Posted on 01/19/2006 10:36:33 AM PST by flashbunny
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.
You will be the one begging for mercy before the court, and getting none.
How about I get a subpoena to root through all your belongings so that I might advocate for a new law. Fair's fair!
That's exactly what is being sought in this investigation.
Google may CHOOSE to do this. If Google does not CHOOSE, then you have no right to it.
The very fact that you are spewing such frivolous "objections" (haw, haw, haw) means you know your case is a loser, loser, loser.
That's why I pointed him out. If (when) he stays, the whole court stays. And if he doesn't, Thomas will give him a royal dressing down in the 8-1.
The Justice Department has no right as part of an investigation of the kiddie porn industry to subpoena information Google has explicitly stated was subject to release?
For its part, the Justice Department said the data received from Google's rivals showed that the search query information did not contain "any additional personal identifying information" and that trade secrets would be protected under procedures put in place by the trial court."
Google's not at risk; the anarchist ilk on this thread fears for the pornographers.
They have no right to it under our Constitution.
Yes, I quite note that the Desert Beggar has yet to say what he would think about a subpoena to root through his possessions in support of, say, an anti drug law. For example I want to know how many citizens are hoarding Sudafed.
"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." --Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967).
If the data were in my possession, the Justice Department would recieve the information needed to identify the pornographers as well.
Congratulations to Yahoo and American Online for turning data over.
Thank you for showing us anew how frivolous and wishful your position is. The "exposure to the public" here doesn't mean what you would like it to, namely a discretionary sale.
No, would you willingly expose it for the sake of a fishing trip in support of a proposed legislation? Or would you fight that in court.
I never heard of any "American Online." Please provide a sourced citation.
OK, are you hoarding Sudafed? Prove your answer.
"We may share aggregated non-personal information with third parties outside of Google."
Nothing about "sale" there, eternal question beggar.
The dweeb seems to think that if Google may sell it, Google must divulge it to the government. No, that is totally Google's call to make.
May <> will.
May <> must.
"Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online all complied with a government request for data on consumers' Web searches, a Justice Department official said Thursday."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/technology/13665364.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.