our actions while teaching our children to do the same.

If Google has ads that lead directly to child porn then they need to do something about it... end of story.

i'm seriously going to have to post more often force people in line.

well im not saying child porn is ok, far from it. but really if google hosts a child porn link in a country where it is legal, say country N, on googleN, then who are we to say that it is bad? just remember, morals are relative to the cultures they evolve from, just like cultures are relative to the area they come from. so you can really go out on a human rights campaign when human rights means something different to another group of people. remember *some*(not all, or even most) divisions of cultures believe it is a good and noble thing to blow themselves up and take out a mess of people. other cultures think that is bad, but who are they to really decide that?

You are right about relative, but as we move closer together and interact more with each other, those values need to be ammended to reflect the world view and not specific to one's view. Somethings need to be decided upon. Who makes those decisions and how to enforce is an age old question that has brought about much bloodshed.

blowing up anyone is wrong. Exploiting anyone is wrong. There are common civil rights that everyone must possess. "Life, Liberty, Happiness". Those that choose to give them up is just that, their choice, but they still have one to give up.

Edited:
Children are not given a choice in this situation, they are victims. Google should not even give links to anyone(if they are capable). They need to adhere to the values of themselves. Money is what dictates their moves, and that says something about them as well as their business. Don't turn a blind eye to the real issue just because it is considered OK in a one's culture. Religion, race, gender, etc are not enough to base the treatment of another in any form. History should have taught you this, not matter where you are from.

right, i agree, i was just pointing out it is easy to push the idea of universal human rights, but really hard to get the world do decide what they are, or what they need to be for effective government.

"The lawsuit seems to not focus on a monetary aspect, as it asks for no specific damages. However, it does ask for the company to block and prohibit any advertising relating to sites that display or market child pornography."

Well, if it is truly a frivilous lawsuit, at least he wasn't being totally stupid about it...but he does get votes out of this if he "wins".

Grandstanding politicians make me ill.

No private sector company wants anything to do with kiddie porn. The contingent liability is far too great.

I don't trust Google but they have how many sites indexed what are they expected to do hire a whole new department to manualy inspect every indexed page.

Key word filters are good but doesn't realy matter what you type in does it porn goes by practicaly every thing in the dictionary no matter how innocent sounding so something will almost always get through the cracks.

but then again, how much can they filter in a certian area before they are infringing on a certain cultures free speach? or how much can they leave unfiltered before they infringe on a governments censoring? and then we have to decide on who has the right to judge who, i mean is it right for a country of 200 million to judge the actions of a counrty of 1 billion people? i mean do we even know what it takes or how hard it is to keep a counrty of 1 billion people from breaking the law? i may be getting way off topic here, but my point is, who are we to judge and decide what someone else does? especially without evidence or knowledge of whats going on. either side in this google issue has yet to put up any evidence whatsoever to support either point of view.

child pornography is not free speech, nor is it a cultural aspect. However, it is should be a crime in any country. I don't know of any that actually think that it isn't, but I am not going to research it either.

If Google was getting money for these links, then whether they know it or not they should be held liable for those results.

It is not different than the P2P sites being liable for filesharers to get music free. They need to police their own and in this example for moralistic/human-value reasons. If they don't, then they are part of the problem and not a solution. For them to turn a blind-eye and not do something would say a lot about them and their business.

You are also right that somethings will get through, but to turn a blind-eye all together would not be right. Even knowing that some things will find its way through means that the system needs tweaking and there should always be someone doing this for that reason alone - as it pertains to this situation.

right never said it was, i was just generlizing on all types of human rights. and im nit really sure if it is in any country, but then again i cant be sure that it is illegal in all countries thus i am not going to make a statement without a solid basis of facts

As much as I abhorr the thought of the government casting its net any wider than it already does, it would be nice if those who make use of search engines to look for childporn get a bit of scrutiny by the police. Perhaps just correlating the IP address to the owner, then compariing with a list of known sex offenders...then if there is a hit, the cops can do whatever searches are permitted by the police under the perv's parole terms. Or just checking for criminal complaints and public background info.

Not losing our consitutional rights here but rather an intelligent cooperation between law enforcement and the private sector using public domain data (public sex offender registries). Since most of the abuse of children is repeat offenders many of whom are on parole, I can see some real impact from a program like this.

The freaks that like to hurt kids are very compulsive and not all that clever really. They don't cover their tracks that well in most cases. I know this because I have done forensics in child porn investigations. Don't anymore and you really could not pay me enough to do it again but I know from whence I speak. There are some clever ones but by and large these guys are not rocket scientists.

Anyway, I try to have positive ideas and not just criticisms, but I do have a hard time with figuring out why a politician has time to do google searches on child porn terms...doesn't he have better things to do?

"Perhaps just correlating the IP address to the owner, then compariing with a list of known sex offenders...then if there is a hit, the cops can do whatever searches are permitted by the police under the perv's parole terms."

Yeah, cuz no-one's got the same name as a ocnvicted sex-offender and this couldn't *possibly* be used by the less scrupulous to further erode our rights and freedoms.

Sorry. Can't agree with you there. Way too much room for abuse. Who's going to watch the watchers, eh?

It looks like that politician is trying to get some publicity. There is no way any search engine can block all illegal links, there are just too many web sites out there. And the only reason he's targeting Google is because they are the biggest and it will spread through the news faster. And there are allot more illegal stuff out there than just child porn. He's pretty shortsighted to only target one crime.

They didn't say they block illegal links. I could do a search on ANY engine and get child pornography.. all day.

But to PROFIT from these, means that they must condone it.. THAT'S what the issue is.

Oh yeah? Go ahead and try. Child pornography is harder to find than you think it is.

LOL. Dude you have no idea.

I am not going to try.. they watch you (feds) if you link to a page, you will be getting a visit, that's ok.

Just believe me, its NOT hard. They have sites under the guise of software or computer parts that have hidden pass codes, they exchange emails with info for how gain access to these "child sites". You can go to a chat room, and get info..

There are tons of places this stuff is readily available, they aren't blocked, they are masked.. there is a big difference there. Sure, "child pornography" may be blocked, but you can use key words like "small porn" kiddie porn, kids pics, once ISP (with this content) recognize you are seeking out this type of stuff, you can find it.. If you look hard enough, its there.

To the casual surfer, its not apparent, but its there.. and its NOT blocked.

zork, should we be worried that you are so knowledgeable about this subject?

If it's only apparent to those looking for it, what has Google done to (According to the complaint) "intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public"?

Please...enough is enough. You know this case is just play by the politician and has no real grounds.

Not worried for ourselves, just our kids. ;)

Yes, it is. Its evil vs evil. True enough.

But, it makes one wonder.. just as someone famous once said..

"..there is a shred of truth in it..."

correct me if i'm wrong, but if they watched everyone who visited the links, we wouldn't be having any trouble catching the perps, now would we?

"..there is a shred of truth in it..."

Not that I've seen. Nor anyone else here. (well, except you and your illuminati friends, of course)

and if they are perps in another country? or maybe one where it is legal to look that stuff up? what then? are you going to go to say qatar and arrest someone yourself? international law only goes so far, and only goes even that far with countries that have good relations with the country accusing.

EDIT: i have no idea about the laws in qater, i was just using it as an example, more to prove the point that it is harder to catch people who do that when they are in countries that dont like us.

I am sure we all have our own issues and some that we regret and paying society for those. However, it takes quite a bit of character to admit that oneself is a child-pornographer and talk about it. He did admit it above in a comment to someone else.

Now you can take your foot out of your mouth and listen to what he has to say rather than just bash for no reason.

Whether easy or hard, it all comes down to if they are getting paid for those links. That is the real issue.

Even so, once they are found to be providing those links, everything must be done to locate those people with the said sites as well as make sure they never come up in a search engine again.

1. Knowingly providing links to those sites
2. Getting paid for those sites listed
3. Doing nothing so they don't show up again or deleting those sites all together when found

are the real issues here.

Newsflash:

We're not in China ... the whole "claims Google acted negligently and intentionally inflicted emotional distress on the public" is bulls***, as is the politician behind the lawsuit.

Here's a thought:

Go after the producers.

Oh, wait ... that would mean admitting its a job for the police. There goes his opportunity to wrap himself in the American Flag in the name of the Children and Apple Pie.

What a jackass. I hope there's a special room in Hell for this guy.

The SafeSearch alone protects them from this kind of crap-ass suit. What a joke.

i realy dont think there profiting from child porn.

that's we have court. You are like some of the others, you refuse to believe..

It took 2 years of investigation before the Enron Scandal was revealed as well.. People never want to see what's right in front of their face.

It can't be him! I can't be that company, been working there 35 years. I know that man..

So what!??!?!? There are people to this day that don't believe Ted Bundy killed those women either...

So, because it's *against* Google, "SUE SUE SUE!!" is okay?

Well done. I don't see hypocracy like that every day. I mean...when google goes after someone, or someone goes after Microsoft, you get to do a 180?

Nice. Real nice.

I am not bringing the suit am I. Microsoft has had their day in court, didn't they? Did I say sue them? No, that's not the same thing.

If you are doing something wrong, and obviously there must be something going on to have some politician involved.. Rediculous law suits sure, they shouldn't be brought to light.

I have been saying for a while now.. just wait, things will come out about Google, haven't you been paying attention? Or are you too busy trying to come up with something clever to say and not really addressing the issue?

This isn't some schmuck with an iPod claiming hearing loss, or someone EU doing a witch hunt about MS including WMP with the OS, this is a serious offense.. not to mention, it involves money for illegal activities..

Everyone likes to ride the MS sue train, and claim foul, because the DOJ screamed at the top of their lungs.. even they backed off, but others seem to find it easier to pick on them, because once you do wrong, you are always going to be looked at differently.. so people take advantage of them monetarily.

This isn't someone claiming Google did them harm, this is someone claiming Google is receiving funds for other things, and this will become Enterprise Corruption.

Why can't you see them as being a little suspect, you yourself said you were having a little trouble swallowing the recent events from Google about their "search" not included as a default or MS being the default on a MS browser.

A line in "Hamlet", Act III, Sc.2, (line 242) which occurs during the performance of the play-within-the-play. Hamlet asks the Queen, his mother, "Madam, how like you this play?" and she replies, referring to the queen in the play (who has professed her "great love" for her husband the king), "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Google is protesting a little too much.

Google is pointing too many fingers.. they have something to hide.. I supported them when they didn't volunteer their search engine for investigation, because I felt they were protecting their people. Now, I think they were protecting their website/search engine procedures from scrutiny.. I think that problem is slowly being uncovered...

"and obviously there must be something going on to have some politician involved.."

I'm sorry, were you on vacation in the cayman's during the whole Hilary Clinton "Family Values" campaign?

The only reason a politician needs to do *anything* is because it'll get 'em more votes, more money, or both. They're beliefs, ideals, or, God Forbid, the voices of the people they supposedly represent don't mean squat.

...and I'm the optimistic one?

I don't think asking for evidence constitutes "I can't believe".

What you are, is viewing politicians in the same light that this other guy is viewing Googlins. The reality is, you have no real good proof to back up your beliefs that politicians have no concerns for their own beliefs and ideals. And further, no concern for those they represent.

You can site anecdotes of politicians behaving badly, but that doesn't prove some sort of mal-practice (where their practice is to represent leadership, ethics and the voices they speak for).

difference was there was public evidence to point to that fact. has there been any scrap of evidence relating to this subject at all?

i have seen none of it, and what you are doing is asking us to believe you without any shred of truth. but the point is in america it is *supposed* to be innocent until proven guilty. i dont see any proof yet so is it wrong for us to still assume they are innocent? myabe when i see proof i will change my mind, but isnt it better to wait for evidence instead of jumping on a bandwagon and going on a witch hunt?

remember witches burn cause they are made of wood, and wood floats, so does a duck, so a witch must weigh as much as a duck, right?

do you realize that before a politician gets to a town, they have people tell them what the people want to hear, then they get up on a podium and say excactly that, then go to another town and say whatever those people want to hear.

Ya gotta admit, it'd be far easier for me to cite such things than for you to cite the opposite.

I wonder if this is the real reason that Google faught against the Feds--in the name of "protecting user's privacy". A big company like google never TRULY does something that bold for "privacy" concerns, unless it would have negative media attention if they had not. Google is in it for money, users are secondary--just as long as the money comes in. That in and of itself doesn't make google evil, as that is how every successful business operates, but this? Yep, apparently it was their own privacy they were fighting for, rather than ours.

Could I be wrong? Absolutely, but nobody knows for sure. Heck, maybe this is another B.S. lawsuit. Time will tell, I suppose.

SafeSearch.

On the Google Homepage, click "Advanced Options", click the radio-button labeled, "Filter with SafeSearch".

Done.

There's no conspiracy here. There's no wrong-doing. Google is not trying to make money off of Child-Porn.

This has nothing to do with Privacy. It has everything to do with a certain politician trying to get his name out there in the name of "Protecting the Children".

Google is the devil!!!

Polticians are worse.

And who has the biggest stake in those 400 per share prices at Google?

Politicians!

The owners, board, and employees?

E-V-I-L. Part 1!

*It should be noted that Google's AdWords terms of service already include a clause that prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Thus, Toback's suit might be hard to argue in court, as the company is apparently not facilitating the links*

And just because they have a policy against this sort of behavior, it doesn't mean they can ACTIVELY police it or take steps to prevent it.

I told you these bas****s have been spying and utilizing their search engine for private gain..

There will be more, stay tuned! . . . .

I will give a hint.. Offshore Accounts, within 2-3 weeks you should see something about that.. I will not divulge any more than that.

From Google,r egarding this frivolity:

" A Google representative said Friday that the company prohibits child pornography in its products and removes all such content whenever the company finds or is made aware of it. "We also report it to the appropriate law enforcement officials and fully cooperate with the law enforcement community to combat child pornography," spokesman Steve Langdon said in an e-mail interview.

Langdon pointed to the content policy for Google's AdWords sponsored links service, which broadly prohibits "promotion of child pornography or other non-consensual material." Langdon also noted that Google offers a filtering tool called SafeSearch that aims to block offensive content in search results.

The availability of such tools could mean that the suit may not go far. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects providers and users of an "interactive computer service" from liability if it can be shown that they took good faith to restrict access to obscene material. It also provides that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In other words: There is no case. Google has done what is required and will ocntinue to do so.

One can only hope the judge can find a way to fine the lawfirm wasting our tax money with this BS.

As much as this hurts, I have to agree here. Sounds paranoid I know but I think they are squeezing every last ounce of profit potential from their data and not so that they can protect children either.

I wish that every person and organization went above and beyond to fight the vile scourge of perverts that like hurting children, but some folks would rather pretend it does not exist and just cash their check....legal?...Yes, but how can they go to sleep at night.

The case does not really have merit, and yes it is probably a politician grandstanding for votes but I do wish more would be done about this growing problem.

I don't think anyone here thinks Child Porn is *good*. I feel I can prett much speak for most folks here when I agree that while I wish more could be done to stem the "actual" problem (A job for the police, not the law-firms), this is *definately* not the way to do it.

it's a waste of resources, time, and money. The law-firm in question should be forced to foot the bill for this crap.

Agreed, but really it is kind of like punishing your dog for licking its behind. It does it because it is a dog. Just as here, the lawyer takes on a frivolous case and wastes money, time and resources...because he is a lawyer. Same goes for the politician...how can we expect any different?

Cynical and sterotypical I know but hauntingly close to the truth I feel.

Doing and saying are 2 different things.

We have a policy, no flip flops, sling back shoes, no t-s***s.. blah blah the usual casual wear restrictions.

Whose job is it to monitor this? That's the problem. Google MAY have a policy regarding this, SOMEONE at Google is breaking the law, and guess who is liable?

Google may or may not condone the activities, but doing and saying are 2 totally different things. I think they *DO* have a case.

If it were this simple, then a lot of companies could simply hide behind their legal doctrine and get away it..

"OH, we have a policy regarding that type of behavior, therefore we can't be held responsible".

Yeah, sorry it doesn't work that way, its not that simple.

The police don't have authority over the internet, unless you are using this term loosely.

The internet is a free use, mutually agree vehicle by which many people can freely use, its not taxed, its not regulated, and its not enforced, because of it. So lawyers have to get involved so that agencies (like Homeland Security) can take over.

Now you see why Bush had to fight to get approval to wiretap phones. Criminals use a free service (and yes I know phone lines aren't free) but if we don't have a way to MONITOR or SPY on EVERYONE, this is what we are left with, companies, Like Google, who are SUPPOSED to block this stuff. If they screw up, then whose job is it to take over and enforce?

Right now, its wide open. Why do you think RIAA has to sue people to get money? You (not personally) are using the internet to illegally download music. They can't call the internet police, because its not against the law.. over the internet.. So they SUE for illegal property..

If you buy something and have it sent via the Postal Service, you are breaking several laws, using the USPS, trafficing illegal product over state/county lines, federal laws as well as state and local laws are also broken, but over the internet.. nothing is really illegal, its not an officially regulated entity. They can get a court order to look at email (because the ISP will cooperate) and your computer (because its in your house), but how do you stop an intangible?

Its next to impossible.

This is PRECISELY the reason we need to be able to watch EVERYONE, you never know where the next criminal is going to come from.

I know I am clean! Watch me. Spy on me, come on in, sniff my packets, search my computer, listen to my phone calls, go ahead! I don't care, I know I am not doing anything illegal.

Other people, they have to resort to tricking people, like inviting a bunch of child ponographers to a "party" which is really a sting operation. you can't trap them over the internet.. you have to wait until the ACT on it.

"SOMEONE at Google is breaking the law"

BS. You have no valid reason other than this crackpot and your own bias to make a claim like this.

"Yeah, sorry it doesn't work that way, its not that simple."

NSS.

Which is why they regulalry report such links to the authorities and have SafeSearch. Where's your problem?

"The police don't have authority over the internet."

You can't *be* that stupid. Police hold raids on child-porn rings all the friggin' time. What hole are you living in???

Most Police departments now have an Internet Crimes division where they employ folks who know how to go after these folks.

On an International level, there are many agencies they work with, but it is, arguably, much harder.

you are an eternal optimist aren't you? You think the police are everywhere you need them to be to protect you. They do everything and you just need to sit there, watch your family guy re-runs, and you don't have a care in the world..

What planet are you living on? Is the air really that thin in Longview? Look around you..

Police hold raids, because the government gets enough evidence to finally trap these people. And how do they get the evidence? They can't watch the internet, why? because they don't have the AUTHORITY to spy, because people b**** and whine about being watched by big brother, and makes it that much harder..

Its all a smokescreen. And I suppose Enron just happened to forget to submit their earnings every 3 months for 5 years to the IRS, what was that?

SOMEONE at ENRON broke the law, and now the entire company has to pay..

It only takes 1.

You can take the devil's advocate approach all you want, but something is going on at Google, I can promise you that.

I don't need a valid reason, this will make headlines and now they will be looking a little closer at Google..

Again.."..there is a shred of truth . . "

Allegations stem from someone either trying to make a quick buck (which if this were from a prior employee, I would be skeptical) or there must be some truth to it.. (which is what I believe).

Normally, I just sail along, don't care, and I say yeah yeah, someone is really pissed, but Google, this company, has a shady history..

I am not talking about their length, I mean the people involved with it. They are suspect.

You choose to believe there isn't anything going on but the rent, I believe differently. Is there a problem why I can't have an opinion?

Yeah, so I illustrate points as fact, and you don't see the evidence, I can't show you my evidence. So we are at an empass. Sorry, can't do much to alleviate that.

So from one a** to the other.. interesting vantage point :)

or conversely, this is why 'we' should watch next to no one.

Have you given any thought to all of the tax money that would be tied up in "Watching"?

Have you given any thought to the potential abuses "watchers" could themselves create?

Do we have any reason to suspect, dollar for dollar, that watching everyone is a better idea then say, education? Keep in mind that you can educate a population to be watchers, as long as you can actually instill a sense of moral obligation.

"Shady history", unproved, or even proved, is hardly a direct correlation to pedaling child porn.

Then why claim it if you can't back it up? You do realize how that makes you look, right?

...and you the eternal cynic.

See why we get along so well?

I really expected Zork0 to chime in here...

Your ignorance is showing. The Secret Service and the FBI do have juridiction. You obviously don't know about the Hacker Wars. Really, what are your credentials for such statements? I'm seeing a lack of knowledge and a whole lot of ignorance. You sound like a warmonger and a demagogue. Stop tossing back the beers.

If you ever took a class on logic (most likely by accident), I suspect you flunked. And I thought I was paranoid (job hazard). By the way, it's spelled Internet and not internet. Surely you know the difference.

I expect you to ignore what I say. The manner in which I'm addressing you isn't helping either. It's just hard to take you seriously when you really do sound like a crackpot and state things I know to be untrue.

You don't need a valid reason? That's a *stupid* thing to say. Why wouldn't you need a valid reason? You mean that I can do something like slug you and it'll be alright since I wouldn't need a valid reason? Wow. I can go on a slugging spree! Great! I can say anything I want and it doesn't matter. After all, I don't have to have a valid reason. Strong accusations, flimsy or no evidence, distorted truth, not a problem. I don't have to back anything up! And I have you to thank for it all. I can't thank you enough for enlightening me. It's all so clear now.

you know. its interesting. I mean any posesion of anything even remotely close to child porn on a computer is a felony. Even if it was an unsolicited popup ad. Its time to pose a question... Have you cleaned out your internet temp folder lately?

I'm pretty straight forward in what I do. some games and such, and mostly news sites and general web browsing. and I block most ads with blockers. However I went into my temp folder today and just browsed through some of the stuff that gets sent to you via content streams and popups, which I normally do not see... DISGUSTING!!! God only knows what all is in there... I just purged the whole thing.

Piece of advice, clear your temporary folders out on occasion.

"its not taxed"

Depends on the use, if you buy something, CA taxes you.

There are debates now in Congress on renewing the Oct 1, 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act, which was for only 3 years and they are talking about taxing Telco's too.

Things will probably change!

http://www.boe.ca.gov/pdf/pub79b.pdf

way to be an ass. that comment was not needed.