| Author |
Message |
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
 Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:52 pm U.S. wants to google . . . Google |
|
| Chicago Tribune wrote: | U.S. wants to google ... Google
Demand for data on Web searches may spark fight on privacy rights
By Mike Hughlett, Tribune staff reporter. Staff reporter Jon Van contributed to this story
Published January 20, 2006
Google Inc. is refusing to obey a Justice Department demand that it release information about what people seek when they use the popular search engine, setting up a possible battle with broad implications for Internet privacy rights.
The Justice Department asked a federal court this week to force Google to turn over a trove of information on how people use the Internet. A subpoena, first sought over the summer, seeks activity on Google's search engines for a single week, a request that Google says could lead to identifying millions of people and what they were looking at.
The government, which says its request will not result in identifying individual computer users, wants to use the information to resurrect an online pornography law shot down last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. It wants to search Google queries to see how often users inadvertently run across sexual material.
The Internet's rise has raised issues of whether users would be vulnerable to electronic eavesdropping of all kinds, but Google's stand represents the first big public face-off between the world's leading search engine and the government.
It's not a surprise this data is "irresistible to law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, an Internet privacy advocate. "It's a honey pot."
Google said the Justice Department's demand is overreaching. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to, and we intend to resist their motion vigorously," Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel, said Thursday.
Yahoo, which has the second most popular Internet search engine, acknowledged Thursday it has complied with the government on a "limited basis."
Other Internet search engines also appear to have complied with the request, said Chris Winfield, president of 10e20 LLC, a New York-based search engine marketing firm. "It looks like Google against everyone," he said.
Privacy advocates say the request is troubling.
"Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother," Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney, told The Associated Press. "Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this too."
The fight is a big test for Google, whose growing store of personal information has increasingly bred uneasiness, the advocates said.
"We're happy Google is fighting it," said Hoofnagle, senior counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center. "This is an opportunity for Google to distinguish itself as a privacy leader, and thus far it has not."
Hoofnagle's group and other Internet privacy watchdogs have long been concerned about Google's data retention policies. Essentially, Google keeps just about everything, he said. "It has infinite memory."
Google refused to comply with a subpoena last year, the Justice Department revealed in federal court filings in San Jose, Calif., this week. The subpoena included requests for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from a one-week period.
"This is an extraordinarily broad discovery request," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, another privacy advocacy group, agreed. "We think this is really an over-the-top request."
Yahoo "did not provide personal information in response to the Department of Justice's subpoena," said spokeswoman Mary Osako. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."
Microsoft Corp.'s MSN search engine did not elaborate on whether it received a similar subpoena. But MSN said it "works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested."
The Justice Department claims it needs the search engine data to prove the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. In a brief filed with the court Wednesday, first reported by the San Jose Mercury News, the agency said the Google information "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users."
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, barred enforcement of the child protection act, saying it sacrificed the free speech rights of adults.
The 1998 law would slap a $50,000 fine and a 6-month prison sentence on commercial Web site operators who posted "patently offensive" photos or descriptions available to minors.
The court basically said it's up to parents to keep their kids away from Internet pornography, including through software that filters out obscenities.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said filters are a more effective method anyway of keeping minors from pornography. Plus, he noted that since more than 40 percent of the offending sites were overseas, a law aimed at U.S. sex sites wouldn't adequately protect American kids.
Still, the Supreme Court didn't kill the law, kicking it back to a federal court in Pennsylvania. A trial there is supposed to determine if software filters are indeed more effective than statutory restrictions.
The Justice Department subpoenaed Google and other search engines to prove its case that a tough law trumps filters.
By corralling Google's data, the government believes it can "estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the court filing said.
The government is probably trying to show that even non-pornographic searches end up extracting racy material, and therefore filters aren't effective, said Michael Overing, an adjunct professor at the University of Southern California and a lawyer specializing in Internet and free speech issues.
The public revelation of the Justice Department's request is a rarity for Google. The Mountain View, Calif., firm has traditionally been mum on law enforcement inquiries for its data, analysts say. |
Source
I heard about this on the radio. I'm firmly in favour of the freedom of information on the Internet--reach means a freedom from having that information monitored. Because monitoring is just another form of restriction. 
And if Google's evil, then I don't want to be good.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:58 pm |
|
While I admire and respect the government's stance here, I think I'm inclined to disagree with them and side with Google.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:15 pm |
|
Why does the government want to see what people google?
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Jan 20, 2006 7:44 pm |
|
Pornography and...I wouldn't be surprised if National Security came into play. It seems innocent to want to see how good the pornography filters on...but they could use that information for anything. Anyway, they'd need to get orders on all search engines. Even if you could see what happens on google, there's altavista and ixquick and ask... meh. I don't think it's any business of the government to regulate the internet outside trying to keep hackers and predators at bay.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:25 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | Why does the government want to see what people google? |
| The article wrote: | | The government, which says its request will not result in identifying individual computer users, wants to use the information to resurrect an online pornography law shot down last year by the U.S. Supreme Court. It wants to search Google queries to see how often users inadvertently run across sexual material. |
| Exalya wrote: | | altavista and ixquick and ask |
AltaVista is owned by Yahoo! and uses its database. Ixquick is actually a "metasearch" engine; it doesn't index any content but instead it searches other search engines. Ask Jeeves is actually independent as far as I know, but they aren't going to use the valet anymore, so they are irrelevant.* 
MSN, Yahoo!, and Google are the big three. They're really the ones who matter. :/ While it may be impractical to have such a request on all search engines, I suspect that if those three comply, the others would probably follow. And even if they didn't, the traffic of those three is enough to keep the government busy anyway.
I can see the reasons behind such a request, but find it unpalatable. I don't trust a search engine to keep my information private anymore than another corporation to, but I'd rather be ignorant about what they're really doing with it. . . . Not that this would affect me, being Canadian and such. We only get angry about music downloading.
*My logical reasoning on this fact is impeccable, no?
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:54 pm |
|
I was going to write something else, but then I stumbled on this line:
| Quote: | | It wants to search Google queries to see how often users inadvertently run across sexual material. |
That seems innocent enough. As long as they're only using the data to form statistic on that sort of thing. Perhaps they could have the folks at Google compile that information for them. Would probably be more efficiant 
| Quote: | | "It looks like Google against everyone," |
You know. If they win (which I think they will...) I'm gonna laugh my butt off...
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:58 pm |
|
I don't think google needs to give that sort of information to any company. People who use google search engine do so under google's terms and their own privacy policy, and should not be subject to any government possessing that information. Another thing people are forgetting is that google is world wide, what right does the US government have to have that data for world wide search enquries. It just doesn't add up.
I know I wouldn't want the logs of my search results given to the US government because, well, I trust google a hell of a lot more than any government, especially one out of my own country.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Jan 20, 2006 11:25 pm |
|
Well according to Google's Privacy Policy...
| Google Privacy Policy wrote: | | We may share with third parties certain pieces of aggregated, non-personal information, such as the number of users who searched for a particular term, for example, or how many users clicked on a particular advertisement. Such information does not identify you individually. |
This supposedly is what the government is requesting. Also, they | Google Privacy Policy wrote: | | ...have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request. |
And yet to go even further:
| Google Privacy Policy wrote: | | Google does comply with valid legal process, such as search warrants, court orders, or subpoenas seeking personal information. |
Therefore, I really think that according their own privacy policy, they should comply with this government request.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:24 am |
|
Hmmm...Kevin, my friend, that was an excellent point. Superb analysis, and good work.
You have, in a single post, successfully changed my mind--which, I've been told, is quite difficult to do.
No, in all seriousness, Kevin raises a good point, and I happen to see it as entirely reasonable and, therefore, agree with him. My opinion is hereby changed.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:35 am |
|
This is ridiculous. They want to crack down on "pornography"? Get the hell out of here. You know damn well they don't care about porno. They're definitly looking into seeing all the people who typed in "Al-Jazeera" "Osama" "Terrorists" "Al-Queda" etc etc etc. No one looks at porno through Google. I mean, I don't think anyone does. Also, out of all of the search engines, why pick that one?
|
|
|
PrankishSmart
Rear Admiral
Joined: 29 Apr 2002
Posts: 4779
Location: Hobart, Australia.
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:46 am |
|
Yeah Founder thats why I also thought something doesn't add up. Unless were talking about child pornography or something, but then why would they need search strings it doesn't make sense.
I can accept the fact google complies with laws etc, even though I don't fully support all laws. The thing that worries me is where the information is going.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:18 pm |
|
This is being blown far out of proportion; the U.S. gov't is simply trying to gather evidence to put together a better case against child-pornography sites. They want any one-day's worth of searches made on Google, not who is searching, simply what is being searched; to see how many times in a day child-pornogrphy is searched for.
They're not going after Google here, they simply want Google to cooperate. I don't see any logical reason for Google not to.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:46 pm |
|
I don't see why it's a huge issue. I understand privacy rights, but I'm also not going to freak out if something like this could save someone.
And people aren't too bright, they'll google just about anything.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:28 pm |
|
The government is asking for a particular week's info. Why just that week? And why just Google? Pornagraphy must be a smokescreen; they must be looking for something else.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:32 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | The government is asking for a particular week's info. Why just that week? And why just Google? Pornagraphy must be a smokescreen; they must be looking for something else. |
I'm sure it is just one random week. I mean considering the number of searches that go through google, I would imagine it would be difficult to utilize any more than a week of searches anyways.
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:39 pm |
|
But if pornography was the issue, a longer time frame would be requested, and from more search engines. I'm guessing they know what was searched for and when, and they just want to nail down from where (since IP's can be localized, but they don't reveal WHO was banging the keys on the computer).
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:43 pm |
|
I think Kevin's right there. I think it's a bit paranoid to be thinking that the government has something sinister here because they want one week and Google only.
One week is very telling, and I think they're singling out Google since it is, right now, the leading search engine and you only really need to check one search engine to find telling information.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:38 pm |
|
On the flip side:
| ABC News wrote: | Google: China decision painful but right
Reuters
DAVOS, Switzerland - Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin said his company's decision to self-censor its Chinese search system followed a change of heart over how best to foster the free flow of information.
Google said on Tuesday it will block politically sensitive terms on its new China search site and not offer e-mail, chat and blog publishing services, which authorities fear can become flashpoints for social or political protest. Those actions go further than many of its biggest rivals in China.
"I didn't think I would come to this conclusion -- but eventually I came to the conclusion that more information is better, even if it is not as full as we would like to see," Brin told Reuters in an interview in Switzerland.
Google, whose high-minded corporate motto is "Don't be evil," had previously refused to comply with Internet censorship demands by Chinese authorities, rules that must be met in order to locate business operations inside China -- the world's No. 2 Internet market.
"I know a lot of people are upset by our decision but it is something we have deliberated for a number of years," Brin said from the sidelines of the World Economic Forum conference.
At least for now, Google will offer just four of its core services in China -- Web site and image search, Google News and local search.
The voluntary concessions laid out on Tuesday by Google parallel some of the self-censorship already practiced there by global rivals such as Yahoo and Microsoft, as well as domestic sites.
"There is no question. Google would tell you that going into China is about making money, not bringing democracy," John Palfrey, author of a study on Chinese Internet censorship and a law professor at Harvard Law School, on Google's action.
"The practical matter is that over the last couple of years Google in China was censored -- not by us but by the government, via the 'Great Firewall,"' said Brin. "It's not something I enjoy but I think it was a reasonable decision."
In different political circumstances, Google already notifies users of its German and French search services when it blocks access to material such as banned Nazi sites in Europe.
"France and Germany require censorship for Nazi sites, and the U.S. requires censorship based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA). These various countries also have laws on child pornography," he said.
The DCMA law requires U.S. Internet service providers to block access to Web sites violating copyrights on materials such as music or movies.
"I totally understand that people are upset about it and I think that is a reasonable point of view to take," Brin said of Google's compromise in China.
(Additional reporting by Eric Auchard in San Francisco)
Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
Source
So I've gone from being impressed by Google to ashamed of it.  I mean, Brin's rationalisations make sense, but it's still about business.
|
|
|
ILoveHarry
Admiral
Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 7909
Location: Houston
|
| Thu Jan 26, 2006 3:02 pm |
|
Personally, I don't care if people want to know what I searched. It's not like someone is out there compiling a file on me that they are going to share with all the people in my life. Granted, I don't think it is anyones business who looks at *beep* sites... but if they want to check up on who is looking up how to build bombs, or terrorism 101, or... anything else that may be considerd dangerous for the country... I say go right a head. I'm one of the most liberal users on this site, and I can say I absolutly support the government looking into shady situations. It goes along with the whole listening in on phone conversations thing...
No one cares what sites most of us look at, or what our conversations consist of. It's not like Pres. Bush is going to call up some random guy and be like, "So, Joe... I tapped your phone line and guess what?!? You're wife's having an affair, your kid is gay, and oh yeah, your daughter goes to *beep* sites!"
Trust me. Our leaders don't care about our private lives.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
