Below is the letter we plan to send ASAP to the Department of Justice,
so they will understand that all the strange querists, who come to this
weblog based on kinky search engine queries, got here inadvertently.
We’re into legal commentary and genuine haiku, not pornography (and,
our constructive criticism of the present Administration is really quite
de minimis and proffered with all due respect)
Horn‘s Lady Justice
to: Department of Justice, Pornography Desk
cc: Political Enemies Department
Organized Crime Unit
re: Inadvertent Visitors to f/k/a
It has come to our attention that your Department came into
possession last year of certain search engine query records, and
similar information, and are seeking even more from Google.com.,
as part of your efforts to demonstrate the need for the Children’s
Online Protection Act (COPA). [Boston Globe, “Google Subpoena
Roils the web,” Jan. 21, 2006; Search EngineWatch, “The Day After:
Points in the Search Trust Sweepstakes,” Jan.20, 2006; MSN
Search’s Weblog, Privacy and MSN Search, January. 20, 2006;
NYT, “Google Resists,” Jan. 20, 2006; Schneier on Security;
Daniel Solove, “Government vs. Google,” “Perhaps Do Some Good“,
Jan. 20, 2006; and Deep Links, “DOJ Gone Google-Fishin’)
Your strategy, as we understand it, is to show that (even with por-
nography websites using special filters to keep out minors) children
can now enter innocuous queries into search engine and be taken to X-
rated websites. Contrary to advice from our counsel, we, the editorial
staff and proprietor of f/k/a, are writing at this time, in case the Depart-
ment is also concerned about the inverse situation, where perverted or
kinky-sounding search questions lead to perfectly innocuous websites
and materials, such as ours.
We refer to such visitors as “Inadvertent Searchees” and — to our great
regret — a significant portion of our website hits fall into the IS category.
We are writing in a good-faith effort to deter any future investigation of us
by your staff, due to our receiving those wayard hits. In fact, we believe
that improved search algorithms and strategies by the major search engines,
and better self-imposed filters by each of them, would save blameless sites
like ours from the inadvertent (and unsolicited) visitors.
“tinyredcheck” To summarize our position: It’s Google’s fault!
— and Yahoo!, MSN, and Ask Jeeves, too. We can’t help it
if our poetry and commentary cover many aspects of life, which
get twisted and connected out of context by poorly-designed
software. Cf. a Google blind date (May 13, 2005)
We have no idea how many of f/k/a‘s Inadvertent
Searchees are under-aged. You can rest assured, however, that
we would never have received the Blawg Review 2005 Creative
Lawyer Blog Award, if we were not a family-friendly website.
[By the way, as we hope you know, f/k/a means “formerly known as,” and
is not an alternative or deceptive spelling of a term that is often preceded
by the word “mother-” and found in unsavory places and mouths.]
night in the hut
searching on the shelf
. . . katydid
translated by David G. Lanoue
With that explanation, we want to list for you a representative sample
of questionable search terms that have resulted in Negligently Inadvertent
Search Results, leading to our site. You can find a perfectly innocent
explanation for each of them by going to our Inadvertent Searchee pages
and doing a little scrolling.
“googleSignN”
For example, although each of the following queries yielded
a link to an f/k/a post at or near the top of Google or Yahoo!
search results, we were clearly unjustly selected, as our
materials were neither published with lascivious intent, nor
aimed at either children or so-called Mature Audiences, and
had no connection whatever with bestiality, illegal drugs, or
either satanic or bondage rituals.
waiting undressed
for the new doctor –
cold feet
dagosan
late summer–
baring the tan line
on my wrist
Alice Frampton
family picnic
the new wife’s rump
bigger than mine
modern haiku 34-3
“red hots”
for an instant i’m ten
and
father’s still alive
“spotlightS”
While we have your attention, we would also like to
clarify that the proprietor of this weblog has no ties of
any sort with organized crime, and does not espouse
the use of violence (even against members of the bar),
despite the results of the following search queries:
Finally, we want to assure all DOJ staffers and
management that the results of the following search queries
have nothing to do with disrespect for the Office of the
Presidency or the current occupant thereof on the part of
the editors of this website. Honest.
in a fine spot
for moongazing …
scarecrow
If you have any questions about any issue or fact
raised above, feel free to contact Prof. Yabut, our
counsel.
respectfully submitted,
The f/k/a Gang
p.s. Because your Department favors the small entrepeneur, we
hope you will leave the folks at Scroogle alone. They are providing
an important service for people who would like to use search engines
anonymously. (via Robert Ambrogi’s Lawsites, Jan. 21, 2006) Give
Clusty, which offers clustered search engine results and no tracking,
a break, too. Finally, please forgive Jon Swift his trespasses — all
those excuses sound pretty good to us. Thanks.
January 22, 2006
hey, DOJ, blame Google (and Yahoo!, too)
Comments Off on hey, DOJ, blame Google (and Yahoo!, too)
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.