Google's Response to the DoJ Motion 315
neoviky writes "Google Inc. on Friday formally rejected the U.S. Justice Department's subpoena of data from the Web search leader, arguing the demand violated the privacy of users' Web searches and its own trade secrets.
Responding to a motion by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Google also said in a filing in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California the government demand to disclose Web search data was impractical."
In Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, they (the government) could just come around and request more specific data which would be relevant.
The irony is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when I was in school several Google recruiters came and during the presentation were more than willing to demonstrate technology that allows you to see what others had been searching.
Good for them (Score:4, Interesting)
Go Google! (Score:1, Interesting)
However, with China, Google has three choices: 1) don't do business in China, 2) fight it and delay business in China, 3) comply but fight it and do a minimalist job at it.
1 and 2 are suicide as China is a VERY large, growing market. Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. would have loved for Google to stay out, hence they could get a very large market share. By doing 3, Google gets press (some good, a lot bad), but they get to play in China. They also are really raising the level of discussion about the censorship in China which is a VERY GOOD THING. Through the press and awareness of the problem, Google is Doing the right thing, unlike Microsoft, Yahoo, etc.
Don't give up ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why isn't the 4th amendment sufficient? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Article 4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Is this because Google, being a corporation, is not regarded as a Person? Certainly the "papers and effects" portion would apply to those citizens whose data Google houses.
Or is it being stipulated that the data in Google's keeping has no portion of ownership by the people? Or that "my" Gmail is not really mine, or that "my" search histories have no relation to me, that they would not constitute "my papers"?
Perhaps this is an area into which Google does not wish to venture.
IANAL, but this seems pretty cut & dried to me.
Will someone (who IS a lawyer, please) point out the error in my thinking?
Re:PR Stunt? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Only way to get it ... Google to volunteer (Score:2, Interesting)
This is ridiculous. There may be many reasons not to comply, but innocence is not one of them. Subpoenas are routinely issued to innocent parties, for very good reasons, and the parties comply.
You don't have to be a lawyer to know this!
Re:Why isn't the 4th amendment sufficient? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ultimately the number of words an American knows is woefully limited. The DoJ need only plugin a couple million queries into google to get the landscape. The only _use_ for google insides would be for search engine poisoning. That severely threatens googles profitability especially if the calculated techniques are examined and taken to, making searches return unfruitful and causing users to surf by site link, URL, human edited ad engines, backwards searching, double engine or ip shotgunning taking the google page out of the picture and the ads and revenue links with. Search engine poisoning can be a form of censorship, vandalism/spam or commercial tactic that effectively neutralizes would be market spoilers.
The easiest way to throw this in the face of the DoJ would be to have an expert examine the material and have him/her testify that there is no way to make evidence of googles possesions, as a counter to the Doj's Professor. Or better yet would be to allow a government hired expert to examine the google and then charge him the cost of providing this google. They made a potential costly error in calling google trade secrets, the court would likely allow the information to be disclosed but not removed from the premises in this case. Had they called it a burdensome operation that is fueled by cash not queries the DoJ would have lost interest. To the point that "The Government Has Not Shown a Substantial Need" I think they have the need to fight the war on terror and they show it everyday. To the point "The Government's Offer to Collaborate Is Inadequate and Unrealistic" I think they're as serious as Dick Cheney. "The Data Is Not Useful for Any Study" I bet they've got someone who says it is. To the point "Google Should Not Bear the Burden of Responding to Potentially Inadequate Process Based on ECPA" you almost get the sense they're almost trying to do something historical here. Tree part essay that sums up w/ timber but it does cover a lot of area. If it was going to the supreme court I would stick to a single objection instead of dancing around. The reality is that the DoJ is looking for ways to rank bs results, as its the only secret google has and the only useful information that could be gleaned from google that can't be had by going to google.com or someweb site especially since there is no demographical information associated w/ searches. It would be unlawful to take the data because there is no correlation to criminal activity and queries and if there was there would be no way to determine what or who or when or how. I would bolster the similarity to dragnet.
Re:In Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
More interesting is Google's choice to fight this request for anonymous data, but let the Chinese dictatorship get what it wants in suppressing access to information for 1 billion people.
The contrast is strong.