It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But, your suggestion to change the websites to .xxx or another adult-related top level domain would be a good idea. That, and it could be something the adult industry on the internet could do voluntarily.
Originally posted by zappafan1
".... no different than what the Bush administration did when it wiretapped Americans."
REPLY: This is covered in another thread, but the wiretaps were/are legal.
I have yet to hear a valid arguement that the wiretapping program was legal. i came of age during watergate and a president was forced from office for doing essentially the same thing. Considering the rubber stamp nature of court in charge of wiretaps, the only reasonable arguement as to why they didn't use it, was that they were spying on many more than they claimed, like their political opponents.
Originally posted by alternateheaven
A) Can they stand against the US Government like this and win
B) If (more like when) they comply will it take a chunk out of their stock
C) Will they loose even more crediblity for giving in than they already have over previous scandals?
“Google’s acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept,” company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government’s filing.
Yahoo Inc., which runs the Internet’s second-most used search engine behind Google, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.
Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren’t identified.
Originally posted by AlienS
Also, unless I'm mistaken, no personal information is going to be passed on to the government if Google complies. The government has said that they weren't looking for any personal information, and from the first quote, Google implied that it would not be giving away any personal information by saying that giving in would suggest that they would be willing to give away information about it's users. Saying this suggests that no personal information at all would be given away, but it would seem like they would be willing to.
Originally posted by warpboost
But, your suggestion to change the websites to .xxx or another adult-related top level domain would be a good idea. That, and it could be something the adult industry on the internet could do voluntarily.
Its a good idea but I doubt it would work as planned. the porn sites have too much invested in their .com's to make the switch under their own free will. If they are forced to switch people will find ways around it like redirecting the .com page to the .xxx one or hijacking .com pages for use, and other computer trickery.
Originally posted by elderban
The law is not for child pornography, but to "to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors".