![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not just a Coke V Pepsi thing...
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer
21 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.
The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), which runs the Internet's second-most used search engine behind Google, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.
Although the government says it isn't seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoena still raises serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.
"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," said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.
"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 content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.
For instance, it's not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this."
Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren't identified.
Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."
Microsoft Corp. MSN, the No. 3 search engine, declined to say whether it even received a similar subpoena. "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," the company said in a statement.
As the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that "makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.
In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don't do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.
Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, (and) to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday
Google — whose motto when it went public in 2004 was "do no evil" — contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.
"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept," company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government's filing.
Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.
"This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Ramani wrote.
Dixon is hoping Google's battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines.
"When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said." There's a surprise!
Thanks to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
whytegrrl for the article. I find this unsettling for many reasons. I do an awful lot of searching on Google for a wide variety of psychosis and murdr related bits of info. I look up all manner of grusome deaths, drugs, witchcraft, crime stats, sex offender stats, phonesex gigs, and freedom from religion type stuff. I'm not embarassed or anything, I just think it's no one's business.What is more surprising is that Yahoo! totally gave up the info when the government asked for it. And I use them as I primary Email...and of cours they told no one that they just willingly and secretly handed over information that many of us consider private. They seem to have adopted a "well, if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear" kind of attitude. Such crap.
But at the same time, I don't use Google Email because it takes 2 extra steps to delete non-spam Emails. They want you to catalog everything and then they keyword search your stored information in order to better and more accurately spam you with ads. I can't quite decide which is worse.
I do appreciate the fact that there are still plenty of predators who solicit children online. And I can't imagine that a subpoena for everyone's google search info will find those people any better than say--spending that money and time on awareness programs for kids and parents. Once again, I don't want my rights curtailed or my privacy violated because people can't be bothered to watch their own damn kids.
| Your Monster Profile |
 The Two Headed, Zombie Bellied Bipolar Witch You Feast On: Potato Chips You Lurk Around In: Ryan and Katie's backyard You Especially Like to Torment: Nolan |
Hmmm...how revealing...and strangely accurate.
no subject
no subject
Thank you!
I get mad every time I think about this letter to the editor that this lady in our town wrote. Apparently, she was upset because there was a sex-offender in her nice, suburban neighborhood. she said she felt like a 'prisioner in her own home' because now she couldn't let her 7-year-old go outside and play unless she supervised him. Let's let that sink in for a few seconds. She couldn't let her seven-year-old go outside unless she supervised him. Oh, the horrors! She also said her 14-year old daughter used to go out jogging early in the morning before school and now they have to drive her to the gym or buy a treadmill. Ohmigod. If you can afford to live in Indian Brooke, I'm sure you can splurge on gym membership - just don't get your hair 'done' so often. Crap. She said she'd get together enough money to get those sex offenders out of her neighborhood because they live there so they will be away from that stuff. That's great. You know where they'll go? my neighborhood. You know, a low-income neighborhood where there are LOTS of single-parent homes. You know, the kind where that parent is too busy working two jobs to be able to be home with their kids. You know, a kind of neighborhood where I've seen second-graders walk to school alone. That's just great. The kind of neighborhood where I bring rags to the park in case someone smeared the slides with shit or something like that. Or, where we freeze when we hear a dog bark in case someone let their pit run loose again. The kind of neighborhood where we have SIX sex offenders in a four-block radius. Sure, we've always got room for more!
And this woman is complaining about ONE sex offender because now she has to supervise her seven-year-old and actually get her ass out of bed to drive her fourteen-year-old daughter to a gym instead of letting her go out alone. Oh.my.god. Um, am I supposed to be feeling some sort of sympathy for the lady?
Re: Thank you!
Re: Thank you!
no subject
Really, this is stupid in my opinon. I may steal it and post in my journal...YUCK!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
However, the fact that to search your home, your phone records or your mail, law enforcement needs a reason implies that privacy is a basic human right. With this in mind, such privacy should be reasonably extended to include any communication devices located in your home, owned by you, and used on a network that you pay to access. Then again, I don't tell the truth when I fill out a grocery store discount card.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
And of course, post this info wherever you like.
no subject
But seriously, Im glad Google appears to be sticking to its guns on this. However I think the information would be hard to actually get any useful information from. I doubt every search for "Little boy porn" is actually A) Real B) fruitful. Just think, all those pranks guys pull on thier friends would now result in actual investigations on the part of the goverment. To that matter, some searches for things almost completely unrelated give results that could almost be assumed to mean something that don't. (Remember the deal about a chicken breasts search being disabled at a library because it brought up female breasts in the result?).
no subject
But yeah, I don't think they are going to look at EVERone's searches, just those they already suspect of something. I just don't see why they can't get a warrant before violating privacy. That seems pretty basic.
no subject
I also wonder what the motives of checking all these searches is. I have been feeling like a conspiracy theorist lately and this does not help.
no subject
I had never done that before. My internet browser is Safari, so I have a little google search space permanently on every window. But yeah, that's hilarious.
no subject
Funny you should say that. It just got fixed.
I've decided long ago that Yahoo! is a buncha assholes.
no subject
But maybe I'll just switch to Google for my primary.
no subject
no subject
Or perhaps...you're merely acting like some kind of Email genius. Either way, I'm impressed!
no subject
no subject