Democrat Jeffrey Toback is claiming that Google takes money for paid links which contain child pornography
Google sued over child porn payments
/v3-uk/news/1977809/google-sued-child-porn-payments
06 May 2006, Iain Thomson , V3
Google is being sued in the US by a politician who believes that the company is profiting from child pornography.
Jeffrey Toback, a Democratic Party member of the Nassau County Legislature, has filed a 16-page complaint claiming that Google takes money for paid links which contain child pornography.
"When it comes to the protection and well being of our nation's innocent children, [Google] refuses to spend a dime's worth of resources to block child pornography from reaching children or to filter out search terms such as 'child pornography' or 'kiddie porn' or the content to which such terms lead," the complaint said.
A Google spokesman pointed out that Google has the SafeSearch function which blocks any adult material from its website, and that where child pornography is found the site concerned is permanently excluded from Google searches and local law enforcement agencies notified.
Toback has previously sponsored a bill to raise the age at which people can buy cigarettes to 19, and to limit children's access to tanning salons.
He is not seeking money from Google but wants the company to prohibit " advertising relating to websites that display, market or otherwise provide illegal access to pornography".
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2010, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Do you agree?
Humbug
Another grandstanding politician trying to grab headlines. This is bull^&%^&. Google is doing nothing wrong, this clown just want some free press.
Just more reason to hate all the politician and their sleazy ways. Where are the statesmen of yesterday?
Posted by Chris, 06 May 2006
His work is done, then
He is not seeking money from Google but wants the company to prohibit " advertising relating to websites that display, market or otherwise provide illegal access to pornography".
His work is done before it started, then. This from Google AdWords TOS:
"You shall not... advertise anything illegal or engage in any illegal or fraudulent business practice..."
https://adwords.google.com/select/tsandcsfinder
Posted by Joseph Bartlett, 06 May 2006
It's about time!!!!
It's about time someone in the political arena got some balls about them. :)
Posted by rhonda, 06 May 2006
Go Toback!
Anyone that helps prevent child abuse and exploitation is a hero in my book, and there should be more like him.
Posted by Stella Bembrick, 06 May 2006
So...
If you read about this elsewhere on the web, you'll also find that the ads that are displayed on these pages are anti-child-abuse ads, so basically, this congressman thinks that Google actually should be doing nothing, rather than taking its stance of publishing positive information in the ad space when people (or bots) search for such negative content.
I think Google's already doing the right thing in this case, and this representative may as well be fighting windmills. Your computer when connected to the internet is a portal to everything, and rejecting one's own responsibility is no reason why someone else should pick it it up to cover your lack of attention to your own kids intake of information.
We're punishing our own kids with our ignorance.
Posted by Richard, 06 May 2006
Google needs to get more aggressive
I continually find this baffling, as it's not the first time things like this have been brought up concerning Google and others.
It seems that they would take it much more seriously than they have been, and aggressively pursue and communicate what it is they are doing to combat this scourge.
Posted by Gary Bourgeault (thealphamarketer.com), 06 May 2006
chlid porn
Let Google put all their cards on the table and prove themselves to like Caesar's wife.
Posted by Victor Stroud, 07 May 2006
who really benefits
Why don't they sue the credit card companies who facilitate such transactions. After all if there was no financial incentive there wouldn't be suppliers.
Posted by Dave, 07 May 2006