Judge May Force Google to Submit to Feds 418
illeism writes "News.com is reporting that a California judge may force Google to give the feds at least some of the information it wanted. The feds may get some of Google's index of sites but none of the user search terms. From the article, the judge said he was 'reluctant to give the Justice Department everything it wanted because of the "perception by the public that this is subject to government scrutiny" when they type search terms into Google.com.'"
Why does the government need this data? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just not sure what they need this data for. Are the google search results that much different than MSN or "live.com"???
Re:Why does the government need this data? (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be interesting to know if they are!
The perception is that google is used by more net-savvy people, whereas MSN (say) is used by the mum-and-dad types who just use the search button in IE. So, it'd be interesting to see how much the actual searches made reflect this.
I bet there's more porn in the google results :-)
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, what? So my internet browsing habits are subject to scrutiny by foreign governments? I live in Canada. IMHO the US government should keep the hell out of my personal information completely, and should have not even the slightest rights to ever know of such information unless I actually enter their country. Otherwise, GTFO
What's the theory? (Score:4, Interesting)
Would any judge be supporting them if it wasn't about pornography? Did they get whatever they wanted from Enron without a warrant?
Compromise is not the problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
Compromise would also involve determining how much of the request would actually be meaningful - signal versus noise. Handing the Feds a bunch of noise would weaken the Feds' ability to do useful work. Which, given the useful work done since the Total Information Awareness campaign began, explains a lot.
And, lastly, compromise involves looking at what data Google has that is essentially public knowledge (eg: it can be looked up through Google, given time) and what information should rightfully be more widely distributed.
THAT is compromise, the essence of "reaching an agreement". The only ones who "reach an agreement" by giving the other side essentially everything they want are the victims of a crime like a mugging, extortion or a protection racket. I can't help it if that's the view of compromise that certain politicians have, but it's flat-out wrong.
Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reluctance? (Score:5, Interesting)
B.
Re:Why is it... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's easy to stand up to people you know aren't going to retalliate.
Re:Time to Google Bomb them (Score:2, Interesting)
Silly me. I always thought you could vote in qualified people that actually represent you, the voter. I guess as long as you simply vote for the guy with the most money, then that is what the candidates (and party) will represent. It seems to me that they are doing an excellent job of that. If big money is what gets them into office, it's because we vote for big money. Waddaya know, the system works!
exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN work (Score:2, Interesting)
And it is bullshit, they shouldn't have to. Others have to pay a lot of money for this data, and google doesn't even want to be in the data selling business (read: non-evil
They're justifying it under the takings clause! (Score:5, Interesting)
"Ware said that the reduced demand, coupled with the government's "willingness to compensate Google" for up to eight days of its programmers' time, had convinced him to grant the Justice Department at least some of what it had requested."
The government is claiming the data as private property to be taken for public use under the 5th amendment. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented, anyone heard of anything like this before?
Yeah and verily forsooth, like, totally (Score:2, Interesting)
Only thing is, at first the Just-Us Dept wanted far more -- but have back-pedaled to a position the judge is more favourable to.
You overlook that during this battle the Just-Us Dept. was hungrily viewing online records as a whole new avenue to take their investigations down. Some ISP's have fought hard against opening records for RIAA/MPAA/DMCA proceedings, while others have been more than willing to help investigators track down those who prey on children. Google, et al, do have a heart, but this was simply another battle in an ongoing war between privacy and giving investigators information which may find its way out of the primary objective and being used to drum up unrelated investigations, if you get my drift.
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:5, Interesting)
I really do think strict constructionism is the only correct approach to the constitution. And I'm mostly convinced that abortion is murder. And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution. (Perhaps there are other reasons for permittting it however.) For these reasons I am, no... was, pro-Republican.
But how do I weigh those really important issues against what Bush + the Republican congress has done to us? The deficits make me fear for my childrens' future. I think global free trade is probably a bad idea. His appointment of the inept guy to run FEMA prior to Katrina was truly, in my mind, a case of graft deserving of impeachment. And his administration's acceptance of torture, or near torture, as a good idea make me want to vomit - forget about have him represent my country. And of course there was the administrations basically dropping Microsoft's antitrust abuse culpability when Bush came into office.
It's so hard to balance these issues. Will we ever have a president we can feel really good about again? This all makes me so sad...
Do a Google on the Judge. (Score:2, Interesting)
Find out neat things... like he claimed to have discovered his passion for justice and the law when his 13 year old brother died in his arms. He stated in newspaper interviews that his brother was shot off his bicycle by some racist white punk. He gave speeches. He was highly respected. Clinton nomintated him for a circuit court judge position.
Except it happened to some another man who was also black and also named James Ware, whom he had never met.
He abandoned his circuit court nomination when this was made public.
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you could feel good about Feingold, Hagel, or (maybe) Mark Warner; possibly others... McCain and H. Clinton have shown themselves to be mere politicians.
Disclaimer: I am of the left side of the fence, sort of a "libertarian with a social conscience".
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:2, Interesting)
Bullshit! Google Was ALREADY in China (Score:2, Interesting)
The already did when they introduced the internet. Remember, the internet interpets censorship as damage and routes around it. If Google really wanted to they would have no problem keeping all their operations outside the great firewall (but they would have to forego some profitability in the process).
It's not like Google is short of the technical expertise on the matter. Meanwhile, I'm no CS major but I can think of a few steps that would help:
(1) FreeGoogle desktop application that allows you use your home computer as a proxy to fetch google content from mainland China. Use very weak SSL to obfuscate the content (but not destroy people's home computers). Aggregate a list of all these IPs and distribute accordingly. This could be extended to other sites on a per-computer whitelist basis (eg: Wikipedia, NYTimes, CNN).
(2) "Unofficial Google Servers" that essentially perform (1) but on a higher-bandwidth scale. Don't bind them to any DNS entries, just distribute the IPs. When the firewall blocks them, move on to a different IP. Lather Rinse Repeat.
(3) Google-News-Packs: Download all the content from the front page of news.google.com, strip the pictures and zip the contents. Distribute freely. Especially the ones about China.
How hard can the Chinese government make life for Google if they refuse to set a single foot inside the country (or Hong Kong)? Technically, I'm sure that Google would win this arms race if they only had half of the balls necessary to fight it.
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:2, Interesting)
God damnit people. Get it straight. The primary function of the constitution wasn't to define "rights" it was to restrict the power of the government. The bill of rights was an afterthought. Just to make double sure certain things were really clear. Turns out that was a big fucking mistake. Now everyone thinks things like that have to be in the constitution.
"Honey? Do we have a right to free speech? I don't know honey, let me check the CONSTITUTION!"
"Sweetheart, what's a right?
You people have lost the spirit of independence. Who gives a shit about Canadian healthcare? Is that what this country is for? To maximize lifespan and minimize infant mortality? The FEDERAL government's response to Katrina? Let me knit you all some big fluffy fucking mittens. You can bump around in padded suits all day long and let the government feed you SOMA. I hope you all rot. The stench around here is unbearable anyway.
Re:Less than originally expected (Score:3, Interesting)
So why are republicans pushing for this law? It's because it goes much further then you have stated.
""Domestic Spying" which is 100% LEGAL,"
Lie
"as it does NOT target calls within the USA to another USA destination, and for those calls that are point-to-point in the USA the callers are "persons of interest in a Federal Criminal Investigation" which is also quite legal. "
Lie
"Getting a judge to sign off is really a formality as when they see the evidence they usually will sign off. "
Since the FISA court is nothing but a rubber stamp for the president why bypass them in the first place?
"If you read the law, they are NOT breaking it"
Lie
" and by the way every President INCLUDING BlowJob Bill used the provision in the law."
Lie.
" Write this down, UNLESS you are a terrorist or are plotting terrorist acts with another citizen (and someone turned your name in) the Gov't is NOT listening to your calls."
Lie
"Congress knew all about this program for a long time, they got regular briefs,"
Lie
" They (the liberals) really don't give as damn about National Security"
Lie
"they just want to try to find SOMETHING to criticize GWB about."
Lie.
So are you pants on fire yet?
Re:Less than originally expected - not quite (Score:2, Interesting)