Another Massive Invasion of Privacy by Bush & Co.

[tricky]

Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe 2 hours, 59 minutes ago


The Bush administration, seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, has subpoenaed Google Inc. for details on what its users have been looking for through its popular search engine.

Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose.

Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals.

Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs.

The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court on free-speech grounds.

The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children.

The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn.

The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously."

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said.

[zerojunkie]

Uh...while I don't think that unseen records can constitute an invasion of privacy. It is interesting, for one that google had the balls to fight it, and secondly how many companies wouldn't have fought this just because of legal expenses.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

Uh...while I don't think that unseen records can constitute an invasion of privacy. It is interesting, for one that google had the balls to fight it, and secondly how many companies wouldn't have fought this just because of legal expenses.

more than you'd think....

if a company just rolls over and gives up all its records - without obligation (most companies will make the demanding party produce a subpoena that states specifically what records are to be disgourged) and those records lead to a harmful impact on the party whose records were given up..... bigger lawsuit from the pissed off guys whose records caused problems....

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by xian

more than you'd think....

if a company just rolls over and gives up all its records - without obligation (most companies will make the demanding party produce a subpoena that states specifically what records are to be disgourged) and those records lead to a harmful impact on the party whose records were given up..... bigger lawsuit from the pissed off guys whose records caused problems....

I dunno man...a subpoena is a subpoena, couldn't a company just say "Tough shit, they had a court order"?

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by tricky

... seeking to revive an online pornography law struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court,

this is an inaccurate statement. the supreme court decided that there was not enough data to show how widely scoped of a problem this is and sent it back to the district court to gather additional information on the problem and then send it back up.... It was not "struck down."




as far as whether or not its bullshit.... yeah, total bullshit. and once those records are in the possession of the justice dept, dont you think they will search them for all sorts of stuff under their interpretation of warrantless search rights and "fighting terrorism." i know they will....



Google is the only search engine company i respect any more. You got AOL who said "Sure, search whatever you want" and you got Yahoo turning in political dissidents in China.... They all suck. I bought a bit of google stock just as a vote of confidence and respect for the company.... Privacy advocates, teaming up with NASA do to R&D on infotech and space exploration, etc. etc. good company.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I dunno man...a subpoena is a subpoena, couldn't a company just say "Tough shit, they had a court order"?

they could - I'm just suggesting that the company being asked to disgourge will want to be sure that the order is narrowly tailored and that they took all necessary and proper steps to ensure that so that the company will be held blameless.... cya provisions and all that jazz

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xian

they could - I'm just suggesting that the company being asked to disgourge will want to be sure that the order is narrowly tailored and that they took all necessary and proper steps to ensure that so that the company will be held blameless.... cya provisions and all that jazz

i dunno, AOL rolled over like a bitch and gave total and unlimited access to all their info....

i dont use AOL or Yahoo EVER anymore....

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

as far as whether or not its bullshit.... yeah, total bullshit. and once those records are in the possession of the justice dept, dont you think they will search them for all sorts of stuff under their interpretation of warrantless search rights and "fighting terrorism." i know they will....

Records obtained pursuant to a subpoena are not obtained without warrant.... they are obtained by order of the court. Whether the documents collected are useful in obtaining information related to a different crime or to national security really isn't relevent.... think of it like this.... search warrant issued for a in guys appartment to look for evidence of a robbery.... that the search turns up evidence of a murder wholely unrelated doesn't make the warrant or additional evidence improperly obtained.... ergo - not total bullshit

[patpx]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

I bought a bit of google stock just as a vote of confidence and respect for the company.

I hope you bought a few months ago and not recently. It's about topped out in terms of financial gains.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by patpx

I hope you bought a few months ago and not recently. It's about topped out in terms of financial gains.

yes, i did....just before the announcement of the joint project with Nasa actually

I am doin ok.

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by xian

Records obtained pursuant to a subpoena are not obtained without warrant.... they are obtained by order of the court. Whether the documents collected are useful in obtaining information related to a different crime or to national security really isn't relevent.... think of it like this.... search warrant issued for a in guys appartment to look for evidence of a robbery.... that the search turns up evidence of a murder wholely unrelated doesn't make the warrant or additional evidence improperly obtained.... ergo - not total bullshit

but the subpoena does not allow for the identification of the people doing the searches....

i do see what you are saying tho and thanks for the clarification....

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

but the subpoena does not allow for the identification of the people doing the searches....

So what? The issue is the entity (who, what, when and where) whose privacy is invaded - not the identity of the invader authorized by the court

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

i do see what you are saying tho and thanks for the clarification....

lol - always happy to clarify

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

Google is the only search engine company i respect any more. You got AOL who said "Sure, search whatever you want" and you got Yahoo turning in political dissidents in China.... They all suck.

I heard Yahoo gave their records over w/o a fight too. I can't speak for other businesses but ISP's and online portals seem a little too eager to cooperate with government(s). I've said it before, I'll say it again...encryption is your friend.

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

I bought a bit of google stock just as a vote of confidence and respect for the company.... Privacy advocates, teaming up with NASA do to R&D on infotech and space exploration, etc. etc. good company.

That stock might net you more than just the warm & fuzzy's for supporting such a good company.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I heard Yahoo gave their records over w/o a fight too. I can't speak for other businesses but ISP's and online portals seem a little too eager to cooperate with government(s). I've said it before, I'll say it again...encryption is your friend.

Failure to comply with an order of the court could well result in contempt... the judge has broad authority to act to compell compliance... fines or a holiday in the hoosegow with Bubba.... fighting the subpoena for clarification, cya or to make a colorable claim of privilege (or other safe harbor) is one thing - being stupid is another

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by xian

Failure to comply with an order of the court could well result in contempt... the judge has broad authority to act to compell compliance... fines or a holiday in the hoosegow with Bubba.... fighting the subpoena for clarification, cya or to make a colorable claim of privilege (or other safe harbor) is one thing - being stupid is another

Agreed, a court order or a NSL is one thing...Agent Smith asking if he can take a peek around a data center is another.