When a judge ordered last week that the justice department decrease the amount of information it subpoenaed from Google, the judge gave liberty a boost.

In 1998, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act to protect children from accessing pornography via the Internet.

According to COPA, “While custody, care and nurture of the child resides first with the parent, the widespread availability of the Internet presents opportunities for minors to access materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that can frustrate government control.”

In June of 2004, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled against COPA. The court said there were other alternatives like filtering software, which was less restrictive on adult freedom of speech.

According to the Associated Press, the Department of Justice is now trying to prove that Web based filtering software is not effective and COPA is necessary. The court battle is scheduled to begin in Pennsylvania on October 23.

To prove that Web-filtering software can be fooled, the Justice Department sent subpoenas to several search engines. All complied except Google, which balked at the subpoena it received last August.

Google’s Associate General Council, Nicole Wong, posted a response to the Justice Department’s motion on Feb. 17. Wong said Google would “keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason.”

Google claims that disclosing search results and Web site addresses will not help the case or assist in securing protection for children. They believe their users’ privacy would be infringed if the Justice Department gets its way.

“The privacy of Google users matters, and Google has promised to disclose information to the government as required by law. Google should not bear the burden of guessing what the law requires in regards to disclosure of search queries to the government, or the risk of guessing wrong,” Wong said.

Judge James Ware ruled in March that the Justice Department could have access to addresses of 50,000 randomly selected Web sites but not access to 5,000 search queries due to privacy concerns.

The heart of the issue is privacy and government control, not the banner of child protection that the government is waving. There is undoubtedly a need to protect children from filth available online, but a ruling that sets a precedent for federal inquisition without providing real benefits to children is a farce.

When Internet users sit down at a computer they should feel safe from government’s prying eyes. Google is making a noble stand. What a person does on his or her computer should not be used against them in any way, especially not as information dredged up to be used indiscriminately.

Privacy is a right that needs to be protected at high cost. This court battle is part of the larger slippery slope of decreasing civil liberties in this country.

The federal government believes that it can take liberties from citizens to do what it wants, but citizens should be concerned. Sacrificing privacy in the short term will lead to the loss of our long term goal of a stable society with a strong democracy.

A ruling in favor of privacy will do little in the fight against pornography, but it will protect our democracy — the best protection any child can have.