Google Subpoenaed for Search History - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

cyrnel · 01-19-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by San Jose Mercury News 1/19/06

Google subpoena

THE ISSUE: The Bush administration wants Google to turn over material from its databases to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

WHAT GOOGLE SAYS: It opposes releasing the information, saying it would violate users' privacy and reveal trade secrets.

WHAT'S AT STAKE: Privacy advocates are concerned that the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users could be thrown open to anyone with a court order.

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?

Ustwo · 01-19-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

WHAT'S AT STAKE: Privacy advocates are concerned that the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users could be thrown open to anyone with a court order.

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?

cyrnel · 01-19-2006, 02:42 PM

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.

moot1337 · 01-19-2006, 02:54 PM

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

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.

seconded...

maleficent · 01-19-2006, 02:57 PM

The subpoena is here:

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

http://www.itworld.com/Man/2681/060119govtvsgoogle/

Quote:

US government wrestles Google for search records
IDG News Service 1/19/06

Juan Carlos Peréz, IDG News Service, Miami Bureau
The U.S. government is asking a California court to force Google Inc. to turn over information about usage of the company's search engine for finding pornography on the Internet.

The government says it needs those Google usage records to prepare its defense in a lawsuit brought against it by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But Google is resisting.

Thus, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California a motion to compel Google to comply with the government's subpoena.

The ACLU lawsuit, filed in 1998, challenges the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) law, which aims to protect minors from the effects of exposure to sexually explicit material on the Internet.

Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel, said in a prepared statement e-mailed to IDG News Service: "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches. We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

The ACLU's challenge to the COPA, arguing that it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been so far successful. The Pennsylvania district court in which the lawsuit was filed granted the ACLU's motion for preliminary injunction, and an appeals court affirmed it in 2000.

The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the judgment of the appeals court and sent it back to that court, which in turn again affirmed the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court again reviewed the case, but that time it affirmed the preliminary injunction and sent the case back for trial.

Now the government is preparing its defense of COPA's constitutionality, and is specifically trying to buttress its contention that the law is more effective than filtering software in protecting minors from pornographic material on the Internet, according to the motion.

As a result, the government has issued subpoenas to Google and other search engines requesting information to make its case. But Google has refused to comply with the two requests. One request is that Google provide the government with a "random sample" of 1 million Web site addresses found in Google's search engine index and the other is that it provide the government with the text of all queries filed on the search engine during a specific week.

"The production of those materials would be of significant assistance to the Government's preparation of its defense of the constitutionality of this important statute," the motion filed reads. This information would help the government understand how often Web users encounter material considered "harmful to minors" as a result of using a search engine, and to determine how effective filtering software is, according to the motion.

The motion doesn't name the other search engine operators whose records were subpoenaed, but it indicates that they complied with the request.

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/t...69/detail.html

Quote:

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A lawyer at Google says it will vigorously fight a government demand for information on what its customers have been searching for.

The Bush administration has subpoenaed details on what Google's users find through its popular Internet search engine.

Papers filed by the Justice Department on Wednesday in California say Google refused to comply with a subpoena last year. The feds asked for a range of material from Google's databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period

The government said it needs the data to learn how often online searches find pornography. Officials said they need that information to help revive an Internet child protection law the Supreme Court shot down two years ago.

Google promises to protect personal information. But the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/g...oog11806m.html

Quote:

Gonzales v. Google, Inc.
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion in federal court seeking a court order that would compel search engine company Google, Inc. to turn over “a multi-stage random sample of one million URL’s” from Google’s database, and a computer file with “the text of each search string entered onto Google’s search engine over a one-week period (absent any information identifying the person who entered such query.”

(January 18, 2006)

Brewmaniac · 01-19-2006, 02:57 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyrnel

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.

Agreed!
Do we have any rights with this administration?

maleficent · 01-19-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaniac

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

Agreed!

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

Brewmaniac · 01-19-2006, 03:08 PM

Thanks Mal

Elphaba · 01-19-2006, 03:43 PM

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.

Willravel · 01-19-2006, 04:23 PM

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

martinguerre · 01-19-2006, 06:20 PM

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.

vermin · 01-19-2006, 06:47 PM

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?

noodle · 01-19-2006, 07:14 PM

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."

Psycho Dad · 01-20-2006, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moot1337

To find out how often pornography shows up in online searches?

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.

sprocket · 01-20-2006, 06:25 AM

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.

Ustwo · 01-20-2006, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

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.

dksuddeth · 01-20-2006, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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?

sprocket · 01-20-2006, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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

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.

kutulu · 01-20-2006, 08:02 AM

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.

Destrox · 01-20-2006, 09:13 AM

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

BigBen · 01-20-2006, 09:20 AM

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...

Destrox · 01-20-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen

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

Remember whitehouse.com :P

Hanxter · 01-20-2006, 12:51 PM

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...

Xazy · 01-20-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanxter

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

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.

sprocket · 01-20-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hanxter

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

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.

Hanxter · 01-20-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

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

trickyy · 01-20-2006, 11:34 PM

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.

blahblah454 · 01-21-2006, 12:59 AM

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

Hanxter · 01-21-2006, 04:46 AM

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

cyrnel · 01-21-2006, 09:32 AM

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...

01-19-2006, 02:42 PM	#3 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	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. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

01-19-2006, 03:08 PM	#8 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	Thanks Mal __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

01-19-2006, 06:20 PM	#11 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	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. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

01-19-2006, 06:47 PM	#12 (permalink)
vermin Indifferent to anti-matter Location: Tucson, AZ	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? __________________ If puns were sausages, this would be the wurst.

01-20-2006, 06:25 AM	#15 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	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. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

01-19-2006, 03:43 PM	#9 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	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.

01-19-2006, 04:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I want the government to worry about how to solve problems like illegal wire taps and illegal occupations. Leave the porn to the people.

01-20-2006, 08:02 AM	#19 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	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.

01-20-2006, 09:13 AM	#20 (permalink)
Destrox Metal and Rock 4 Life Location: Phoenix	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 __________________ You bore me.... next.

01-20-2006, 09:20 AM	#21 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	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... __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

01-20-2006, 12:51 PM	#23 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	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...

01-20-2006, 11:34 PM	#27 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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.

01-21-2006, 12:59 AM	#28 (permalink)
blahblah454 Let's put a smile on that face Location: On the road...	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

01-21-2006, 04:46 AM	#29 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	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

01-21-2006, 09:32 AM	#30 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	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... __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195