Judge May Force Google to Submit to Feds

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.'"

Less than originally expected

[ackthpt]

At least the judge is favouring less than the gorvernment originally requested, still... I feel this is again the over-eager government wiping its feet on the flag and blowing its nose in the Constitution.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Tweekster]

if you read the article you would notice that google does not oppose the extremely limited amount of info requested. and if the govt would have asked in the first place they wouldnt have gone to court.

Re:Less than originally expected

[nwbvt]

Yeah, but "Google defending privacy against evil government goons" is a nicer soundbite. That way they sound like they care about the rights of their users (unless of course they live in China).

While this is OT...

[nwbvt]

"What was Google supposed to do, not filter search results and get completely blocked by the Communist Party? "

YES!!!!

At least if they really cared about their "Do no evil" policy. Sure, you can argue that the Chinese people are not really missing anything as without this version of the search engine they would not be able to use Google at all, but by obeying the government's demands Google has, for all intents and purposes, given their stamp of approval to Chinese censorship. If they had instead made

Re:Less than originally expected

[Punboy]

Um, Google's presence in China is a good thing and they, being an all-powerful corporate entity in control of a lot of resources, can help pressure China into lessening their crazy web restrictions.

But, Google has to be ALLOWED in China first.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Yeah

[IPA]

Google's PigeonRanking is going to be totally screwed when the bird flu gets here.

Re:Less than originally expected

[killjoe]

A couple of days ago there was a topic about a bill that would criminlize critizing the presidents survaillance program. Many people said something to the effect "this will never get through the courts".

I invite those people to carefully observe how far backwards the courts can bend to appease the federal govt.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Here [slashdot.org] is the story in question. It's even worse than outlawing criticism, actually; it would outlaw any reporting on the program at all. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the worst challenge free speech in the US has faced since the Sedition Act.

Re:Less than originally expected

[killjoe]

" In fact the law is NOT needed at all, it's already a crime to reveal the existance of classified programs, and revealing a undercover operation by the police is also a crime."

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 Crimina

Re:Less than originally expected

[TheGavster]

Just to be on the safe side, I'll move the gift shop copies from a childhood visit to the National Archives to the side of the desk away from the memory slot ...

Re:Less than originally expected

[flyingsquid]

How much does anyone want to wager that Dubya has never even read the entire text of the Constitution?

What George W. Bush really needs is a practical lesson in checks and balances: people need to make sure they're registered to vote and then, this fall, go out and vote against the Republican congressional candidates. Even assuming their Democratic replacements aren't any better, losing a few seats will help limit the damage that Bush and the Republicans can do.

We've had a disastrously planned war, spending increases that make the Democrats look like cheapskates, a massive deficit, an incompetent response to Katrina, a gulag in Cuba, they're chipping away at our civil liberties, and they're destroying the checks and balances that have kept this country running for the past two hundred years. All of this has happened on the Republican party's watch. With complete control of Congress and the White House, the Republican Party has been free to do whatever it pleases, and the result of implementing their ideas has been a disaster for this nation.

At worst, voting the Republicans out would result in total gridlock, with the government unable to do anything. But that would be a massive improvement over the way the country is currently run.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bull999999]

Even assuming their Democratic replacements aren't any better, losing a few seats will help limit the damage that Bush and the Republicans can do.

While I'm not fan of the current administration, I don't think that blindingly voting Democrats to spite Republicans. The problem is that there are too many people who expect the government to do everything for them. Take a look at Europe and Canada. People expected the liberals to fix everything for them and when that didn't happen, they started to elect m

Re:Less than originally expected

[ttfkam]

First, conservative and liberal mean different things in Canada and Europe. To those regions, a conservative is what the US would call a liberal Democrat. A liberal is what the US would call the Green party or a socialist party.

And before you continue to slam those regions, check out what the US spends on health care versus those countries [huppi.com]. Bear in mind that these stats are from 1991. They are worse now in most areas except paid maternity leave (unless Bush rolled back those improvements too).

We spend more and get less. Nice.

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world's median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year--or close to four hundred billion dollars--on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance. A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy--a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T-shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper--has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers.

...

The issue about what to do with the health-care system is sometimes presented as a technical argument about the merits of one kind of coverage over another or as an ideological argument about socialized versus private medicine. It is, instead, about a few very simple questions. Do you think that this kind of redistribution of risk is a good idea? Do you think that people whose genes predispose them to depression or cancer, or whose poverty complicates asthma or diabetes, or who get hit by a drunk driver, or who have to keep their mouths closed because their teeth are rotting ought to bear a greater share of the costs of their health care than those of us who are lucky enough to escape such misfortunes? In the rest of the industrialized world, it is assumed that the more equally and widely the burdens of illness are shared, the better off the population as a whole is likely to be. The reason the United States has forty-five million people without coverage is that its health-care policy is in the hands of people who disagree, and who regard health insurance not as the solution but as the problem.

  - Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker [newyorker.com]

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bull999999]

So are you saying that the Americans eat poorly and exercise less because of high health care costs? Or are you impling that diet and exercise has no impact on health care costs?

To those regions, a conservative is what the US would call a liberal Democrat.

And since when did liberal Democrats wanted to reach out to Bush? Warming relationship with the US is one of their goals.

We spend more and get less. Nice.

My wife got an MRI in less than a week so that counts for something. If Canadian health

Re:Less than originally expected

[ttfkam]

Population of the US: 295,734,134
Number without any health insurance: ~45,000,000

With Canada, you speak of the difference between an MRI in a week instead of months.

With the US, it's the difference between getting an MRI or not at all. (Any stats on how long it takes on average to get an MRI in the US?)

With Canada, you bring up the anecdotal evidence of one woman with multiple sclerosis.

With the US, I bring up the statistically sound evidence that the life expectancy of the entire country of Canada per capita is higher than the US, the infant mortality rate is lower than the US, the amount of money spent per capita is less than the US, the death rate is lower than the US (even if you subtract the US's obscenely high murder rate), etc.

If Canadian healthcare is so perfect, why are private clinics poping up?

1. I never said that Canadian healthcare was perfect. Go back and review my post Mr. Strawman Argument.
2. Private clinics are popping up because people are commonly willing to shell out some extra cash -- if they have it -- when sick and usually (with justification) afraid.

Those with larger disposable incomes will always be more vocal about their right to cut in line on the basis of wealth than those below the poverty line. But rather than pooling their funds to get more physicians in the general workforce, they go for the quick fix that helps far fewer as long as the fewer includes themselves.

It's like bottled water. With all the money spent on bottled water every year, imagine what it would be like if that same money were spent managing the general water supply and enforcing clean water laws.

Canadian healthcare is far from perfect. Then again, it's like capitalism: the worst form of economic policy known to man, save all the others. US healthcare falls within the category of "one of the others."

Re:Less than originally expected

[DoofusOfDeath]

This is so hard for me...

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...

Re:Less than originally expected

[necrognome]

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...

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

[tolkienfan]

Gay marriage and abortion may be important issues - but none that should be the concern of government.

To choose an administration based on such marginal subjects is to miss the point.

The two parties agree on more than they disagree on, and use these highly controversial subjects to (incredibly successfully) distract the general public. Ever notice that the public is roughly 50/50 split on most of the issues that were debated the last few elections?

Ever wonder what WASN'T debated???

Re:Less than originally expected

[Abcd1234]

As far as abortion goes, IMO either it has human rights or it doesn't, and if it does that it has them in full and equal to any other human. I'm of the opinion that they don't, but I realize some people do. What I don't understand is the intermediate stages where the fetus has the right to life - except if it is incest or rape or whatever. Either it has, or it hasn't, or you're saying that some right of the mother overrides the most fundamental right there is - the right to life itself. I can't make such "h

Reluctance?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

...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.

Perhaps he should be more reluctant because it's against the US constitution.

Re:Reluctance?

[conJunk]

no kidding. what really trives me nuts is the way that we put so much value on "reaching an agreement" in this culture that people look the other way to "doing increadibly wrong things"

doj asked for a million urls and 50,000 searches... "well," says the judge, "they've reduced that to much smaller numbers, so i'm impressed with their ability compromise, so i'm inclined to give it to them"

well hold the fuck on! discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong. *especially* since it's (a) not for an investigation of anything, and (b) being used to try to justify their own failed attempts at legislation

excuse me, but it's not google's job to do the government's homework for them.

Re:Reluctance?

[BewireNomali]

interesting that you said the government's homework. I'm curious as to what you mean by that.

Re:Reluctance?

[conJunk]

from tfa:

The outcome will determine whether the Justice Department will be able to use Google search terms in a social science research project that will be used this fall to defend an antipornography law. The Bush administration argues that criminal sanctions in the 1998 law--which has been placed on hold by the courts--are more effective ways to shield children than antiporn filtering software.

from teh beeb [bbc.co.uk]

Essentially it wants data from search engines to prove how easy it is to stumble over porn on the net. If it can prove this the result might be onerous regulation for many websites.
In court documents the US government said it had tried to generate the same information using the Internet Archive website but did not get the results it wanted.

essentially, the doj wants this data to make a point about child porn online. they are not investigating any violations of any law. this is not an issue where a warant even *could* be issued

rather, they are trying to make a point regarding aspects of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the ACLU has successfully blocked in court. the government wants figures to support it's position in that case, but those figures don't exist, so they're demanding that google *give* them the raw data they need to make the argument they want to make

Re:Reluctance?

[cpt kangarooski]

No, this is not about child porn. It's about how readily children can see any kind of online porn (and thus whether legal pornographers should have to take steps to make it harder to access porn).

Re:Reluctance?

[syukton]

EXACTLY. This is what people are failing to understand. It isn't about child porn, it's about childrens' access to porn. It's more "for the children" bullshit. To quote George Carlin, "Fuck the children."

I don't get this at all really...suppose they pass a law stating that you need to make it harder for kids to find porn online. So then everyone will simply host their websites overseas, circumventing the jurisdiction of the USA and keeping their porn easily accessible. What does the new law then accomplish? Answer: nothing!

Re:Reluctance?

[BewireNomali]

more for the children bullshit?

I don't understand. You're opposed to making it harder for kids to find porn online?

Re:Reluctance?

[Anonymous Struct]

I'm opposed to it. It's not the federal government's job to make it hard for kids to search for porn on the internet. It's also not their job to make sure kids eat the right food and avoid playing violent video games. And that's coming from a guy who leans left.

Compromise is not the problem.

[jd]

Compromise would be trying to figure out what part of their search fit within the law, the Constitution and the authority's need to know. (The Federal Government does NOT have an automatic need to know, even when it lawfully CAN know.)

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 cam

exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN work

[TheAxeMaster]

Its not like what you transmit to a search engine via the internet is private and secured. Its fully open to the public and viewable by all. What the administration is trying to do is get google to do the legwork for them using the courts. Google doesn't want to do it, doesn't want to get tangled into what it could lead to. Its not like the NSA or someone else couldn't aggregate the data.

And it is bullshit, they shouldn't have to. Others have to pay a lot of money for this data, and google does

Re:exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN wor

[pete-classic]

Its fully open to the public and viewable by all.

What? What the fuck are you talking about?

I'm going to do a search on google right now. I'll check back and see if you can tell me what it was.

HTTP in the clear is potentially viewable by a reasonably determined attacker, but that's a hell of a long way from "fully open to the public and viewable by all."

Its not like what you transmit to a search engine via the internet is private and secured.

If it's not private, why is there a privacy policy [google.com] governing it?

-Peter

Re:Reluctance?

[penix1]

It isn't a "privacy issue" it is a 4th ammendment issue. Google has 4th ammendment rights. They are entitled to the protection from unwarrented searches. There is no crime being investigated in this request. This is the government trying to build a case where none exist.

B.

UnREASONABLE search

[TheConfusedOne]

The 4th Ammendment protects against unreasonable search not all unwarranted searches.

The issue in this case is that the information request in question isn't really a search as it's not being used in a criminal case. Also it is not being used to prosecute anyone and the information, by itself, does not uniquely identify anyone. So this makes the whole issue a lot more complicated than simply slapping down the "4th Ammendment Trump Card(tm)" and walking away from the table.

Of course this great defender of freedom is also busy making sure Chinese people don't see tanks with their searches. Also, do you think that China allows Google to keep the logs from search request to google.cn private?

Re:Reluctance?

[winkydink]

Perhaps he should be more reluctant because it's against the US constitution.

Isn't it the judge's job to determine Constitutionality?

Isn't the disagreement between Google & the DOJ what the case is all about?

You may not personally like or agree with DOJ asking for the data, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Why does the government need this data?

[bcarl314]

I've said it before, but I can't understand why the government needs this data when they already have search results from MSN, Yahoo, and AOL. One would think that statistical analysis should be able to give enough information to make or break their case already. What are they looking for from a MOE perspective?

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct, the government doesn't need this information.

What the government does desire, however, is established precedent which permits it to seize information from any company, even when no actual crime is being investigated.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[Phillup]

One would think that statistical analysis should be able to give enough information to make or break their case already.

But... they aren't trying to *break* thier case.

That is why they need this data.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[Repton]

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 :-)

You may be sadly deluded

[LunaticTippy]

All I can say is Never check your parents browser history.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[heatdeath]

I can't understand why the government needs this data

Because if google says no, and they give in, then they look weak. This government has had a "not backing down under any circumstances" complex for the last 6 years. Hrm, I wonder why.

Because they are paranoid...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I've said it before, but I can't understand why the government needs this data when they already have search results from MSN, Yahoo, and AOL.

Google's data it probably a better sample than the other two, and all three combined provide an excellent pool of numbers to derive whatever their statistitions are looking for.

But there may be more to it. I think they are also interested in establishing a precedent as well, a "toe-hold" they can try to exploit later for additional, and perhaps more invasive data.

Because the goal *IS* the invasion of personal dat

[PetriBORG]

They want to set a precedent however losely for collection of search data without a warent so that they can do it randomly in the future.... Think of this in the same way they want to go after your library records.

Time to Google Bomb them

[WillAffleckUW]

Just imagine what would happen if people decided to rebel, and started typing in useful search phrases over and over, while hosting web pages which had those keywords.

It's like a thousand al-Qaedas all at once.

That's how you deal with an intrusive government in Soviet America.

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[iminplaya]

That's how you deal with an intrusive government in Soviet America.

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!

Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Because we all know that if the government really wanted that information from Google, they'd have persued it via Patriot Act style secret warrants. Since I haven't heard about a bunch of Google employees going to jail, I assume they're following the law.

It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.

The reason that the Justice Department publicised this rejection from Google is because they thought it helped them. That's what baffles me about this case. Was it their public image that they thought this helped? Was it in their interest to make people think their information was safe with Google? Did they think it would cause Fox News to smear Google? (And how would that help them?) Is this information honestly going to help them get their preferred verdict? I don't see how...

Iduno. I can't tell if I'm over thinking this or under thinking it.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[necro2607]

"It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google."

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 ...

BC Medical Records

[temojen]

That's why there was a controversy over the contracting out of medical billing in BC. Had a fertility test in BC in the last 2 years? A US defence contractor knows about it....

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Elwood P Dowd]

The US Government has way fewer scruples about spying on Soviet Canadia. With y'all they don't even have to pretend to follow the Bill of Rights.

If you care about this, use a Canadian service provider. I guess Canadia could sign a treaty with the US providing privacy for your data, but... somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Omnifarious]

Well that whole exchange has tons of stupidity and shows none of the participants in a particularly favorable light. OTOH, it demonstrates that you have views that I find so utterly repugnant that I would likely not be able to manage to sit quietly in the same room as you.

And by referencing it, it seems you want everybody to not only know that tomhudson is a git, but that you hold the opinions and viewpoints you do.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Petrushka]

It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.

And this is why I long for a search engine that isn't based in the US, and which isn't subject to US law.

It's weird that the DMCA controls what comes up in my search results in spite of the fact that I don't live in the US; but that's almost incidental in comparison to the truly dreadful notion that my internet searching habits are likely, over the next few years, to become more and more subject to the scrutiny of a foreign, hostile, government. It seems pretty obvious that this case is just one step along the way to the US government conducting surveillance on pretty much everyone in the world.

Can anyone recommend any non-US-based search engines? The only one that I've managed to find out anything about is one that hasn't actually debuted yet, Quaero [wikipedia.org]; if there are others I'd love to know. I hope Quaero turns out to be half as good a search engine as Google (somehow I think that unlikely), but at least maybe it'll encourage the existence of non-US-based search engines.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[bnenning]

These guys [scroogle.org] proxy Google and claim to keep no permanent records.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Petrushka]

And they even have a Firefox searchbar plugin [mozdev.org]. Great, thanks for that!

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The one possibility you missed- they publicised it to change people's behavior- to now use other search engines.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[ewe2]

The only thing making sense for me is:

bwahahaha, you see, NOONE can stop us now!!!1111

That anything of this gets out at all convinces me they're on a trophy hunt and are keen to beat their chests about it.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[hackstraw]

Because we all know that if the government really wanted that information from Google, they'd have persued it via Patriot Act style secret warrants. Since I haven't heard about a bunch of Google employees going to jail, I assume they're following the law.

Clearly, you know nothing about the USA PATRIOT Act.

1) There are no warrants under it.

2) You do not hear of people going to jail. They are illegally seized and detained indefinitely without charge or warrant and without legal council.

It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.

scrutiny (skr?t'n-?)
n., pl. -nies.
1 A close, careful examination or study.
2 Close observation; surveillance.

That too is illegal according to our constitution, without a warrant for a specific charge looking for specific information.

Iduno. I can't tell if I'm over thinking this or under thinking it.

I know if you live in the US, you should think more about this stuff.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Thanks. Mod parent up.

sad really

[Anonymous Coward]

for the GOV to be undertaking this blatent fishing expedition (still convinced the gov is on the right path ?)

of course if Google had stopped logging every bit of shit that goes over the pipe this problem wouldnt exist, as they say "you have made your bed, now sleep in it"

Re:sad really

[raoul666]

But the thing is, I don't mind google having all that info on me. Not one bit. Because I know all they want it for is to make money. The government, on the other hand, I don't trust one bit, cause their intentions are nowhere near as simple or honest.

How about zero search queries?

[Zarel]

From the article:

...the Justice Department...demands a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through Google's search engine, and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted to Google in a one-week period. During negotiations, the Justice Department narrowed its request to 50,000 URLs and said it would look at only 10,000. It also said it wanted 5,000 search queries and would look at 1,000. 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.

So the reduced demand somehow makes it okay to violate first-Amendment rights?

Re:How about zero search queries?

[necro2607]

Like I keep seeing quoted in the news articles about this whole thing - Your privacy will be invaded bit by bit, in a gradual, not-so-harsh manner. But in the future you'll look back and realize what has happened...

Re:How about zero search queries?

[heinousjay]

You:
So the reduced demand somehow makes it okay to violate first-Amendment rights?

The Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Me:
WTF? I hope you don't get paid for your legal brainery. Same goes for the mods that gave you insightful.

(NOTE: this post in

Re:How about zero search queries?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in that is the government asking for the identity of the searchers? They're not asking "who searched for X?" They're asking "what results were generated for a search for X?"

Frankly the government should just ignore google and hiring someone good with writing a web spider and just crawl google for the data they want. Hell if they don't want the most recent results they could even hit the google cache for those searches :)

From forum

[Viraptor]

Probably someone from Justice Department asked something on a web forum and got standard "STFW" with google link.
Some people should just learn to use google, not ask feds to force informations out of it, really... ;)

Blade:Trinity

[Bodysurf]

Ever see the movie Blade: Trinity where the Feds try and seize the computers?

I wouldn't be upset if Google pulled a "Abraham Whistler" on them.

Google's records are none of their business and the courts shouldn't have standing to seize them.

Re:Blade:Trinity

[Rob T Firefly]

For those of us suffering from a Wesley Snipes deficiency, what'd they do in the movie?

Re:Blade:Trinity

[hey!]

Snipes gave the Feds a stirring speech about the Fourth Amendment, and convincingly demonstrated that under the Strict Construction theory they lacked the constitutional authority to be conducting this search anyway.

Half the Feds hung their heads in shame and chagrin and went home. The others stayed for the practical demonstration of Second Amendment rights.

What happened to less government regulation?

[Serveert]

I'm very confused here, I thought that a certain party was for less government regulation? Is this justified because we must "protect the children"?

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's justified because a certain group of fascists have hijacked that party's name for their own purposes.

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[Locke2005]

Exactly. An unbiased, rational analysis would show that according to traditional Republican principles, Bill Clinton was a much better Republican than George W. Bush. But just try getting the Republicans to admit that!

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly that party is either out of power, or no longer exists, or is too small.. Since Reagan's time, the Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility and minimum regulation in your personal life. The Libertarian party is the only party that ever really wanted less government regulation overall.

I just don't get it

[phoenix.bam!]

What standing does the government have to even ask for this information?

I see no reason whatsoever that google should be forced to provide for the request other than the DOJ saying "Can we see your information?"

No law has been broken, no crime is under investigation... Can they come to my house next and ask to see the last 1,000 things I searched for? Why can they do that to google? This is insane and that judge is a moron.

What's the theory?

[Black Parrot]

What's the political theory that supports the idea that the feds can just demand anything they want and expect to get it?

Would any judge be supporting them if it wasn't about pornography? Did they get whatever they wanted from Enron without a warrant?

Re:What's the theory?

[Tony]

Would any judge be supporting them if it wasn't about pornography? Did they get whatever they wanted from Enron without a warrant?

See, that's the problem. They didn't want to get anything on Enron; perhaps too many people in the government would be implicated. (Just look at the government folks Enron met with in the year or two prior to their debacle. Interesting list.)

Since this is about people and their own personal "web experience with a happy ending," it must be too nasty for the kids to see. I know whe

Time to move servers again...

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem, Google can just move their servers to China to keep them safe from a government that thinks it needs to track every citizens activity.

Could someone remind me what they need it for?

[Opportunist]

Wasn't it the question how many "ordinary" search queries return sex pages?

Would generate a few questions for me:

1. Who cares?
2. Should someone care, of course ALL of them do, sooner or later.
3. What do you need Google's database for? Too stupid to use Google?
4. Or too out of touch with the people you're supposedly representing to come up with "ordinary" search phrases?

Welcome to the new world

[nurb432]

Where nothing is considered private and personal.

Live your life accordingly.

So how does this work for International users?

[rediguana]

Will they only be handing over information about searches from Americans? Or is it going to be pulled from all Google users? I know this probably doesn't breach any privacy laws in the US (do you have any?) but could be of concern to Europeans. Does anyone have more info on this aspect?

They're justifying it under the takings clause!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet Slashdot that I've figured the judge's legal reasoning out. The key is here, from TFA:

"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?

Missing the real issue

[Billosaur]

Gidari said that Alexa Internet, which is owned by Amazon.com, is a site that offers Web analytics services that can produce similar information "without entangling us in litigation going forward."

That point was raised repeatedly by Ware, who seemed concerned that if he granted the request, "a slew of trial attorneys and curious social scientists could follow suit."

"Now Google could face hundreds of university professors (saying), 'I've got a study I'd like you to conduct,'" Ware said.

Further on...

The dispute has elevated the prominence of search privacy, touching on how divorce lawyers or employers in a severance dispute could gain access to search terms that people have typed in. It's also raised eyebrows because Google chose to cooperate with a demand by the Chinese government to censor searches on the company's Google.cn site.

If the Justice Department does win this case, Google would likely face a second round of subpoenas from the American Civil Liberties Union for follow-up information. The ACLU is challenging the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, which makes it a crime for a commercial Web site to post material that some jurors might find "harmful" to any minor who stumbles across it.

The point becomes: if Google complies with this request, either voluntarily or by court order, then that open's a Pandora's box for any group that wants a crack at their data, to prove their pet theory or compile information to use in other court cases. Ultimately, the government doesn't care about the actual data. They'll find enough porn searches in MSN, Yahoo, and AOL to keep them salivating for a good while. But if they can't bring Google to heel, they will a) look powerless in the face of one of the world's largest Internet companies and b) lose any grip they have on the others, who will say "if Google doesn't have to do it, we don't either."

What's the point, really?

[illspirit]

The whole reason the DOJ wants the records is to prove that filtering software isn't as effective as COPPA, no? So how exactly is any number of random queries or page indices going to prove this? Even if the random sample was all hardcore porn pages and search strings, there's no way of telling if it was a child who did the search (or viewed the page). And if they're not asking for IP addresses (which they claim they're not), there's no way to know if a search or page even originated in this country, right? So, in theory, the data the DOJ is after might contain the results of people looking at porn in other countries in which it isn't illegal.

So, basically, they want to prove that someone, somewhere, might be breaking a US law, possibly in a country where said law doesn't apply, as evidence to support said law. Brilliant. What's next? Since other countries allow boobs on TV, we should ban TVs here?

Re:What's the point, really?

[Lehk228]

they are not looking for people searching for porn. the investigation is how often SFW search tems give NSFW results....

Eh..

[neurokaotix]

Before anyone spreads anymore misinformation, it's not to stop child pornography. It's to stop children from looking at porn, which, anyone with half a brain can tell you, is impossible because of how the Internet works. There is no identification layer to the 'net. The only way these extremely prude, old ass ignorant senators are going to be able to stop kids from looking at porn (and we all know they don't like porn at all, for anyone anyway) is to simply ban porn sites. Or forbid the viewing of any pornographic material to anyone who hasn't used a credit card to pay for it (this kind of indentifying the person as being at least over 18). The government is out of control. The time to start bearing arms and getting ready for the revolution is now.

1776

[the_REAL_sam]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

A FASCIST in power is a tyrant, right?

The administration's CLAIM is that they want to sort the data to find the child porn downloaders. But all that means is they would like to be able to search in a blanket way, without first meeting the requirements set forth in the bill of rights.

From Article 4 of the Bill of Rights:
"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."

The article spells it out: blanket searches are unconstitutional b/c they do not spell out the particular place to be searched. Just saying "there's got to be SOMETHING on that server that's illegal just isn't good enough.

On those grounds, conducting blanket evesdropping on server(s) that THEY DON'T OWN is completely unconstitutional; furthermore, there is already a supreme court ruling which says they cannot perform ANY evesdropping on THEIR OWN servers. So they couldn't "work around it" by putting "snoopy routers" at various checkpoints.

Parking Garage

[tilrman]

Suppose Google owned a parking garage with valet service. It lets people park there for free, with the understanding that you'd receive advertisements on your windshield. The Justice Department steps up and says it that Google should hand over the keys to every car so that the government can check them out, just in case.

And the judge is "reluctant" to give them what they want because it might somehow give the appearance of Big Brother.

Thanks for sticking up for us, Your Honor.

Neo-McCarthyism (off-topic?)

[MrNougat]

And I'm not talking about Jenny McCarthy, either.

For five years now, "terrorism" has been the excuse to trample on all sorts of privacy concerns in the US, even though there have not been any terrorist acts perpetrated in the US since WTC, and there's been no hard evidence that intrusion of privacy has prevented anything. One of the major differences, though, is that the rooting out of Communists in the early 1950's started in the State Dept; the rooting out of terrorists today completely skips that and goes right for the citizenry.

Re:Neo-McCarthyism (off-topic?)

[robertjw]

It's interesting to me how the Federal Government always has to have some big cause to use as an excuse to violate citizen's civil liberties. In the 40's it was nationality with Japanese internments and such. In the 50's it was communism. In the 70's, 80's and 90's it was the 'war on drugs'. Now it's terrorism.

Too bad that the American public can never seem to tie all of these 'issues' together...

Maybe Google shouldn't have the data?

[keraneuology]

Am I the only person who speculates that perhaps Google shouldn't keep the data in the first place? Yes, I understand the geek mentality that never deleting any files is a good thing, but does Google really need to log every search along with the IP address?

Re:Why is it...

[daemones]

Because oppresive regimes don't have constitutions that (pretend to) limit government power.

Re:Why is it...

[Rob T Firefly]

Why do oppressive regimes get special treatment?

Perhaps because the oppressive regime has a few billion people who weren't already engaged in increasing Google shareholder value, whilst most of us here have been doing so for years.

Re:Why is it...

[adisakp]

That Google bends over backwards when it comes to Chinese censorship, but stonewalls the U.S. Justice Department when it comes to our civil liberties?

Google is offering Chinese citizens the rights and protections they have for computer access under Chinese law. Unfortunately under these laws Chinese citizens DO NOT have a right to privacy and DO NOT have a right to search sites censored by their government.

Google is trying to offer US citizens the rights and protections they have for computer access under US law. In the US, there are constitution rights to free speech and to privacy (as interpreted by previous Supreme Courts). Google is trying to uphold these constitutional rights and the US Justice department is trying to circumvent these rights.

I fail to see how Google has done wrong by trying to protect the rights that citizens of a country have been given by their respective governments.

Re:Why is it...

[The Cydonian]

Actually, a more pertinent point here is that Google has refused to maintain any identifiable information from its China-based users; note that Blogspot and Gmail are not operating in China.

Re:Why is it...

[Stormy Dragon]

For the same reason newspapers are terrified of offending Muslims but show little concern for offending other religious groups.

It's easy to stand up to people you know aren't going to retalliate.

Apologies to Bill Hicks....

[Tony]

It's easy to stand up to people you know aren't going to retalliate.

Yeah. Thanks for turning the other cheek, Bub.

Re:Why is it...

[hackstraw]

Why do oppressive regimes get special treatment?

Time will tell.

Re:Only Because It's The American Government

[Locke2005]

shame they can't do a little in the name of safety. What exactly is this executive overreaching of the law making us safe from? If you want to protect your children from objectionable material on the internet, the only truly effective way is to set up a firewall that only allows white-listed URLs to be viewed. Stopping curious adolescents from googling for porn isn't going to accomplish a thing. Personally, I can't imagine why this data would be even remotely useful to the government -- the only reason they

Re:Only Because It's The American Government

[shawb]

Invalid comparison. In China, the law states that certain things must be censored. In the USA, the law states that people and organizations have a certain expectance of privacy, and that search and seizure can not be done without a court ordered warrant and evidence of a crime. Guess what... this falls under search and seizure. There was no warrant, therefore the demand was illegal.

Re:skewed sample

[cpt kangarooski]

Why not do a google search to find out?

Re:Gotta Maintain The Illusion

[ScrewMaster]

What constitutes terrorism is relative to that which you are afraid.

Re:Gotta Maintain The Illusion

[Spy der Mann]

We have ALWAYS been at war with the terrorists.

Yeah but when will they pack and leave the White House? :(

Re:Why should the government get free data?

[Buran]

They can't afford it. They blew the money on the stupid war that no one wants.