Is Google Right or Wrong?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:38 pm

Google Rejects Call for Data in Justice Department Probe

USA TODAY

Jon Swartz

January 20, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO -- Google on Thursday rebuffed the Bush administration's attempt in federal court to force it to hand over search-engine data on millions of customers.

The Justice Department asked a federal judge in San Jose on Wednesday for an order to turn over the records as part of the adminstration's efforts to revive a controversial online pornography law. The issue is expected to be resolved by March.

Google has already refused to comply with a subpoena, issued in August, to turn over a mountain of material, including all requests entered into Google's search engine from any one-week period and 1 million randomly selected websites from Google databases.

Rival search engines Yahoo and Microsoft's MSN have cooperated with the government. But Google, the world's largest search engine, opposes releasing the information because it says that doing so would reveal trade secrets and that the information requested is not relevant to the government's case.

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and their demand for information overreaches," Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, told USA TODAY. "We intend to resist their motion vigorously."

The government says the information is necessary to determine how often porn shows up in online searches, as part of a push to revive the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. That law would have required adults to register to view objectionable material online, and punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail.

A federal court in Philadelphia issued an injunction against the law in 1999, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional on free-speech grounds in 2004.

The government is trying to prove in federal court in Philadelphia that the 1998 law is more effective than Internet filters in protecting kids from porn. Obtaining subpoenaed data from Google would help its claim, it said in Wednesday's filing.

The government subpoenaed material from other, unspecified search engines to develop what it calls a record of how often Web searches turn up material it says is "harmful to minors," according to a motion filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose. The filing was first reported Thursday by the San Jose Mercury News.

Yahoo, the No. 2 search engine, said it cooperated on a limited basis but did not provide any personal information. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue," Yahoo spokesperson Mary Osako said.

Microsoft said it provided general data but did not disclose any private information of its customers.

Even if the government pries data from Google, it isn't likely to find what it wants, search-engine experts say. "One million random Web addresses doesn't tell you how many are porn or how many kids had access," says Danny Sullivan, editor of SearchEngineWatch.com. He and others say filtering software better protects children than the 1998 law.

Privacy advocates worry that the government could gain access to intimate details about consumers. Internet service providers have often resisted providing customer information to law-enforcement officials, for privacy and competitive reasons.

"The government is asking Google -- which has no connection to this online porn law -- to do its dirty work," says Kurt Opsahl, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group.

This could crop up in the future, he says. "Even if Google fights back this request, any attorney can write a subpoena and seek its vast records."

orangesox1 · Post by **orangesox1** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:48 pm

SnoozeControl wrote: Its invasive for us and probably violates proprietary rights for Google. And there's a good point mentioned... from so many different hits, how do they pinpoint the porn sites and how do they know it was a child that entered the search?

Its horseshit.

I agree with you,it's invasive, but it's not hard to pin point in my house whose searching for porn when it comes to the spelling mistakes I see typed in the search history eg.. byutiful asses

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:50 pm

I don't think Google should turn over the records-what will the government do weith these records after they have completed their case? What other information will they sift through?

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:53 pm

Well, I hope they like loud colors...............................

orpheus · Post by **orpheus** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:05 pm

Personally I want them to look into my Google,

In fact

here's one I googled earlier.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:12 pm

as much as i despise google, they did the right thing in this case.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:57 pm

Accountable wrote: "The government is asking Google -- which has no connection to this online porn law -- to do its dirty work," says Kurt Opsahl, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group. This could crop up in the future, he says. "Even if Google fights back this request, any attorney can write a subpoena and seek its vast records."
Hold on to your bootstraps. :yh_bigsmi

Why didn't the Bush administration seek contempt charges against Google for not complying with the subpoena? Why didn't they go directly to the porn providers? I haven't passed the bar exam, but why this move? It seems like pressure tactics, IMO.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:32 am

I always like it when someone values and exercises a right. I live for the day a policeman says "Do you mind if I take a look in there?" be it trunk, back seat, whatever. I will say "Yes, I mind" only because it is my right to do so, and I gave 21 years of my life so everybody can exercise it. Of course, I haven't done anything worthy of being pulled over since 1981. :driving:

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:43 am

*can't help but say this*

What did you do in 1981? Were you speeding?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:46 am

chonsigirl wrote: *can't help but say this*

What did you do in 1981? Were you speeding?
She knows me so well. :-4

SOJOURNER · Post by **SOJOURNER** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:50 am

Accountable wrote: Google Rejects Call for Data in Justice Department Probe

USA TODAY

Jon Swartz

January 20, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO -- Google on Thursday rebuffed the Bush administration's attempt in federal court to force it to hand over search-engine data on millions of customers.

The Justice Department asked a federal judge in San Jose on Wednesday for an order to turn over the records as part of the adminstration's efforts to revive a controversial online pornography law. The issue is expected to be resolved by March.

Google has already refused to comply with a subpoena, issued in August, to turn over a mountain of material, including all requests entered into Google's search engine from any one-week period and 1 million randomly selected websites from Google databases.

Rival search engines Yahoo and Microsoft's MSN have cooperated with the government. But Google, the world's largest search engine, opposes releasing the information because it says that doing so would reveal trade secrets and that the information requested is not relevant to the government's case.

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and their demand for information overreaches," Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, told USA TODAY. "We intend to resist their motion vigorously."

The government says the information is necessary to determine how often porn shows up in online searches, as part of a push to revive the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. That law would have required adults to register to view objectionable material online, and punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail.

A federal court in Philadelphia issued an injunction against the law in 1999, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional on free-speech grounds in 2004.

The government is trying to prove in federal court in Philadelphia that the 1998 law is more effective than Internet filters in protecting kids from porn. Obtaining subpoenaed data from Google would help its claim, it said in Wednesday's filing.

The government subpoenaed material from other, unspecified search engines to develop what it calls a record of how often Web searches turn up material it says is "harmful to minors," according to a motion filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose. The filing was first reported Thursday by the San Jose Mercury News.

Yahoo, the No. 2 search engine, said it cooperated on a limited basis but did not provide any personal information. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue," Yahoo spokesperson Mary Osako said.

Microsoft said it provided general data but did not disclose any private information of its customers.

Even if the government pries data from Google, it isn't likely to find what it wants, search-engine experts say. "One million random Web addresses doesn't tell you how many are porn or how many kids had access," says Danny Sullivan, editor of SearchEngineWatch.com. He and others say filtering software better protects children than the 1998 law.

Privacy advocates worry that the government could gain access to intimate details about consumers. Internet service providers have often resisted providing customer information to law-enforcement officials, for privacy and competitive reasons.

"The government is asking Google -- which has no connection to this online porn law -- to do its dirty work," says Kurt Opsahl, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a privacy advocacy group.

This could crop up in the future, he says. "Even if Google fights back this request, any attorney can write a subpoena and seek its vast records."

orpheus · Post by **orpheus** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:54 am

ChiptBeef wrote: Hold on to your bootstraps. :yh_bigsmi

Why didn't the Bush administration seek contempt charges against Google for not complying with the subpoena? Why didn't they go directly to the porn providers? I haven't passed the bar exam, but why this move? It seems like pressure tactics, IMO.

what!

the Bush administration!

pressure tactics!

surely you jest.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:46 am

Ugh another waste of my tax money,

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:49 am

Sheryl wrote: Ugh another waste of my tax money,Huh?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:54 am

Accountable wrote: Huh?

What I just stated that I can't believe the oh nevermind. I'm to tired to defend myself this morning. Ignore my naive posting above.

randall · Post by **randall** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:43 pm

:-6

Hello folks, randall is back again and my thanks to Arnold Layne for enquiring where on earth I had vanished to.

The web masters were told in advance - through a misunderstanding between my daughter and my wife we ended up having a six week holiday over Christmas and The New Year in Tampa.

My daughter thought it was too long and we would all fall out but sanity prevailed throughout.

It was cold in Florida, we spent three days in Fort Augustine just before Christmas and they claimed it was the coldest weather on record that year (2005) and I wore my thick winter clothes I had wisely brought from Buchan.

Being the oldest city in the USA it deserves far more than a few days holidays - I could have spent a couple of weeks easily because there is so much of historical interest there to feast the eyes and mind on. It was like entering Old Spain.

Regarding GOOGLE - I regard it as another underhand attempt to ever so slowly take away our freedoms and so-called democratic right so hardly fought for and won over the centuries.

It is an intolarable situation that the British Police should have the largest DNA Data Base in the world and keep on it the data of thousands of innocent youths who have never been guilty of anything nor even charged with enything.

The old adage prevails,

All power tends to corrupt,

Absolute powere leads to absolute corruption.

I know only too well that the police have a completely diferent view of this and I have had, as a seaman, my fair share of difficult dealings with The Special Branch, Customs, Excise and the police forces.

I once had a friend in the police force but had to break off the friendship because when invited to dinner we were usually the only couple who were not in the police force.

Yet they openly talked about the scams they operated, their corruption to eke out their wages and their general consencuc of opinion was that the "criminal" had far too much law on their side and "something" should be done about it.

One remarked that he would like to buy the latest Jaguar Sports car but the Corruption Squad would be on to him asking where on earth he had got the money from?

I started this off when I asked why a motocycle policeman could stop me for speeding ( I WAS doing 42 MPH on an empty dual carriageway which for some reason had a 35 MPH limit put on it.)

My argument was that it was simply one person's word against another and I had as much right to be right as he had - this let loose an uproar from the whole company about how few rights the police had an how many criminals like me had.

We left the dinnerparty and never associated with them again.

It is good to be back home again despite the cold, cutting, freezing wind with the promise of more from Russia with love.

We came home to broken tumble dryer and the day I started using the computer the printer (EPSON) (nly printed about a dozen pages before giving up the ghost - telling me that some internal component had come to the end of it natural working life.- it is barely two years old.

My old Hewlett Packard solderied on until the clips hold the cartridges broke but by that time, years had past, serial connection were going fats and USB's had become the fashion.

Speak about designed in obsolesence?????

God bless all

randall:)

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:23 pm

Sheryl wrote: What I just stated that I can't believe the oh nevermind. I'm to tired to defend myself this morning. Ignore my naive posting above.

Sorry. I just was confused because Google's not giving up the information. It didn't occur to me you meant the whole idea & going to Google in the first place as a waste of tax money - to which I heartily agree. :-6

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 8:07 pm

orpheus wrote: what! the Bush administration! pressure tactics! surely you jest.
I know... I know... be still your beating heart, right? I think it's wrong, based on what Accountable posted. I don't care where the chips fall for what polticial party. It's a slippery slope with the government garbbing for everything it can on the way down. :-5