Posted on 01/20/2006 12:07:44 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Right-to-privacy groups said on Friday an attempt by the Bush administration to force Google Inc. to turn over a broad range of materials from its databases set a dangerous precedent that should worry all Americans.
"This is the camel's nose under the tent for using search engines and all kinds of data aggregators as surveillance tools," said Jim Harper of the libertarian Cato Institute who also runs Privacilla.org, an Internet privacy database.
The Bush administration is already under fire from a number of rights groups over security measures it has taken since the September 11, 2001 attacks on America, including pursuing checks on library records and eavesdropping on some telephone calls.
In court papers filed on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, the Justice Department stated that Google had refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for one million random Web addresses from Google's databases as well as records of all searches entered on Google during any one-week period.
The government said it needed the information to prepare its case to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the Supreme Court blocked from taking effect two years ago.
The law prohibited Internet companies from knowingly making available obscene or pornographic material to minors. The Supreme Court said there were potential constitutional problems with the law and sent the case back to a lower court for consideration. It is expected to be heard later this year.
The Justice Department said on Friday that America Online, Yahoo and Microsoft had all complied with similar requests.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected concerns that the subpoena might violate individual privacy rights.
"We're not asking for the identity of Americans. We simply want to have some subject matter information with respect to these communications. This is important for the Department of Justice and we will pursue this matter," he told reporters.
A Google spokesperson said the company objected to the breadth of the government's request but did not consider it to be a privacy issue since the search terms would not include personally identifiable details.
BILL TO BE INTRODUCED
But others were not reassured. Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (news, bio, voting record), the ranking Democrat on the telecommunications subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would introduce a bill to strengthen consumers' Internet privacy by prohibiting the storage of personally identifiable information Internet searches beyond a reasonable time.
"Internet search engines provide an extraordinary service, but the preservation of that service does not rely on a bottomless, timeless database that can do great damage despite good intentions," Markey said.
Chris Jay Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information Center worried that the government could follow up its initial request with a demand for more information.
"If Google hands over the search logs and the Justice Department finds search strings like 'child porn' or 'naked children,' could they not then go back and ask Google for the user's Internet address?" he said.
Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology said he was glad Google was fighting the case but the company needed to make privacy a more fundamental part of its products. He said the case was a wake-up call to all Internet users that information was being collected on them all the time and was stored indefinitely.
Danny Sullivan, an Internet consultant who created Search Engine Watch, said in a posting on his site: "Such a move absolutely should breed some paranoia. They didn't ask for data this time, but next time, they might."
On the other side, the Cincinnati-based National Coalition for Protection of Children and Families, a Christian fundamentalist group, said search companies should be willing to help the government defend children from pornography.
"I'm disappointed Google did not want to exercise its good corporate branding to secure the protection of youth," said Jack Samad, the group's senior vice president.
No, that was fine. My point wasn't that it didn't have to be this way, or that it wasn't our own fault.
I was more bemused that these people are all upset that the government might look at Google's database, but not at all upset that Google could look at Google's database.
Sure, we shouldn't trust the government, but shouldn't I trust the government at least as much as I trust a company run by left-wing moonbats who have absolutely no restrictions on what they can do with my information?
My point was that Google isn't protecting my privacy (by fighting the government subpoena) because they are honoring an agreement I signed. They could give that information to the government, or anybody else they wanted, and I have absolutely no say.
Is it the "government" that makes having a full database of all your private information dangerous, or is it the fact that the database exists at all, with no restrictions on its use?
Now, it could be that you carefully weighed your privacy and convenience, and opted to join up with Google.
But most people I tell this to say they had NO IDEA that google was keeping information about them, much less that no law existed protecting that information.
Google has actually announced uses for that data, has admitted to making money by selling aggregate information from that data to the highest bidder (data just like that the government seeks -- maybe Google is just waiting for the government to pay up); they have admitted to having all sorts of plans for that data.
Google is an extremely powerful company with an ideological agenda. It is POWER that corrupts, not government. Google is in a position to become very powerful, and very corrupted.
Already, I suppose they could have politicians in their pockets, men and women who are public officials who didn't realise that google wasn't just an "official" part of the internet where you looked for stuff.
The same people that would have a cow if the government was allowed to see what books they were searching for in the PUBLIC LIBRARY (owned by the government) seem to not be at all concerend that Google is allowed to see all the books they searched for, and sell that information to book stores.
IN fact, before I learned this, I never imagined Google was keeping detailed tracking records of me. See, Amazon TOLD me they were doing it, so I knew. But with Google, I just figured they were driving hits to their search page so they could sell advertising or premium response space.
I never realised they were actually traking my ip address, my personal information, and keeping in a database all of my search information.
BTW, maybe I'm being too conspiratorial, but I think there is something evil about their g-mail as well. Offering people e-mail that is stored out on THIER servers, free of charge of course (so they can have free access to it), and advertising that it will never be deleted (meaning that later when you delete it, they don't HAVE to delete it, and they can collect it, and use it against you later, and you have no say in the matter).
I just had to kick my daughter off of G-mail, because she got it without my permission or knowledge (she is 12 years old). She was "initiated" by another 7th grader. This is how google will capture the hearts, minds, and allegiance of the next generation. My daughter will be running for president, and Google will send her copies of e-mails from 7th grade that will make her look bad to blackmail her.
OK, that is quite the tin-foil-hat argument.
But I say again, why do the privacy nuts NOT have a big problem with Google and their trillions of bytes of personal information collected without "permission",and with no protections?
Or is it OK because, as someone else argued, they are sweet people who just want to let us all search quickly, and have access to all the books in the world.
But how do you know that is all they are selling? They have already said that when I search for something, they would like my response to be based on what they know about ME.
There is no law keeping them from granting that information to a "preferred business partner". How do you know that haven't already provided that information?
The government has LAWS about what they can do with your information, and yet you fear them. Why don't you fear Google, which has no such laws protecting you?
And I'll ask you why?
The government has laws governing use of your information, google does not. The government is run by people that are elected by you. Google is not. The government is supposed to represent the people, google does not.
And yet nobody thinks there is any chance at all that Google could take all this personal information, that google insists is their own property to do with as the wish, and do things that they wouldn't like?
Why? Because we would punish google if they did it? Well, we would punish the government if they did it, and we knew. What if Google is already doing it, and you just don't know?
Well yes, since finding porn through Google is as easy as shutting off their lame filter and typing in suggestive words. They need a subpoena to find porn through Google like a fish needs a bicycle (to borrow a phrase from our liberal friends).
What's more, it's not even relevant to COPA since there isn't any record of the age of the person entering the search. This is not the Dirty Old Man Online Protection Act.
Google should ask how in blazes COULD it "secure the protection of youth." If anything it re-proves the point that got COPA struck down -- that filtering software can and will do a superior job of shutting out porn that kids can get into, than did the proposed ban (and this ban didn't cover search engines, anyhow).
… that filtering software can and will do a superior job of shutting out porn that kids can get into…
This would be browser-side filtering.
If there turned up a problem like this, the innocent sites could be added to a bypass (no-block) list by parents or librarians. I'd expect questionable search engine results from major engines (Google etc.) with known results formats to be censored on an entry by entry basis rather than the whole results page being shut out.
There are dozens of ways to get around filters. Filters are about as effective a way of controlling content as a picket fence is of controlling people looking into your yard.
...than did the proposed ban
And as bad as filters are, the ban would have been even more useless.
Want to control kids access to porn? It's easy.
A tiny box between the computer and the Internet connection. All it does is record URLs.
Later, you and your child can discuss where he's been.
As you may have guessed, I’m not familiar with browser filters – no kids in the home. If a search word is blocked it can be temporally unblocked fairly easily with a password?
Yeah? I didn't elect Clinton. I didn't ask for Hillary to be a senator. The government is elected by some people. Not by me.
I can quit using Google anytime I want. I wish the government had a delete button on it but it doesn't.
Actually, it is probably the beginning of government regulation of the internet in addition to uneccessary invasion of privacy. This looks like yet another pre-emptive law enforcement strategy in disguise.
LOL.
-bump-
We believe privacy policies are only of value for those who have something to hide. We further believe that only those who are engaging in criminal activity have something to hide in the first place.In fact, your motivation to read this privacy policy seems highly suspicious to us. Rest assured you've just been reported to the government.
To clarify - the market (in this instance - me saying I don't like certain privacy policies and changing search engines) is more powerful against private companies than the citizenry is against the government (me saying I don't like where this administration is headed).
Or they can just dust off the computer backup tapes from the previous occupant. That should give them more information on internet porn than they ever wanted to know.
Oh, puh-leeze. Google doesn't have the power to throw you in jail or burn you out of your house. The government does.
How does one get to be a privacy expert? I mean, you ask one of them, and they tell you it's none of your business...
Google doesn't have to obey the law?
[ JOHNNY CARSON ] I did not know that. [ /JOHNNY CARSON ]
The government is run by people that are elected by you. Google is not.
Nonsense. Every single person who uses Google voted for it with their keyboards. A majority of the people in the country did not vote for any of the people in power.
Why? Because we would punish google if they did it? Well, we would punish the government if they did it, and we knew.
Every single customer has the power to punish Google by withdrawing their patronage. As for your power to punish the government for perpetrating abuses... get back to me on that when Lon Horiuchi is arrested.
I don't see what the problem is. According to the Patriot Act, all the government has to do is say they are investigating "a threat to national security" and the records are all theirs.
Why not, the government had LAWS about how they can obtain that information, yet they sidestepped them.
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.