I noticed that I’ve been referenced on a post in the Peter T Davis’ Small Business Blog. Thanks! 
As there might be some I just want to take a moment to post some follow-up comments.
EDIT: A friend suggested that I could be arguing for those involved with child pornography. This is not my intent, nor do I believe it is the intent of anyone questioning the constitutionality of the DoJ’s request.
I want to make it clear - I do not support child pornography. I believe the DoJ should prosecute those who are involved with it. They should request the data per specific case(s), not for statistical research (which may be used in creating new cases?) for drafting new legislation. Why aren’t they focused on the existing sites that exist now, rather than the people viewing them?
The 4th amendment gives us (and should include companies, though I am no lawyer and can’t guarantee it) the protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures” *.
As every American should know, yet forget, any law in the United States that is passed and goes against what is written in the Constitution or Bill of Rights has precedence over such law. Hence, this is why we have unconstitutional laws.
So the question is whether or not the DoJ has overstepped it’s limits by asking Google to provide such data. I wonder if the Court will have to decide on how search-and-seizure pertains to the electronic medium which/how is recorded. It will take a Federal Judge to answer those questions. But, the DoJ could just drop it since they’ve had some other search engines provide them such data.
I’m low on sleep and can’t seem to collect my thoughts, so I shall end this blog entry stating: this will be interesting to see where it [the case] ends. I’m also interested in hearing someone argue the DoJ’s point of view.
* “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Hi There, I hope you didn’t think that I implied in any way that you do support child pornography, I was just pointing to a number of blogs that I thought made interesting observations on the topic.
Oh no, I appreciate the recognition in your post. A friend of mine had suggested that my post be interpreted as supporting those involved w/ Child Pornography; it’s merely a clearifcation statement/post. I’m more or less concerned about the constitutionality of the DoJ’s request and our rights.
Yep, same here. It’s a crime to search through milions of people’s data to find if any of them are involved in a crime. Kinda makes you wonder what they’re really after.
[...] http://cypherjf.sscentral.com/2006/01/21/google-soga-follow-up/ http://cypherjf.sscentral.com/2006/01/20/rock-on-google/ Google called the Bush administration’s request for data on Web searches as “so uninformed as to be nonsensical’’ in papers filed in San Jose federal court Friday, arguing that turning over the information would expose its trade secrets and violate the privacy of its users. [...]