Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 20, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

GOOGLE'S RECORDS....Since the Department of Justice has previously gained access to search records from Yahoo and Microsoft, shouldn't they already have plenty of data to help them make their case about porn searches on the internet? Why then are they still going after Google? Dan Drezner suggests an ulterior motive:

They don't care about the data for this case as much as they do about establishing a legal precedent and/or intimidating Google into compliance.

That sounds plausible, and it somehow sounded more plausible because I read Dan's post about two minutes after reading Eszter Hargittai's valentine to Flickr over at Crooked Timber. The two posts have nothing to do with each other except that they set up the following association in my mind: "Hmmm....porn....images....Flickr....sites that host images....Hmmm...."

I have nothing more profound to say on the subject at the moment, so draw your own conclusions. But I will say one other thing: given the fact that the NSA scandal has put everyone on edge over government spying, DOJ sure picked a lousy time to force this issue, didn't they? Do you think Congress will be (a) more likely or (b) less likely to vote for expansion of the Patriot Act after their constituents start to understand that it's not just used for terrorism investigations?

Kevin Drum 12:34 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I believe that it has to do with your prior postings: for Republicans, it really is about sex.

Posted by: SavageView on January 20, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

I think this would all be ok if we could also know all the things that were being googled from the white house computers.

And while we're at it, what websites were being visited from DeLoony's offices?

Fair's fair...

Posted by: craigie on January 20, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Given the crew that controls both houses of Congress, I cannot imagine this makes any difference in getting a large enough majority in both houses that would force the administration to respond in any subtantively useful way.

Posted by: paul on January 20, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Dan Drezner suggests an ulterior motive:
They don't care about the data for this case as much as they do about establishing a legal precedent and/or intimidating Google into compliance.

Dan, Kevin, remember what happened on 9/11? Maybe the Bush Administration just wants to stop another 9/11 from happening? Or is that too hard for liberals to understand?

Posted by: Al on January 20, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not on edge! I won't feel safe until the government has cameras and microphones everywhere! We can't really be free from the Threat of Terrorism unless we follow our leaders blindly.

Posted by: Kaptain KoolAid on January 20, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

What does 9/11 have to do with porn? Hmmm ... wasn't it 2001 when the FBI devoted a lot of time and effort to finding half-a-dozen hookers in New Orleans? I guess these types of investigations (hookers and porn) obviously require a lot of time.

Posted by: Theo on January 20, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Haliburton wants to get into the search engine business and needs some of that Google know-how.

Posted by: Marcus Wellby on January 20, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

"Fighting terrorism" for the Bush administration is just another name for "rolling back civil rights".

We know they aren't serious about fighting terrorism, finding terrorists, or securing WMDs, since they continue to look in the wrong places.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

I have so little confidence in government now that I believe everything is staged for effect.

Both parties are participating in this. When I see commentators say "you mean you dont' think the government should be able to spy on the bad guys?

WE ARE ALL THE NEXT BAD GUYS.

We are ALL bad guys should we protest. Mr & Mrs Average American think its just fine to monitor all those 'foreigners'.

As if that's where this will stop....

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

I have no idea how the Patriot Act's function connects with anything having to do with the porn issue, and I hope that the DOJ isn't using it for this purpose.

Somehow I doubt terrorists are financing their operations with this kind of thing.

I support Google's position in this, and am not surprised Microsoft caved in after their sterling performance on behalf of human rights in China.

I can handle the internet content in my family just fine on my own, thanks. There are perfectly good filters on the market, and I'd just as soon have a choice in the matter, unlike "V-Chips" and other things the government does regularly for my own good.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 20, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Of course it's about precedent. And I agree with you about timing, but these guys have totally lost their timing at this point. That's the WH second string for you.

I've had it with this runaway train of an administration. I'm so sick of my beloved country right now. The spouse may have an opportunity to transfer to London, where I have a couple of clients myself. Maybe it's time for live abroad again for a while.

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

The PORN ISSUE is just a ruse. It's a way to convince Americans that there are GOOD reasons to monitor CERTAIN PEOPLE>

That's how it starts. They will add more and more people to their enemies list... including people like me.

My crime? I think 9/11 was a false flag. Just like Pearl Harbor and every other scheme designed to enlist the grass eaters to the cause of the madmen who govern.

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Just when I'm giving up hope and surrendering (temporarily) to the tidal wave of evil, tbrosz makes a rational post worthy of a traditional conservative. Do I have to reexamine everything?

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

good posts, wenn. start with "family values" and sex and they fall over themselves to get in line.

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

Just when I'm giving up hope and surrendering (temporarily) to the tidal wave of evil, tbrosz makes a rational post worthy of a traditional conservative. Do I have to reexamine everything?
Posted by: shortstop

no ... he's still a rube who'll vote for whoever is promising him lower taxes.

Posted by: Nads on January 20, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Do you think Congress will be (a) more likely or (b) less likely to vote for expansion of the Patriot Act after their constituents start to understand that it's not just used for terrorism investigations?"

If there's something better than terrorism to justify intrusive government powers, it's child pornography. Or more generally, protecting children. Going after the sex perverts. So my guess would be (a), when it's explained that not supporting the patriot act will allow Internet sex-perverts to go free. Are YOU in favor of online child pornography?

Posted by: MikeWDC on January 20, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

While the Republicans may think they are pursuing a great agenda in trying to monitor porn, I've got a suspicion that this won't out so well for them.

I mean, there are a lot of middle-aged white guys out there with a great deal of money and influence who find themselves wanting a certain amount of privacy when it comes to their Internet searches, if you know what I mean. Are they going to believe that the government won't be tracking some of their stray clicks "for research" which might seem to outside parties as a bit family unfriendly?

Seriously, this could come back to bite the Republicans badly. And not in a loving way.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 20, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

Do you think Congress will be (a) more likely or (b) less likely to vote for expansion of the Patriot Act after their constituents start to understand that it's not just used for terrorism investigations?

Depends on what the plantation CEO decides...

Posted by: koreyel on January 20, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

Seriously, this could come back to bite the Republicans badly. And not in a loving way.

Would you say it's in a bite-me-harder-but-don't-tell-my-wife-I-visit-S&M-sites kind of way?

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

It would be helpful to know how often "vigoda +nude +gimp" is being searched.

Posted by: Matt on January 20, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it's time for live abroad again for a while.

Well, depending on your age, here are some other choices

Since Mrs Craigie is British, this comes up from time to time. At what point do the frogs hop out of the boiling water?

Posted by: craigie on January 20, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

MikeWDC,

Ah, but what IS child pornography on the internet?

Suppose you click onto a site with models who are, in fact, of less than 18 years, even if you don't know it -- is THAT punishable? Might you be questioned by the authorities for such a random click?

What about bestiality? Or other kinds of porn? Will the authorities question you if you stray into such sites? What if a site has some "child" pornography -- under 18-- but is dominate by other things? What if there are animated figures who at least appear to be under 18, perhaps even well under 18?

You see, once the government gets its hands on all searches, all visits to web sites, it can start to interpret all kinds of things as against the law. And the net can get cast much much wider than one might at first think.

Posted by: frankly0 on January 20, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

Would you say it's in a bite-me-harder-but-don't-tell-my-wife-I-visit-S&M-sites kind of way?

More in a Hot Lesbian Cheerleaders kind of way.

Posted by: craigie on January 20, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin's question assumes that those constituents out there understand much of anything.

Posted by: serafina on January 20, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK
Since the Department of Justice has previously gained access to search records from Yahoo and Microsoft, shouldn't they already have plenty of data to help them make their case about porn searches on the internet?

You are presuming that the Yahoo and Microsoft data support, or could even be massaged to support, their case.

This is a clear fishing expedition, and one explanation for why they're trying so hard to get access to this lake after they have had full access to the other two is that they don't like the fish they managed to dredge up so far and hoping that they'll have better luck this time.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 20, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think the Administration's request for records has anything to do with porn searches. I think it's about domestic spying.

Posted by: Jeffery on January 20, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

The DOJ wants a weeks worth of queries. That's an enormous amount of data, and provides no more accurate statistical picture than, say, a second's worth of queries. A weeks worth???!!! That's a dumptruck full of CD's. Completely unmanageable, if you ask me.

They also want a million random URL's, whatever that means. At least that's manageable.

Best I can tell, what the DOJ wants to do is look at search results for typical searches and compare the the frequency with which a porn site appears and compare that to the frequency with which pornsites appear in the random sampling. So the million URLS has to be drawn from the set used during the queries, incidentally.

Since when do they get to use subpoena power to "gather data"? Shouldn't they have to pay for it like everyone else? Are they conducting an investigation into wrongdoing by Google? Are they trying to support the claim that Google is violating some pornography statute?

Posted by: Doctor Jay on January 20, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

The porn issue is connected to the GWOT or crusade if you like. Word has it that an unnamed high offical with the DOJ watched an episode of sleepercell on showtime, and well the rest is history.

Posted by: neo on January 20, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps if government workers were allowed to work on something other than partisan political activities for the Bush administration they would have time to look for these URLs themselves and run internet traps for child predators.

The truth is, they really aren't after purveyors of porn, they are after political dissenters.

List of child predators and pornographers looks a lot better to the public, though, than enemies list does.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 20, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Like we didn't see this coming? Hint...2257 you know, the law that requires you to basically post your office address if you produce adult content for sites/films so you are easily found and raided.

Posted by: Dreggas on January 20, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

"My crime? I think 9/11 was a false flag. Just like Pearl Harbor and every other scheme designed to enlist the grass eaters to the cause of the madmen who govern."

So, please tell us who you think was responsible for 9/11. I have a feeling I already know.

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Here's another possible rationale:

Laundering illegal intelligence
But why did the government ask for a "random sample" of 1 million webpages? Why not ask for targeted searches like "lolita nude" or something like that?
Imagine this. Imagine that Bush is firmly convinced that the NSA can find terrorists in America by searching the internet. So he authorized them to do so, and they come up with tons of information (valid or not) via wiretapping the internet itself. The information is used to conduct further surveillance on Americans.
All is well until December 2005 when the media and the public learn about the program. Two lawsuits are filed. If any terrorist (or potential terrorist) is caught, and the trail of evidence leading to his arrest came from the NSA eavesdropping program, the charges could be thrown out of court.
The DOJ requests were on behalf of the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) of 1998. Except that in 2004, the Supreme Court (in Ashcroft v. ACLU) ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
Now suddenly the DOJ wants records of internet searches. How hard would it be for the federal government to say the evidence came from the DOJ's anti-porn files instead of the NSA?
I guess you could call it "intelligence laundering".
Got it? The DOJ is trying to shoehorn this request onto an unconstitutional law (COPA) to get records which may be then used to "launder" an unconstitutional act (bypassing FISA).

No citizen can be too paranoid in this era.

... I'd just as soon have a choice in the matter, unlike "V-Chips" and other things the government does regularly for my own good. Posted by: tbrosz
Maybe you haven't figured them out, but using V-Chips is optional, not a government requirement. Although with the dominance of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other moralistic moonbats in your political party, who knows what they will demand next. Posted by: Mike on January 20, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Just when I'm giving up hope and surrendering (temporarily) to the tidal wave of evil, tbrosz makes a rational post worthy of a traditional conservative. Do I have to reexamine everything?

I gotta give him credit, but I'm sure he'll be along with a straw man argument before long.

(I also couldn't help but notice that our "libertarian" pal more or less restricted his comments to "I hope that the DOJ isn't using it for this purpose" -- pretty weak beer, there, tbrosz.)

I've said before, the truly vexing thing about tbrosz is that he has shown that he can debate honestly, but so often chooses not to. I know it's nigh-impossible to defend the mendacity and incompetence of this Administration, but that doesn't excuse his bullshit.

But again, speaking as someone who's usually pretty hard on ol' tbrosz, I say he is to be commended for this post.

Posted by: Gregory on January 20, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

It's the soft bigotry of low expectations, Gregory. He gets through one--just one--post in which he expresses concern about a Bushco travesty without adding "but the Dems are worse!" and we fall all over ourselves congratulating him.

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

franklyo is right on this one. This is the kind of story all good middle class Republican men will hear and appreciate. I bet there are more than a few nice fundamentalist preachers quitely rooting for google this morning.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 20, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

MJ: So, please tell us who you think was responsible for 9/11. I have a feeling I already know.

Bwa ha ha! I didn't see this remark of wenn's until you repeated it. Can hooked noses and banking cabals be far behind?

Guess I have to retract my "good posts, wenn" remark. I was reacting to the comment about the DOJ starting with emotional trigger subjects like sex and moving on to other things...which I still think is true.

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

I had a friend whose husband was in 'intelligence'. She was an navy brat from Norfolk and both parents were naval brass.

She insisted that the most useful tool of government was blackmail.

She also insisted that anybody who aspires to power is "owned". If you aren't damaged goods, you don't get beyond dog catcher in America - because Washington doesn't want any independant heroes.

They need people with secrets, who don't stray from prescribed tasks.

it's worth thinking about

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK


Its fascinating how issues relating to govt involvement/ oversight, etc of the internet seem to be coming to a head.

For example, yesterday's Wall St Journal had an article about alternative internets being set up in other countries, partly as a response to apprehensions that the US govt might meedle with the internet corporation for assigned names & numbers (ICANN), the US-based body that controls URLs, a few days ago there was a story in the Times about how microsoft and yahoo cooperate with the chinese govt in cracking down on dissident web-users, and a while ago, there was a big kerfuffle at the UN over proposals to establish an international body to replace ICANN. Here again, one of the precipitating events had to do with sex - as it was the Commerce Depart's success in getting ICANN to refuse to set up .XXX urls that drew people's attention to the US govt's ability to meddle with the internet. Another concern is that the govt might try to use the internet to undermine other nations, e.g. bloking access to that country's assigned URL extensions (.ir for Iraq, for example).

Posted by: Aidan on January 20, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

"I've had it with this runaway train of an administration. I'm so sick of my beloved country right now. The spouse may have an opportunity to transfer to London, where I have a couple of clients myself. Maybe it's time for live abroad again for a while."

Off to the UK, then, where government cameras are on every street corner; all car travel is monitored; citizens are wire tapped without a warrant; and proposals (more like foregone conclusions) exist for national ID cards and data storage on all telephone calls, e-mails and internet use.
Or France, which, as Drezner points out earlier, Bush is moving our privacy laws towards, not away from.
So much for enlightened liberal Europe providing refuge for the weary.

Posted by: scouser on January 20, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

It's not a refuge, scouser. It's a change.

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

...intimidating Google into compliance.

Google has a good case - the question is WHY did yahoo and Microsoft comply, certainly Microsoft and Yahoo didn't have too? If the feds really want to simply censor what Americans view in their homes, why didn't Yahoo and Microsoft rightly protest? I mean really, FOX has some most sexually dive content in the media world today, so it isn't about sexual content.

This isn't about sex at all, its about something else, like finding ways to have more media content control over political and commical subject matter. Time for Google to head for the Supreme Court with what is a very winnable case - and at least one corporation had the balls to tell this fucking administration NO WAY.

Thank you Google.

I've always noticed that Google had everything - and you can even read Al Jazeera, something Yahoo and Microsoft don't readily offer, under the "its treason to read opposing viewpoints", I guess. Google always makes readily availible lots of foreign press stories - and you know Bush hates that people read opposing material, opposing viewpoints - if only everyone just watched FOX (faux) News.

An educated American is Bush's worst nightmare and his number one enemy. If the people know the truth - than they know that Bush is nothing but a liar.

Posted by: Cheryl on January 20, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Dan, Kevin, remember what happened on 9/11? Maybe the Bush Administration just wants to stop another 9/11 from happening? Or is that too hard for liberals to understand? Posted by: Al on January 20, 2006 at 12:42 PM

Really zombie Al. Then why didn't Bushco capture Bin Laden when they had the chance at Toro Bora?

No, they're not trying to prevent another 9/11. That was the bestest day in history for the modern Republican party.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on January 20, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Dan Drezner suggests an ulterior motive:
They don't care about the data for this case as much as they do about establishing a legal precedent and/or intimidating Google into compliance.

Dan, Kevin, remember what happened on 9/11? Maybe the Bush Administration just wants to stop another 9/11 from happening? Or is that too hard for liberals to understand?

Posted by: Al

Duh, this is supposed to be about sexual content not about stopping another 9/11 - what did Google have, if anything to do with 9/11? Al admits Bush and his feds are lying about the real reason they want Google's records.

It's about snopping on Americans devoid of any foreign exchange - other then just reading Al Jazeera press releases - and NOT about sexual content at all.

Posted by: Cheryl on January 20, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

As I wrote on Slashdot, AOL and Yahoo have *not* proven they're protecting privacy. (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174493&cid=14516740)

"Question this assumption by Yahoo, AOL, etc. that search terms, by themselves, have no privacy considerations because they've been separated from personal info.

What if the search itself contains personal information? Are the search companies deleting the timestamps and randomizing the order of the search terms themselves? Because otherwise I could see personal info showing up:

* Alice.Geekotourist and cryptography (searching for a relative's paper)
* Geekotourist 212 (then their phone number and address)
* Model.rocket.supplies near 742.Evergreen.Terrace, Springfield (buying hobby supplies)
* postal.regulations rockets (learning why I can't buy model rocket engines )

So now a block of searches associates the name Geekotourist with rockets and with one or two addresses. Does this affect my privacy if these searches are clumped together?

Did Yahoo/AOL include any white pages or yellow pages searches while doing the government's homework? Does the government expect Google to keep all Google Local searches out of the "1 week of searches"? The white page and local style searches leak personal info like mad.

Or what if a search was designed to check on one's personal privacy, for example:

* Geekotourist and Bob.Aliceson (checking to see if anyone has linked "Geekotourist" with the nickname "Bob.Aliceson)
* Geekotourist and 212.313.4114 (seeing if my old phone number is linked to me)
* Geekotourist and bobalice@yahoo.com (seeing if I'm connected with an old email address or to a blog, say)

And while Y/AHOOL didn't provide "the results of the searches" to the gov't, I assume the gov't will be re-running them. The searches 'Cameras near 742 Evergreen Terrace' combined with 'photographing children' may have just been me helping with photos at a birthday party or finding a portrait studio. But its going to be analyzed by people who think 15-degrees-of-separation is a reasonable search.

Posted by: Geekotourist on January 20, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

What a coincidence that Albertito G. comes out today spouting about "ecoterrorists", basically American citizens spray painting SUVs and damaging developers' property. It's amazing to see the MSM reporters using the right wing tactic of mock outrage for this ridiculous stuff.

Maybe the administration realized the fact that their lie about limiting their spying on Americans was limited to "the enemy" is going to be exposed and they need some other excuses for their spying, like for instance "demonic American ecoterrorists with a can of spray paint and demonic American porn readers".

Posted by: Chrissy on January 20, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Just to warn you. I'm foreign and I'm on this comments. Everyone here is in contact with foreign soil and subject to search by the power of executive according to the wire tap precedent.....

How paranoid are you liberals?

This was a joke and not a legally required notification.

Posted by: McA on January 20, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Welcome, Geekotourist! Great post, and it really illuminates the problem with this policy. I would think that it would be impossible to get any useful information from the search terms without having some context around them, so even if that information was not initially provided, it is probably next on the list to be acquired.

Has there been any reliable information on which search engines (other than Yahoo and MSN) have turned over information to the feds so far?

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 20, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I predicted this. I remember arguing with a friend that the government would whip the country into a frenzy over pedophilia, child porn or any other subject that would rally the masses to beg for more chains.

The formula requires that the victims ASK for the destruction of their rights for a higher good.

This is exactly what they're doing. This isn't about porn or child abuse. This is about tightening the noose around the constitution and the applications are enormous.

The internet is undermining the more nefarious members of government and business. If they can get us to agree to a degree of spying [on certain prescribed enemies of god and family] - they have their nose under the tent.

There are no good governments. People gravitate to government to obtain advantage over others, to enrich themselves, and destroy competitors.

None of that is going to change until we get money out of governance. And we are fooling ourselves if we think this is confined to Republicans.

Posted by: Tj on January 20, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

...but if the terrorists can embed materials into a JPEG, or video signals...maybe everyone's viewing habits should go to the NSA too...y'know...just to make sure your pursuit of happiness passes the patriotic filter...

Posted by: The Hague on January 20, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Hague, now that you mention it, I prefer to embed my secret messages into "patriotic" jpegs posted on Free Republic. The NSA would never suspect it! Shh, don't tell anyone.

Mahmud ibn Jamal, of Memphis, Egypt

Posted by: MJ Memphis on January 20, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

MJ - shhhh...don't make them turn on the base!

Posted by: The Hague on January 20, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz just doesnt want the government to check out his love of female plastic models

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/cgi-bin/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=463948&

Check out this site and see Tbrosz gush about the legs on a plastic model (click on 'particular model')

Interesting

Posted by: cq on January 20, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

cq:

Wow...how long did that take you to find? Liberals really don't have a sense of humor, do they?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 20, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

I highly recommend the best essay this century on why Privacy is a Fundamental Human Right.

Written by the former privacy commissioner of Canada, he is warning Canadians not to lose rights *Americans have already lost*. He writes on how 9/11 is being used as an excuse-- 'protect the children' can be substituted in: anything that makes us so emotional we're willing to give up anything to make us feel better.

http://www.privcom.gc.ca/information/ar/02_04_10_e.asp#overview

His Key Point, with proof, is:
" If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. "

Every section of his introduction is worth reading. Just one sample:

"But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy - the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us - is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being.

"If someone intrudes on our privacy - by peering into our home, going through the personal things in our office desk, reading over our shoulder on a bus or airplane, or eavesdropping on our conversation - we feel uncomfortable, even violated.

"Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do.

"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.

But there also will be tangible, specific harm.

"The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life.

"...But if our privacy becomes ever more systematically invaded by the state for purposes of assessing our behavior and making judgments about us, wrong information and misinterpretations will have potential consequences.

""If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect., By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm.

Posted by: Geekotourist on January 20, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Mike:

Maybe you haven't figured them out, but using V-Chips is optional, not a government requirement.

True. But like airbags in cars, try buying a TV that doesn't have one.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 20, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Greek tourist worries about police and government employees 'pawing' through your personal records.

I think that's why this phenomenon might be self regulating. The demographic that gravitates to low level government jobs won't be able to stifle it's natural instinct to get their 'comeuppance'... not unlike what we are seeing at airports.

The higher the intrusion level, the more data will have to be sifted. The only way this can work is if the Average American -- Aunt Beatrix -- can be convinced that only "certain" kinds of people will be targetted.

This must descend into a class, race war or it won't work. And even THEN, if we only target "brown" "foreign" or a specific target population - the problem is still enforcement.

White Middle Class Americans and Americans of privilege won't stand for being snooped on by minority government workers - you know -- the dregs of public employment. the post office, the army, the DMV...

I think this is self correcting.

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

HA, WE KNOW THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF PORN YOU WATCH TO HOW SYMPATHETIC YOU ARE TO AL QUEDA.


By the way, I hear since the NYT publish their article on NSA wiretaps, Al Queda and related terrorist groups have significantly reduced their electronic communications. WAY TO GO GUYS...IF WE GET HIT AGAIN, IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE BECAUSE THE NYT TOLD THE TERRORISTS TO KEEP QUIET ON UNSECURE LINES AND USE COURIERS, CODES IN E-MAIL ETC.

Posted by: Patton on January 20, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Wenn,
As the essay my quotes are from demonstrates, it isn't self-limiting. Its a sharp, short essay- please read and send it onward.

Why isn't it self limiting?
Pattern matching is addictive- witness solitaire- and even more so when done to Fight Evil. Its 'A Beautiful Mind' (if you know the scene) with real data and real jobs.

1. The more data, the more they'll find that *looks* bad. They really admit to 10 or 15 degrees of separation searches-- that's just bad searching. I could connect you to yourself looping around the world twice with that power.

2. At the same time, they'll be doing retroactive searches (Monday morning quarterbacking) which will prove to them- in their own minds- that their techniques would have found true connections. They'll use these findings to prove that they must be allowed to apply their methods to the future.

Knowing that Bob and Alice are collaborators can let you design searches that connect Bob and Alice retroactively. But the probability that those same searches will connect Chad and Don correctly, vs. connecting 10000 false positives, is very, very low.

Posted by: Geekotourist on January 20, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

Wow...how long did that take you to find? Liberals really don't have a sense of humor, do they?
Sure we do, but we're laughing at you, not with you.

Posted by: Bud on January 20, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't take long to find at all. I believe it's on the first google page. I just found it kind of sexist, that all. Plus, I mean really, plastic doll models???

Posted by: cq on January 20, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Patton Said: HA, WE KNOW THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF PORN YOU WATCH TO HOW SYMPATHETIC YOU ARE TO AL QUEDA.

_______________________________________________

Yes, yes I know don't feed the trolls but this line right here shows just how ignorant patton is about Al Qaeda because, as anyone with HALF a brain cell would know, just like W Al Qaeda is against porn as well.

Even if this was a fake Patton, the sad and scary reality is there are people that are just that dumb in the world.

Posted by: Dreggas on January 20, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Bush is a wimp!

I mean, what kind of Unitary Executive *asks* for those records. He should *demand* them or shut up about it.

Posted by: MarkH on January 20, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK
True. But like airbags in cars, try buying a TV that doesn't have one. Posted by: tbrosz
Try buying a TV without SAP. You can disconnect airbags, you can ignore v chips, you don't have to ride with a helmet. You can override lawnmower and electronic interlocks. The mere existence of a feature doesn't mean it's an intrusion into your personal life and philosophy. If you'll look into the reasons for v-chips, it was the complaints of Republican special interest groups about the content on broadcast TV. V-Chips were the least obtrusive means to shut them up. Would you prefer Pat and Jerry to regulate content directly? Posted by: Mike on January 20, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

wenn wrote:

"She insisted that the most useful tool of government was blackmail.

She also insisted that anybody who aspires to power is "owned". If you aren't damaged goods, you don't get beyond dog catcher in America - because Washington doesn't want any independant heroes.

They need people with secrets, who don't stray from prescribed tasks.

it's worth thinking about"

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK


Just when I was thinking I'd better stay away from all those porn sites wenn provides an enticing reason we *should* go there. This is confusing.

It is a little worrisome when wenn says nobody gets beyond dogcatcher if they're not "owned". Does that mean they control the voting booth? And, just who is the "Washington" wenn refers to? Is it politicos or just Rich folks?

Posted by: MarkH on January 20, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

Tj wrote:

"I predicted this. I remember arguing with a friend that the government would whip the country into a frenzy over pedophilia, child porn or any other subject that would rally the masses to beg for more chains.

The formula requires that the victims ASK for the destruction of their rights for a higher good.

This is exactly what they're doing. This isn't about porn or child abuse. This is about tightening the noose around the constitution and the applications are enormous."

Posted by: Tj on January 20, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK


Ya know, this made me think of the 'giant' Gulliver being tied down by Lilliputians. Now, if America as a whole (not it's parts) thinks America is going to Heck in a handbasket and that it needs to be severely restrained (as the porn search indicates) or otherwise punished for it's bad behavior, then the politicians would likely be put in power to do that. Was America punished on 9/11 for it's sins? That sounds like a Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson idea, doesn't it.

Of course, those of us who don't feel so rotten about ourselves don't really appreciate all the added chains and restrictions.

---------

There is another possibility of interest: that they're using the guise of ridding the Internet of an evil (child porn) while searching for information about Al Qaeda (or other enemies of America) use of the Internet.

Maybe it's a big effort to regain some respect from the electorate by tracking down some terrists who've been using the Internet.

Posted by: MarkH on January 20, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK
you'll look into the reasons for v-chips, it was the complaints of Republican special interest groups about the content on broadcast TV. V-Chips were the least obtrusive means to shut them up.

No, they weren't. The most inexpensive, and most effective, and most libertarian, was letting the industry do what it wanted to do, and work instead on more robust positive choice technologies, with a slightly longer implementation timeframe.

The V-Chip mandate was the easiest way for politicians (and certainly many in the Democratic Party were involved) to be able to say, in simple terms constituents would understand, "We imposed a mandate to do something about this!"

Politicians love to be able to do that, even if it impedes -- as the V-chip certainly did -- more effective solutions that are already in the works. It is far more important, often, for them to be seen to be doing something, than to be doing something.

(As an aside: the fact that this behavior is manifestly also present in executive responses to crime and national security threats is one important underpinning for due process and transparency and minimizing secrecy to where it is absolutely necessary in those areas. The last thing you want is a government that puts being seen to be fighting terrorism, for instance, ahead of actually fighting it. Procedural safeguards and independent oversight and, where practical, public transparency provide controls against that.)

Posted by: cmdicely on January 20, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Greek Tourist

Okay - I understand your take, but sifting data takes people - lots of people.

And the "THEY" you refer to, changes with each administration. A certain as the sun comes up, Democrats will use the tool to destroy the extreme right - and Republicans will use it to destroy their polar opposites in the Democratic party.

This requires a bureaucracy - that WON'T change with the politics [for the most part]

follow me here...

This function will become a bureaucratic one... sifting data on people. When that happens - it won't be G Gordon Liddy sifting through emails.

It will be Mfumbe Roosevelt and Maria Velasques.

Aunt Beatrix isn't going to like that unless the people being 'monitored' are limited to icky foreigners.

White American men - wealthy white American men aren't going to risk their alone time at the computer either.

I think they mistepped when they decided to use the porn ruse... I think the national security ruse would have worked better -- because if any of the rumors about Bohemian Grove are correct - that demographic has a kinky appetite for sex.

So Aunt Beatrix and CEO's of America are NOT gonna like this. Neither will civil libertarians.

The only constituent that I can think of that will lap up this crap is MADD and such.... those fucking mothers for looking into anything that might pose a threat to anybodys child anytime anywhere...

THEY are the ones doin this.

Posted by: wenn on January 20, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think that google can compile information on you if you use a dial-up modem. You're assigned a different IP address each time you dial-up. How else could google keep track of you?

Posted by: slanted tom on January 20, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

slanted tom said: "I don't think that google can compile information on you if you use a dial-up modem. You're assigned a different IP address each time you dial-up. How else could google keep track of you?"

Yeah but all IP's can be tracked back to an ISP and you can be found. Even if your ISP assigns you a random IP and you are on a dial up connection the IP is only so Random and is based solely on IP's not in use that the ISP has access to which are not infinite in number.

I am not as savvy in this so others might know more but to my understanding you are not completely anonymous and can be found even when using a dialup connection. IP's are not the only way to find you.

Just go into mIRC or any other program that allows you to do a whois and whois yourself and it gives far more on who you are than just an IP.

There are places online where you can run an IP trace that would trace the IP as far back as it can (including hops between servers) to a source, the source usually being the ISP you are connected through, from there it is only a matter of intimidating the ISP into handing over the subscriber list and then things proceed to monitoring those users and the IP's, not hard to do with todays tech.

Posted by: Dreggas on January 20, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Really, Patton? Where do you "hear" that terrorists have stopped using electronic communications since the NYT story? Jeff Gannon tell you in the sauna?

Posted by: Pat on January 20, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

Pat wrote: "Really, Patton? Where do you "hear" that terrorists have stopped using electronic communications since the NYT story? Jeff Gannon tell you in the sauna?"

Not to burst the satisfactory smacking of Patton but here in California, it was reported not long after the NYT story broke that there had been several individuals in So Cal buying large quantities of disposable, untraceable cell phones. One group was rounded up and had a van full of the things. Now granted it could be tin-foil hatters even more paranoid about gov't surveillance than I am but you never know.

Posted by: Dreggas on January 20, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

One group was rounded up and had a van full of the things. Now granted it could be tin-foil hatters even more paranoid about gov't surveillance than I am but you never know.

I have it on good authority that it was tbrosz, looking for a way to privately call people from his Geiger-countered vehicle on his way to the Star Wars fanvention.

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

So, just to understand:

* Buying lots of disposable cellphones: security alert! whoop! whoop! Call out the National Guard. Demand everyone's google records. Run in circles hysterically.

* Buying lots of guns every month: nothing to worry about. How dare you question my right to buy several hundred guns per year? Commie!

Am I missing something?

Posted by: craigie on January 20, 2006 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

Am I missing something?

A big old PAC?

Posted by: shortstop on January 20, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

craigie wrote: "Buying lots of disposable cellphones: security alert! whoop! whoop! Call out the National Guard. Demand everyone's google records. Run in circles hysterically."

truthfully if that had been the reaction I would have rolled my eyes as well, however it is an interesting coincidence this is not to say Patton is at all coherent or stable in what he/she said.

Just some basic food for thought.

Posted by: Dreggas on January 20, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK
Not to burst the satisfactory smacking of Patton but here in California, it was reported not long after the NYT story broke that there had been several individuals in So Cal buying large quantities of disposable, untraceable cell phones. One group was rounded up and had a van full of the things. Now granted it could be tin-foil hatters even more paranoid about gov't surveillance than I am but you never know.

There ain't no such thing as an "untraceable cell phone", and buying them is evidence that whoever is buying them isn't giving up on electronic communication.

ISTR hearing that disposable cell phones are popular with all kinds of criminals (drug dealers, etc.), anyway, so I'm not sure why this is assumed relevant.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 20, 2006 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it's time for an internet search engine based offshore.

Posted by: The Blue Nomad on January 20, 2006 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

I have to say, the "laughing at" tbrosz leaves a pretty bad taste. I disagree with almost everything in every post he writes, but there's no need to mock his personal activities off these comments boards. Ad hominem's pretty weak.

Posted by: edninton on January 21, 2006 at 4:20 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.20six.co.uk/iBla-female-hairy-armpits/ - iBla female hairy armpits http://www.20six.co.uk/iBla-female-hairy-armpits/
http://www.20six.co.uk/BgXq-hairy-dad-son/ - BgXq hairy dad son http://www.20six.co.uk/BgXq-hairy-dad-son/
http://www.20six.co.uk/QsTa-free-hairy-bush/ - QsTa free hairy bush http://www.20six.co.uk/QsTa-free-hairy-bush/
http://www.20six.co.uk/CBea-hairy-clam/ - CBea hairy clam http://www.20six.co.uk/CBea-hairy-clam/
http://www.20six.co.uk/ebiF-hairy-women-photos/ - ebiF hairy women photos http://www.20six.co.uk/ebiF-hairy-women-photos/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Ljsg-hairy-indian-women/ - Ljsg hairy indian women http://www.20six.co.uk/Ljsg-hairy-indian-women/
http://www.20six.co.uk/RZJj-hairy-girls/ - RZJj hairy girls http://www.20six.co.uk/RZJj-hairy-girls/
http://www.20six.co.uk/UBwy-hairy-movies/ - UBwy hairy movies http://www.20six.co.uk/UBwy-hairy-movies/
http://www.20six.co.uk/hrXy-hairy-thumbs/ - hrXy hairy thumbs http://www.20six.co.uk/hrXy-hairy-thumbs/
http://www.20six.co.uk/PwTk-hairy-male-armpits/ - PwTk hairy male armpits http://www.20six.co.uk/PwTk-hairy-male-armpits/
http://www.20six.co.uk/kUdg-hairy-teen-girls/ - kUdg hairy teen girls http://www.20six.co.uk/kUdg-hairy-teen-girls/
http://www.20six.co.uk/SPlj-hairy-box/ - SPlj hairy box http://www.20six.co.uk/SPlj-hairy-box/
http://www.20six.co.uk/uTWE-oral-hairy-leukoplakia/ - uTWE oral hairy leukoplakia http://www.20six.co.uk/uTWE-oral-hairy-leukoplakia/
http://www.20six.co.uk/MYjf-hairy-bodybuilders/ - MYjf hairy bodybuilders http://www.20six.co.uk/MYjf-hairy-bodybuilders/
http://www.20six.co.uk/KdfY-amateur-hairy/ - KdfY amateur hairy http://www.20six.co.uk/KdfY-amateur-hairy/
http://www.20six.co.uk/ArGv-very-hairy-chest/ - ArGv very hairy chest http://www.20six.co.uk/ArGv-very-hairy-chest/
http://www.20six.co.uk/VeNi-hairy-men-links/ - VeNi hairy men links http://www.20six.co.uk/VeNi-hairy-men-links/
http://www.20six.co.uk/EAcr-hairy-males/ - EAcr hairy males http://www.20six.co.uk/EAcr-hairy-males/
http://www.20six.co.uk/HCcT-hairy-man-gallery/ - HCcT hairy man gallery http://www.20six.co.uk/HCcT-hairy-man-gallery/
http://www.20six.co.uk/QmHd-gay-hairy-men/ - QmHd gay hairy men http://www.20six.co.uk/QmHd-gay-hairy-men/
http://www.20six.co.uk/oCsE-hairy-blondes/ - oCsE hairy blondes http://www.20six.co.uk/oCsE-hairy-blondes/
http://www.20six.co.uk/qVMr-scary-hairy/ - qVMr scary hairy http://www.20six.co.uk/qVMr-scary-hairy/
http://www.20six.co.uk/okdA-fat-hairy/ - okdA fat hairy http://www.20six.co.uk/okdA-fat-hairy/
http://www.20six.co.uk/IjEF-hairy-men-in-uniform/ - IjEF hairy men in uniform http://www.20six.co.uk/IjEF-hairy-men-in-uniform/
http://www.20six.co.uk/LtFp-very-hairy-ladies/ - LtFp very hairy ladies http://www.20six.co.uk/LtFp-very-hairy-ladies/
http://www.20six.co.uk/MmWS-hairy-sex/ - MmWS hairy sex http://www.20six.co.uk/MmWS-hairy-sex/
http://www.20six.co.uk/tTAw-hairy-girls-armpits/ - tTAw hairy girls armpits http://www.20six.co.uk/tTAw-hairy-girls-armpits/
http://www.20six.co.uk/WTHc-hairy-chests/ - WTHc hairy chests http://www.20six.co.uk/WTHc-hairy-chests/
http://www.20six.co.uk/lKQn-hairy-scorpions/ - lKQn hairy scorpions http://www.20six.co.uk/lKQn-hairy-scorpions/
http://www.20six.co.uk/rfHz-hairy-wife/ - rfHz hairy wife http://www.20six.co.uk/rfHz-hairy-wife/
http://www.20six.co.uk/IPws-hairy-men/ - IPws hairy men http://www.20six.co.uk/IPws-hairy-men/
WBR gJlhPStBOkpGQMWCK

Posted by: syGAKIvZjc on January 23, 2006 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Flickr is the tip of the iceberg...Google also owns Blogger.

Posted by: Lanky on January 23, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.20six.co.uk/adQn-amkingdom-com-hairy/ - adQn amkingdom com hairy http://www.20six.co.uk/adQn-amkingdom-com-hairy/
http://www.20six.co.uk/ykvt-femur-s-transgendered-stories - ykvt femur s transgendered stories http://www.20six.co.uk/ykvt-femur-s-transgendered-stories
http://www.20six.co.uk/deXP-free-shemale-porn/ - deXP free shemale porn http://www.20six.co.uk/deXP-free-shemale-porn/
http://www.20six.co.uk/Kjzu-free-shemale-sex-sites/ - Kjzu free shemale sex sites http://www.20six.co.uk/Kjzu-free-shemale-sex-sites/
http://www.20six.co.uk/fQuk-free-nasty-shemale-galleries - fQuk free nasty shemale galleries http://www.20six.co.uk/fQuk-free-nasty-shemale-galleries
http://www.20six.co.uk/ebrJ-free-shemale-porn-stars/ - ebrJ free shemale porn stars http://www.20six.co.uk/ebrJ-free-shemale-porn-stars/
http://www.20six.co.uk/JaLZ-free-transvestite-movies/ - JaLZ free transvestite movies http://www.20six.co.uk/JaLZ-free-transvestite-movies/
http://www.20six.co.uk/BZYC-free-shemale-xxx-adult-pics/ - BZYC free shemale xxx adult pics http://www.20six.co.uk/BZYC-free-shemale-xxx-adult-pics/
http://www.20six.co.uk/CMuj-free-picture-gallerys-of-beautiful-shemales - CMuj free picture gallerys of beautiful shemales http://www.20six.co.uk/CMuj-free-picture-gallerys-of-beautiful-shemales
http://www.20six.co.uk/obnP-free-shemale-transexual-galleries/ - obnP free shemale transexual galleries http://www.20six.co.uk/obnP-free-shemale-transexual-galleries/
http://www.20six.co.uk/WmkN-free-pics-of-a-hermaphrodite - WmkN free pics of a hermaphrodite http://www.20six.co.uk/WmkN-free-pics-of-a-hermaphrodite
http://www.20six.co.uk/hSvQ-free-shemale-sex-moviesstories/ - hSvQ free shemale sex moviesstories http://www.20six.co.uk/hSvQ-free-shemale-sex-moviesstories/
http://www.20six.co.uk/zDyr-hairy-women-galleries/ - zDyr hairy women galleries http://www.20six.co.uk/zDyr-hairy-women-galleries/
http://www.20six.co.uk/tTAw-hairy-girls-armpits/ - tTAw hairy girls armpits http://www.20six.co.uk/tTAw-hairy-girls-armpits/
http://www.20six.co.uk/XeEa-hairy-pecs/ - XeEa hairy pecs http://www.20six.co.uk/XeEa-hairy-pecs/
http://www.20six.co.uk/wOab-hairy-bear-galleries/ - wOab hairy bear galleries http://www.20six.co.uk/wOab-hairy-bear-galleries/
http://www.20six.co.uk/RUkK-nude-hairy/ - RUkK nude hairy http://www.20six.co.uk/RUkK-nude-hairy/
http://www.20six.co.uk/sGMI-nude-hairy-men/ - sGMI nude hairy men http://www.20six.co.uk/sGMI-nude-hairy-men/
http://www.20six.co.uk/ExZN-fucking-guy-trannies/ - ExZN fucking guy trannies http://www.20six.co.uk/ExZN-fucking-guy-trannies/
http://www.20six.co.uk/AcjY-american-shemales-free-photos - AcjY american shemales free photos http://www.20six.co.uk/AcjY-american-shemales-free-photos
http://www.20six.co.uk/hvpq-mature-hairy/ - hvpq mature hairy http://www.20six.co.uk/hvpq-mature-hairy/
http://www.20six.co.uk/PVtu-hairy-mature-women/ - PVtu hairy mature women http://www.20six.co.uk/PVtu-hairy-mature-women/
http://www.20six.co.uk/MroE-free-transexual/ - MroE free transexual http://www.20six.co.uk/MroE-free-transexual/
http://www.20six.co.uk/koxE-hairy-young-girls/ - koxE hairy young girls http://www.20six.co.uk/koxE-hairy-young-girls/
http://www.20six.co.uk/tXnT-adult-she-male-videos/ - tXnT adult she male videos http://www.20six.co.uk/tXnT-adult-she-male-videos/
http://www.20six.co.uk/SOQg-fat-hairy-naked-men/ - SOQg fat hairy naked men http://www.20six.co.uk/SOQg-fat-hairy-naked-men/
http://www.20six.co.uk/TwOK-free-brazilian-shemale-pics - TwOK free brazilian shemale pics http://www.20six.co.uk/TwOK-free-brazilian-shemale-pics
http://www.20six.co.uk/kzNR-hairy-celebrities/ - kzNR hairy celebrities http://www.20six.co.uk/kzNR-hairy-celebrities/
http://www.20six.co.uk/sZVe-hairy-granny/ - sZVe hairy granny http://www.20six.co.uk/sZVe-hairy-granny/
http://www.20six.co.uk/GpOA-free-shemale-blow-job - GpOA free shemale blow job http://www.20six.co.uk/GpOA-free-shemale-blow-job
http://www.20six.co.uk/wcZn-hairy-man-pics/ - wcZn hairy man pics http://www.20six.co.uk/wcZn-hairy-man-pics/
WBR tZhPniJGEyQcuMvNp

Posted by: mcwhuBlzdk on January 23, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly