Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe

AP Via Yahoo ^ | 2006-01-19

[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.

[Mojave]

LOL!!

Both desire societal chaos.

[Mojave]

Interesting to correlate NAMBLA with the liberal beliefs that you shouldn't be responsible for what your children do.

Interesting NAMBLA belief that you shouldn't be responsible for what you do to children.

[Mojave]

I didn't ask about whether adults are responsibile for their own actions.

Nope, you asserted that only parents are responsible for what happens to their kids. NAMBLA logic.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Who says they didn't?

I can't help you if you're not going to read the decisions in the case.

[Mojave]

No source, no quote. Predictable.

[Senator Bedfellow]

You can't find the 3'rd Circuit's decision after the case was remanded? Or you just haven't read it?

[af_vet_rr]

Something to consider - any "evidence" gathered will show up in the public record - you really have to wonder about the legal resources of Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft. I didn't realize this, but a friend just pointed it out.

Basically the DOJ could be causing large financial damage to these companies, even though they have nothing to do with the legality of the COPA act. I expect that under a liberal administration, but under a supposedly Conservative/pro-Capitalism administration....

Anyways, if you would like to read the motion to compel, you can read the PDF: motion to compel (i.i.com). Page 4 is interesting: (these are taken from the document)

First, the subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file contain, "[a]ll URL's that are available to be located on your companys' search engine as of July 31, 2005.

After lengthy negotiations, the Government has narrowed this request to seek the production of "multi- stage random sample of one million URLS" from Google's database ie, a random selection of the various databases in which those URL's are stored, and a random sample of the URL's held in those selected databases.

Second, the subpoena also asks Google to produce an electronic file containing "[a]ll queries entered into the Google engine between July 1 and July 31 inclusive".

Again, after lengthy negotiations, the Government has narrowed this request to seek the production of an electronic file containing "the text of any search string entered into Google's search engine for a one week period (absent any personal information identifying the person who entered the query)".

More documents are listed in this article. One of Google's objections: "Google objects to the Defendant's view of Google's highly proprietary queries database as a free resource that Defendant can use, some levels removed, to formulate its own defense." I love it - Google is basically saying the DOJ wants to use Google as a free resource to put together their defense. Sounds like something out of Clinton's administration.

[dinoparty]

OK, I see that you are either intentionally avoiding the issue, or you are irrational. There was a reason for my "word game" several hundred posts back, but I wouldn't blame you if you can't remember what it was, considering the fact that you've delayed responding to it for an entire day now. I'm done with you. Bye.

[Mojave]

Still no source, still no quote. Predictable still.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Do you demand that the waitress pre-chew your food as well?

Knock yourself out:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/991324p.pdf

Fn. 28 may be edifying.

[dcwusmc]

In the final analysis, you are correct that the man or woman who wants whatever security can be found in this world MUST provide it personally or by proxy (from a PRIVATE vendor), as government at any level cannot and will not. This also holds true in the arena of the War on Terror(ists). We have been saddled with a bureaucracy that can't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions printed in English, Spanish and Braille on the heel. Yet we are told to trust FedGov to do the job for us and we should just roll over and go to sleep. Same thing here... FedGov is telling parents that they can ignore what their children do, either online or in the real world, 'cause Big Bro is gonna do the job. The same Big Bro whose Amtrak and Postal Service and airport security and drug war are such rousing "successes"... The only "success" I can see is a burgeoning bureaucracy and more meddling in and control over honest folks' lives. (Doesn't mean that CRIME, such as home invasion or whatever needs to be decriminalized. The official record keepers -the cops- need something to do and hauling off any surviving home invaders or the corpses of the failed criminals would be right up their alley.)

WRT the second part of your post, I could not agree more with you.

[Mojave]

There's no support for you in the text. Predictably.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I can post it for you, but I can't understand it for you.

The District Court found, however, that no evidence had been presented “as to the percentage of time that blocking and filtering technology is over- or underinclusive.” Id. Moreover, the District Court, as noted above, determined that blocking and filtering software could be at least as effective as COPA, because COPA does not reach “foreign Web sites, noncommercial sites, and . . . [materials available online] via protocols other than http.” Reno II, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 496.(28)

Fn. 28:

(28). The District Court’s findings of fact on which the above conclusions are based are not clearly erroneous. As we recited earlier, the Government did not, and does not, contend that the findings are clearly erroneous. See Reno III, 270 F.3d at 170. It follows that both COPA and blocking and filtering technology are over- and underinclusive in differing ways, and we agree with the District Court’s conclusion that, as a result, such technology may be at least as effective as COPA.

Of course, I hardly need to present this, because the notion that they did present evidence of the efficacy of filters before would mean that they shouldn't need to be hunting up this information now, but of course they didn't and they are. QED.

Is that it then, or do you have a fresh batch of waffles in the oven?

[Mojave]

why, after SCOTUS made their decision

Reno II was in 2000. Ashcroft v ACLU was in 2002.

Having trouble with advanced concepts like "before" and "after"?

[Don Joe]

If that's the case, and this is merely a pretext, then they undoubtedly would have found some excuse no matter what - if not this, then something else anyway.

True. And for that, I lay much (if not most) of the blame directly at the feet of Google and all the other "information aggregators" who greedily suck up every possible bit of information as possible on as many people as possible, creating the fodder for intensely in-depth profiles on all of us.

This kind of low-hanging fruit is irresistable to the government. Regardless of any high-sounding "don't be evil" sanctimony, and any unwillingness to sell the information to others, two facts remain. First, other companies do willingly sell similar information to anyone who is willing to pay up -- and, the government, prohibited from "snooping" on its citizens, prevented by law from building similar profiles on its own, will gladly buy the data from the private sector. (This is IMO scandalous, and needy of spanking by the SCOTUS, for violating the law via "let's pretend" gaming of the system.)

Second, even though Google may be unwilling to sell the info, there is nothing to prevent the government from taking it. Hell, in the "Post-Kelo World", they can take the flippin' "Google Campus" if they feel like it.

We have fallen asleep, and woken up in a world in which the government asserts the "right" (or more rightly, the power) to do whatever it feels like doing -- and we have the obligation to accept, obey, comply... or, be cast as a traitor. ("You don't want the government to listen to your phone calls, read your mail, and nose through your records? What are you, Osama's blood-brother? Why do you defend the terrorists?")

Really hard to argue with logic like that. (Note to the irony-impaired: Irony intended.)

It's become increasingly difficult over the years to find much to commend the Europeans, but I'll say this much for them: they value their privacy. In Europe, the kind of private-sector data-collection that has become de rigueur (pardon my French) in the USA, is criminal -- and the law is taken quite seriously -- and enforced.

Here, in "the land of the free", the concept of "privacy" has become completely perverted to the extent that it means "a woman's right to kill her offspring prior to the moment of birth." And that is the exclusive definition of "privacy"! Any actual desire to keep ones personal matters private is now viewed as suspicious behavior, if not downright treasonous. ("What? You have something to hide, perhaps?")

To recap: If Google had not succombed to the allure of "free data" -- if they had not made the decision to track the every move of every user -- and store that information permanently -- there would be nothing for the government to move in on to snarf up. (And, if you use Google's toolbar, profligate configuration will result in them not only obtaining and storing your queries, but, they will also log each and every web page you visit, too!)

And in either case, your queries will be tagged to your cookie, making it even easier for "investigation" (no need to confirm each dynamic IP connection you've used -- just grab one, and bingo, they gotcha). Quash the cookie and Google "degrades" before your very eyes. Do they need that cookie to be able to deliver what you want? No. They need it for you to deliver what they want. So, you are given an incentive to leave your cookies open for them.

And, if you "register", you are that much more... "exposed."

I am dismayed at the lack of care, the total disregard for any consideration that people give for their personal privacy these days. Even this discussion will likely evoke a few "chicken little"/"tinfoil helmet!"/"paranoid loon" retorts.

A little humor: In the words of Dr. Emilio Lizzardo, "Laugha while you can, monkeyboy!"

It's not easy -- and getting less easy each year -- to go through life refusing to "go with the flow"... refusing to obediently fill in the "SSN" box on every form stuck under one's nose by every medical receptionist in every doctor's office. It's difficult to explain that no, one does not "have to" fill out the godfersaken "HIPAA forms". It's becoming a major PITA to protect one's privacy -- and the scorn reserved for those who value their privacy is a sad commentary on the state of the Republic.

But, so be it. They laughed at the "stupid few" who shook their heads at Neville Chamberlain -- and grit their teeth at the "harmless ravings" of the Little Austrian. Throughout history, the "Orwell readers" have been few, and subject to ridicule.

So, like I said, laugh. Laugh your little hearts out, kids. Laugh all the way to the...

[Note to Senator B.: Take nothing personally; I'm a-preachin' t' th' crowd.]

[Don Joe]

Of course, I hardly need to present this, because the notion that they did present evidence of the efficacy of filters before would mean that they shouldn't need to be hunting up this information now, but of course they didn't and they are. QED.

The prospect of an Internet dumbed-down to the "Safe for 13 Year Olds" level (a virtual "child-safe cap" placed on all content), as tragic as it might be (and I am not talking about "Pr0n"!), the loss pales in comparison to the loss of freedom made manifest in the hamfisted "alternative" to filtering for which the government is in the process of creating pro forma "proof" of "need".

That "alternative", of course, is "monitoring" -- and make no mistake, that is what we are looking at. There is a verse in the Old Testament -- Proverbs, I believe -- saying, "Despise not the day of small beginnings." As despicable as this "day of small beginnings" may prove to be, the principle holds true -- something of truly monumental portent will often begin with something small, seemingly innocuous. A few malcontents meeting to argue about the Redcoats, a one-nutted nut doin' his thang in a beer hall... the good, the bad, and the revolting all have one thing in common -- the tiny seed grows into the huge tree.

In this case, the "tree" is (to bastardize Scott McNealy), the "monitor."

And good Lord, what a tree it is! Cameras on every streetcorner (in the UK they are literally going to track every vehicle, everywhere it goes, all the time, and store its movements in a database. OCR will "read" the license plate)... coming soon (already experimented with, with mixed results), "facial recognition", so that people can be "tracked" everywhere they go too. Here, in These United States.

I bastardized Mcnealy, and now I'll quote the bastard (and in so doing reveal why I "honor" him with that salutation): "You have zero privacy anyway; get over it."

I wish I'd said it first, but I'll settle for repeating it: "Orwell was an optimist."

[Don Joe]

Something to consider - any "evidence" gathered will show up in the public record - you really have to wonder about the legal resources of Yahoo, AOL, and Microsoft. I didn't realize this, but a friend just pointed it out.

Basically the DOJ could be causing large financial damage to these companies, even though they have nothing to do with the legality of the COPA act. I expect that under a liberal administration, but under a supposedly Conservative/pro-Capitalism administration....

Anyways, if you would like to read the motion to compel, you can read the PDF: motion to compel (i.i.com). Page 4 is interesting: (these are taken from the document)

First, the subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file contain, "[a]ll URL's that are available to be located on your companys' search engine as of July 31, 2005.

After lengthy negotiations, the Government has narrowed this request to seek the production of "multi- stage random sample of one million URLS" from Google's database ie, a random selection of the various databases in which those URL's are stored, and a random sample of the URL's held in those selected databases.

Second, the subpoena also asks Google to produce an electronic file containing "[a]ll queries entered into the Google engine between July 1 and July 31 inclusive".

Again, after lengthy negotiations, the Government has narrowed this request to seek the production of an electronic file containing "the text of any search string entered into Google's search engine for a one week period (absent any personal information identifying the person who entered the query)".

Inasmuch as it is inevitable that there will be a nonzero quantity of queries whose URLs contain "personal information identifying the person who entered the query", it will be interesting to see how any engine-wrangler manages to comply with the "absent any personal information identifying the person who entered the query" proviso.

Especially once said information enters the public record.

I have no way of knowing if I (random user I am familiar with :) entered, oh, let's say my real name, addess, unlisted phone number, SSN, or other "personal information identifying" me during the target month. Nor do I know if the "luck of the draw" will drop any such queries into the Lucky Million Random URL Lotto.

But most of all, I have zero idea of how they will manage to parse those billions of URLs for such "personal information identifying the person who entered the query" before the universe cools down to Absolute Zero. (Nor, for that matter, have I any clue at all as to how they will ascertain whether any "personal information" in any URL is "identifying the person who entered the query", rather than "identifying some other person.")

My suspicion (nay, belief!) is that they won't parse out the aforementioned "personal information identifying the person who entered the query", inasmuch as it is essentially impossible for any entity other than "the person" who actually entered the information to even recognize it!)

This ain't about "pornography". This ain't about "the children". And it certainly ain't about "privacy" (other than in "the rape of" context).

What it is about is giving "the camel" a good noseload of inside-the-tent air.

It's what the lefties love to call "A good first step" every time they tighten the noose on the Constitution. It's a nice precedent. "Nice", if you're "The State", looking to... looking to look.

I guarantee you that after examining those billions of URLs, we will be informed that they simply must be given the IP and cookie info, because otherwise, we won't be "safe". ("We found some... questionable material! And it may have been seen by... children! So, we must have the IP data, so that we can find out for certain whether or not a child was exposed to this questionable material!")

Too, recall that the Eeevul Stuff in focus is not "pornography" per se, but rather, "protecting minors from exposure to harmful materials on the Internet."

Then, recall that filter vendors (arguably the establishers of context for this debate) have frequently defined all sorts of sites as "harmful to minors". And by "all sorts", I'm talking about soup to nuts -- everything from outdoor sports (hunting/target shooting) to political sites. I can vaguely recall reading of even this site being blocked by some filters.

Imagine an Internet "safe for minors" -- cleansed of all references to "offensive" materials "unsuitable" for their tender young minds. Welcome to the "Rated G" Internet, folks. No discussions of politics. No (*gasp*) discussions of guns (Oh, the humanity!) No discussion of movies! (other than "G-Rated", of course)

That "for the children" stuff sure is a handy way to neuter the "samizdat" (that's Rooskie for "pajamas") press.

So, expect it. Expect a second subpoena, demanding "identifying information."

And I guarantee you that our meathead populace will bobblehead their "yupyupyup-shoregorightahead!" After all, isn't safety and security worth giving up some liberty for?

Pinch me, I'm having a really bad nightmare...

[Senator Bedfellow]

Reno II was in 2000. Ashcroft v ACLU was in 2002.

Non-sequitur. Ashcroft v ACLU was 2002, that up above is the 3rd Circuit decision after remand, from 2003. Maybe you ought to consult a calendar yourself, Sparky.

[Don Joe]

Wow...

Surreal...

Terrifying.

Sometimes I despise being t.

Fox News just had their "Legal Consultant" Craig Mitnick on, live, explaining the Google situation.

He calmly, rationally, soooooooooothingly, explained how the Internet is like a global roadway, and, just like on the road, you should need a license, and everywhere you go, your license is on display, you should likewise be required to be "tagged" to be on the Internet "roadway", so that the "police" can see where you are, and who you are.

He explained how it was only reasonable to require the travels of everyone to be tracked, logged, stored, so that if they are found in a bad location, the police can pull them over and ask what they're doing.

(I paraphrase, but that's the gist of it.)

So, his alternative to the Gonzales Vs. Google problem is to imprint everyone, record everything... in short, do online to people what the Brits have just begun instituting with vehicles.

Is anyone else old enough to recall the major outrage over Intel's "electronic serial number" burned into the die of each Pentium III? People were livid, because it could be used to track them while online.

Intel took a huge beating over that one, and hastily retreated from the "You're marked!" agenda.

Now, smooth-talking, silken-tongued lawyers get on the tube, and calmly explain to us morons how we not only need the Total Surveillance State, but should want it -- because it will help make us safe.

The "Screw 'liberty', give me 'security'!" program is running full tilt pedal to the metal.

The world is changing at a neck-snapping rate. It's beyond surreal.

You can't make up crap like this. But apparently he sure can! (Or, at least he can read off his daily sheet like a real trouper.)

I tell ya -- his patter was sooooooooo smooth, sooooooooo readly proffered, that I got the distinct impression that he was doing "talking-points spindoc" duty.

Would Our Leaders go so far as to send out the spindocs, to "massage" the masses into yupyupping the program?

You bet they would!

I swear, this was so creepy that I feel like I need to take a shower after watching it.

[Uncle Vlad]

You can have my porn when you pry my cold, dead fingers from my...

Uh, never mind. ;)