Google Subpoenaed for Search History
 

Okay, this is over the top. Does anyone have confirmation? I'm doing chicken-blinks at my monitor. Do we really have people on staff wasting our money for this kind of parochial tire-spinning?

While I don't know if this is true or not, why would a publicly accessable search engine be somehow exempt from court orders any more than phone records and the like?

I don't believe any source should be above court orders, but I don't believe court orders should be used for fishing, whatever the pond.

The story doesn't say enough. That's why I was hoping someone had more information.

To find out how often pornography shows up in online searches? What's this for, a study or something? Shouldn't there be probable cause of crime in order to warrant a supoena for information?

seconded...

The subpoena is here:

http://news.com.com/2300-1028_3-6028780-1.html

http://www.itworld.com/Man/2681/060119govtvsgoogle/
http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/t...69/detail.html
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...oog11806m.html

Well I googled it and found nothing? Maybe I'm missing something?


Agreed!
Do we have any rights with this administration?

Google News and I are good friends:
There's a bunch more sources here:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...enaed&ie=UTF-8

Thanks Mal

This strikes me as another piece of nanny state legislation. It is the parents of a child who should be monitoring the child's online activities.

I want the government to worry about how to solve problems like illegal wire taps and illegal occupations. Leave the porn to the people.

In internet is for porn....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=99641

And i resent anyone who tries to alter that.

And this is a classic fishing expedition, the kind of request for information that is theoretically constitutional in the kind of data it requests, but by it's expansive breadth and lack of a showing of criminal behavior...becomes an intrusion of government beyond its proper role.

After reading mal's post (#5), it seems like they just want statistical information, not names and addresses of people who searched for the porn. I don't see any harm in that, or am I being naive?

I'd go with not naivete, but underestimating the government. Once provided with this data it could be extrapolated to the universe and affect every aspect of internet useage. Okay, so they get the info... does it include times of day? Because that could be released to employers who can then say that too many people are accessing porn during work hours and invite Big Brother into the workplace even more than now. I can't even visit 1-800-FLOWERS' website because it says something somewhere about love and romance. Apparently it can then be interpreted as porn by the filters at my job. I just wanted to send a sympathy bouquet. Porn can be interpreted in way too many ways. I don't think it would be valid data. Even staunchly puritanical sites that discuss the evils of the world and use the word "porn" would come up. It definitely looks like someone is fishing.

Here... "I caught you a delicious bass."

I suspect that they could determine that by checking the coockies folder of many house members. This witch hunt can be used for nothing good.

There is more going on here.. They can simply use the search engines to see how many porn sites are returned just like a normal user, and can script common searches and record the results. They want google to do their work for them. Wich leads me to beleive they want more than what they claim.

I think what they want is how often people randomly look up kiddie porn on the net.

thats not what it looks like to me. The DOJ says they need the records to defend a COPA lawsuit brought on by the ACLU. What does that have to do with child porn?

The article I read explained the situation like so: They want to prove that benign search terms will return large amounts of pornographic results unsuitable for minors even even with content filters in place. They want to use this to prove that content filters are not enough and that greater regulation is required. To get this data all they have to do is use the search engine themselves.

Funny how these supposedly 'small government' family value republicans cant let families be responsible for their own values.

This is bullshit. If they want statistical information regarding how often porn comes up in a search why can't they just pay a bumch of people to type shit into the search engine and document the findings. It would cost less than this crap.

I really cant wait for the Bush administration to get the hell out of office.

Land of the once free but now its locked down because its for your own good according to a christian loving prude whose morals run his position and not any form of logic.

Fuck that.

*spelling correction

I am frankly appalled at the lack of porn on the internet.

I hope the government will pass legislation requiring every website in the US to have a "Boobies" section. Well, in the spirit of equality, a "Cocks" link too.

Can you imagine the government sites having adult content in them? That would give the fuddies a heart attack...

Remember whitehouse.com :P

the way i see it is this, the patriot act has gone far over the top in privacy and invasion rights...

we own a book store and are asked to keep a list of customers purchases for review by the "authorities"...

google is now being forced to give up information about YOUR searches on THEIR engine...

if the "greater good" were to come out of this for the safety of all concerned then why the hell doesn't the government of our "FAIR" country do it themselves, rather than give a donut shop in massachusetts $435K in 9/11 relief??? linkage???

they have the money to squander on the front of security in spite their fat lazy ass finger pointing blame the other guy do nothing kiss ass gas bags that ruin the freedoms we have...

boxers or briefs??? because we all know briefs cause serious headaches that could be detrimental the health of sperm which then may cause an increase in fertility drug prescription costs placing doubt American's ability to pay for home heating oil...

i think i'll google that...

So what book do I get flagged for, how to build a nuclear bomb for dummies?

I am not shocked by the move, just think this whole thing is just comical.

Actually they arent being forced. The information has been requested.. google did not honor the request and subsequently said any attempt to subpena the information will be fought in court. It hasnt gotten that far yet.

they were subpoenaed last august and refusal may bind them with a contempt charge

when you don't log out of gmail, your google search history is logged under your identity. same with yahoo, who did hand over data i think.


this seems to be another instance of the gov't wanting something significant based on odd justifications (oregon euthanasia, unwarranted spying, iraq invasion). is obtaining google's search logs the best way to find out if porn turns up in searches? why can't they search themselves? (and who cares, anyway?) it would be nice to have some forward-thinking people in the gov't instead of those who want to investigate issues dealt with in the mid 90s. or maybe a libertarian...these guys have give right-wing extremists a bad name.

i can see the headlines now. "web searches find porn, says gov't. also, man in georgia really likes model airplane schematics (and reading about cars)"

what a waste.

This is like the morons at stores making you have to show ID to buy rated M games. Almost every kid that isnt old enough to be buying these games doesnt have the money to buy them anyways and is going to be getting the parents to buy the games... which they do. On the internet who is to say if it is the child or the parent looking at the porn? I also feel that the government should stay out of this and it should be the parents responsibility... they might as well ban late night TV because younger viewers could still be up watching it.

erm, I am a little drunk at the moment so this might not make the most sense... but try to bear with me, I am sure you get the point I am trying to make

what if you left this month's penthouse on the coffee table???

what if you were found to have rented some M rated video for your kid???

and then your kid has a friend over, sees the penthouse and then plays the game...

goes home and tells his folks that he played this really cool game who then call the cops on ya...

bullshit

From the JD's perspective - one of justifying COPA - I could see some need for supporting data. But how they analyze and represent what they're given will be whatever generates the scariest picture. That's fishing. I'm not sure it's legally out of bounds, but it's certainly an opportunity for abuse. It would be less questionable if they provided the criteria and allowed the search providers to return counts and statistics.

This feels very tied up with TV/movie/game/music ratings and how we monitor the messages fed to minors. It's a deep topic, and I know we need to do a better job, but this stinks of a small-picture attack that'll make any real analysis more difficult. Wish I had more time to consider this right now...