Techdirt’s Mike Masnick filed the story in the “you-have-to-be-kidding” department, writing, “You would think with a war going on, the threat of terrorism and, well, a scandal at his office that many think will eventually force him to resign, that the Attorney General of the US would be pretty busy dealing with any of those things.

“Apparently not,” Masnick continued.  “AG Alberto Gonzales decided that now is the best time to ask Congress (who you might say isn’t particularly happy with him right now) to pass stricter intellectual property laws.”

Gonzales suggested that anyone who “attempts” to infringe copyright law be prosecuted, according to Declan McCullagh.  Wiretaps would become easier to establish, and computers and other property could be “more readily” seized.  The RIAA is mentioned, as well – Homeland Security would have to notify that entity about illegal (copyright-related) imports.

The attorney general nonetheless maintains that this is not about dollars and cents.  “While crimes like (intellectual property) theft may appear harmless to some, we know that the reality is much different,” said Gonzales, as reported by Variety.  “Imagine a heart patient undergoing emergency surgery at a hospital that unknowingly purchased substandard counterfeit surgical equipment or medications.”

No one seems to know what kind of support the attorney general’s proposal can expect.  It should, at least, keep Gonzales’s name in the headlines.

The hotly-anticipated bout between Google and the Feds over parting with information from the Google databases won’t happen until March 13th, Silicon.com reported. The DOJ wants to prove the constitutionality of its Child Online Protection Act in federal court, and claims it needs search engine records to do so.

Google has resisted this request, beginning in August 2005 when the subpoenas were issued. While AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo quickly complied with those subpoenas, Google did not and cited user privacy and trade secret protection in doing so.

Without Google’s resistance, the DOJ probe would never have went to court, and no one would have ever found out it happened. Until news of its China policy broke, Google enjoyed broad accolades for its stance from the online community.

The article recounted the request from DOJ:

Yahoo and Microsoft have both made statements about their disclosures to the DOJ, and said they did not provide personally identifiable information as part of the records surrendered to the Feds.

Those claims were met with a request from EFF co-founder John Gilmore to disclose just what was released. “If Yahoo, MSN, and AOL didn’t reveal any personal info to DoJ, let’s see them publicly post the results that they sent back to the DoJ,” he wrote in a message to Boing Boing’s Cory Doctorow, who subsequently posted it online.

—

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo My Web

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

Other key dates noted by CNet are February 6th, when Google will file its arguments, and February 13th, when the Department of Justice submits its response to those arguments in court.

Google rebuffed DOJ on its requests for search records from its database, citing user privacy and trade secret concerns. AOL, MSN, and Yahoo all complied with the August subpoenas, actions that never would have come to light had Google also complied.

More US government officials got involved in the coming battle between US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Google’s triumvirate of CEO Eric Schmidt and co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Senator Pat Leahy (D-Vt) sent Gonzales a letter demanding details about DOJ’s intentions regarding the search information; House Representative Tom Davis (R-Va) attacked Google for cooperating with the Chinese government on censorship while fighting the US government; and House Representative Ed Markey (D-Ma) disclosed his intent to introduce legislation limiting the time Google and other search engines can warehouse information.

“Internet search engines provide an extraordinary service, but the preservation of that service does not rely on a bottomless, timeless database that can do great damage despite good intentions,” said Rep. Markey in his statement.

Top search industry observers have questioned the DOJ’s rationale for seeking that information, which DOJ claims will help it fight a constitutionality challenge over the Child Online Protection Act. DOJ thinks the information will show adult website publishers do not properly restrict harmful content from minors.

—

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo My Web

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

There’s a new button in town, Google announced the arrival of the Delete button. The feature had been in demand since roughly five minutes after Gmail first launched.

The Spam container had its Delete Forever button when Gmail arrived, but to delete messages from the Inbox required ticking the checkbox next to the message to be vaporized, clicking the dropdown Options box, and selecting Delete.

Delete also appears in its welcome button form inside of individual messages, too. Some users had resorted to using Greasemonkey scripts to populate a Delete button in Gmail. But fortunately the Gmail team received its “shipment of delete buttons” and has been sprinkling them throughout the Gmail userbase.

On Google News, the engineers added sections for Most Popular and Recommended stories. Most Popular as of press time is the ongoing Gonzales v Google case, which WebProNews and hundreds of other sites have covered.

Recommended may not be quite as well-received immediately as the Delete button in Gmail. The Recommended feature in Google News requires logging into one’s Google Account. “Sign in to get recommended stories by using search history,” Google News displays to visitors who aren’t signed on to Google.

Considering how the Department of Justice initially asked for personally identifiable information in its subpoenas to Google and other search engines, before backing off that request, there could be a number of users, a very large number, who choose to leave the Recommended feature untested in the short term.

—
Email the author here.

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

Two leading writers looked at the breaking news about Google and the DOJ battling over requests for search information from Google’s databases see a couple of different focal points.

InfoWorld’s ‘Gripe Line’ columnist Ed Foster perceived, as many do, the likelihood compliance with the subpoena opens the door for many more government agencies to drop by Google with subpoenas and portable mass-storage devices and say ‘fill ‘em up’:

Meanwhile, “The Search” author John Battelle saw the ongoing dispute as one Google chose more because of trade secrets than privacy protection:

At issue for the DOJ is the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court struck it down over First Amendment concerns, the high court gave Justice the opportunity to rewrite the law. Instead, DOJ has returned to federal court in Pennsylvania to defend the Act’s constitutionality.

DOJ claimed it needed search engine data to help bolster its case. While AOL, MSN, and Yahoo have already complied with similar requests, Google’s refusal to do so has prompted the court action against it.

—

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo My Web

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

What’s unique about this particular polarizing force in Washington is that a Gonzales nomination may push hands together that otherwise would be used for a separate gesture altogether. If World War II showed us anything it was that fascists and socialists do get along at least some of the time.

The so-called social conservatives on the far right of the political tug-rope, who, for tradition’s sake usually are staunch Bush supporters, have vowed to block a Gonzales nomination based on his reported neutrality on abortion and gay marriage. The other end of that tug-rope, pulling with all of their “we-hate-W” might, may just decide to help create a noose for the middle-dwellers by joining ends with their life-long enemies.

At least by destroying any neutrality, compromise, and/or common sense that has the audacity to live amidst the center of political dogma, they can have at each other without any pesky obstacles until one theologyum, oops, not the word I was looking foruntil one ideology reigns supreme with blood on its nationalistic boots.

But more disturbing is the transference of what is typically a voter plight. Those remaining in the center, and even slightly to either side, may have to accept the nomination because the alternatives could be worse.

Democrats would be in a pinch to approve Gonzales despite the adding of a conservative voice to the Supreme Court just because of his certain centrist tendencies.

While the Democrats are losing Hispanic votes to Republicans (as demonstrated in the last two elections when Bush captured 36% in 2000, and then 40% in 2004), voting against a Mexican-American nominee wouldn’t be a smart move.

A Gonzales nomination is golden political move on the part of the President, who knows the majority of the right would support Kermit the Frog as long as a Republican president nominated him. Add that to the fears Democrats have about anyone they view as too conservative sitting on the highest court in the land, and that they would be reticent to oppose the first Hispanic nominee. The President’s usual political adversaries may have to concede, “he’s better than Bolton.”

The sour stomachs will churn and belch as they cast the “yes” vote forcing themselves to look over the obvious good-ol-boy nomination the President presents them. Bush refers to Gonzales as a “great friend,” and the Attorney General has been with one Bush administration or another all the way back to Texas.

Bush has used the proper rhetoric for the situation, saying that there is no solid “litmus test” for appointing a nominee. He asserts that specific issues such as abortion and gay marriage will not guide the process.

“I’ll pick people who … will strictly interpret the constitution and not use the bench to legislate from,” he said.

He also urged Senators to ignore special interest groups and make a sound decision.

While his words are comforting and most predict an easy approval of Gonzales in the Senate, others fear that the President will hold his cards on Gonzales, saving him for the inevitable stepdown of Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

In the meantime, an even more polarizing force may be selected causing a virtual war in the Senate all because Bush may choose to use his leverage, enjoying the first double appointing in 34 years. With two conservative appointees to the court, Gonzales wouldn’t be a very good replacement for O’Connor’s usual swing vote, especially if he errs on the side of conservatism.

Either way, the middle is pinched, wringed out by the ever twisting hands of the extremists, robbing the system of a more prudent judiciary.