Posted on 03/14/2006 5:00:26 PM PST by JustaCowgirl
Judge Says He Intends to Order Google to Turn Over Some Internet Records to Justice Department
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to order Google Inc. to turn over some of its Internet records to the U.S. Justice Department, but expressed reservations about requiring the company to divulge some of its most sensitive data -- the actual requests that people enter into its popular search engine.
U.S. District Judge James Ware told the Justice Department it can expect to get at least some of the information sought from Google as part of the Bush administration's effort to revive a law meant to shield children from online pornography.
But Ware stressed he was "particularly concerned" about the Justice Department's demand for a random sample of search requests entered into Google's Internet-leading search engine.
The judge said he didn't want to do anything to create the perception that Internet search engines and other large online databases could become tools for government surveillance. He seemed less concerned about requiring Google to supply the government with a random list of Web sites indexed by the company.
Ware said he planned to issue a written ruling quickly.
After the 90-minute hearing, Google attorney Nicole Wong said the company was pleased with Ware's thoughtful questions.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the agency looks forward to Ware's decision. "We hope his opinion will demonstrate the government's belief that this info would be helpful in protecting the nation's youth against potentially harmful material," he said.
During the hearing, another Google attorney, Albert Gidari, tried to persuade Ware that the government could get virtually all the information it wanted from publicly accessible services offered by Amazon.com Inc.'s Alexa.com and InfoSpace Inc.'s Dogpile.com.
T. Barton Carter, a communications and law professor at Boston University, said the concerns raised by Ware should be heartening to privacy rights advocates, but cautioned against reading too much into the judge's comments until his written order.
"What's going to be important is whether he limits the information (given to the government) and whether he explains why he drew the line where he did," Carter said.
Investors seemed encouraged by Tuesday's developments as Google's recently slumping stock price surged $14.10, or 4.2 percent, to close at $351.16 on the Nasdaq Stock Market.
Tuesday marked the first time that Google and the Justice Department have faced off in court over a government subpoena issued nearly seven months ago. The Justice Department initially wanted a breakdown of search requests and Web site addresses from Google for a study that the government believes will prove filtering software doesn't prevent children from viewing sexually explicit material on the Internet.
Google refused to hand over the information, even as three other major search engines turned over some of the requested data. Mountain View-based Google maintained the government's request would intrude on its users' privacy and its trade secrets.
Google's protests prompted the government to scale back its requests dramatically. Justice Department attorney Joel McElvain told Ware Tuesday that the government now wants a random sampling of 50,000 Web site addresses indexed by Google and the text of 5,000 random search requests.
McElvain said just 10,000 of the Web sites and 1,000 of the search requests would be used in a study for a Pennsylvania case revolving around the online child pornography law that has been blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. That case is scheduled for an Oct. 23 trial.
The Justice Department plans to use the search requests to show how easy it is for online pornographers to fool Internet filters, hoping that it will help demonstrate the need for a tougher law to protect children from the material.
The government's scaled-back requests have minimized Google's concerns about sharing confidential company information, but the privacy issues remain troublesome, Gidari told Ware.
Although the government doesn't want Google to turn over anything that would identify a person making a search request, Gidari said the content of certain queries often contains sensitive information about finances, Social Security numbers and sexual preferences.
Indicating he was thinking about only granting part of the government's request, Ware asked Gidari if Google would rather hand over the Web site addresses or a list of people's search requests. Without providing a definitive answer, Gidari said Google believed an order requiring the company to surrender people's search requests would have a "chilling effect" on the Internet.
Steve Mansfield, chief executive of a recently launched search engine called PreFound.com, said the entire industry will get a lift if Ware prevents the government from getting a glimpse at Google's search requests.
"This entire case has become about public perception," Mansfield said. "If people perceive that what they are putting into a search engine isn't private, that's going to be a big negative for everyone."
Pressed by Ware, McElvain acknowledged the Justice Department had already obtained enough information from other search engines to conduct its study. "But the study would be improved with Google's data," he said.
Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL have turned over some search engine information to the Justice Department. All three companies said they complied with the government subpoena without compromising their users' privacy.
The government will have to reimburse Google for whatever costs that the company incurs. Google has estimated it will take its engineers five to eight days to extract the data requested by the Justice Department.
If people perceive that it is private, The Big "DUH!" Alert is in order for them.
GESTAPO on the rise...
OOOH! I knew I shouldn't have put in that Google Search for 'Amoeba Sex'....
While I'm not sure what the problem in handing over this data would be, I'm also not sure Google ought to be forced to hand it over. I just don't see it as a necessity. Why not use one of the "spy on searches" search engines?
Godwin's Law.
Amoeba Sex?
I'm afraid to ask.
The government shouldn't be able to do this, and surely a constitutional officer (isn't a judge a constitutional officer?) should not be ordering them to do it. That's just wrong. And if he isn't a constitutional officer, it is still wrong. Plain wrong.
We are picking up speed down the slippery slope.
sigh anyone who thinks google cares about government use of their data out of concern for sheep privacy is missing the point. GOOG is happy to work with police states in tracking user behavior. In this case I believe their primarly underlying motive for not giving DOJ what it wants is economic.
Exactly. If you do many google searches, you find that certain names or terms are botted by someone--I always assumed it was google--to morph into porn sites about 30-40 pages into your search results.
Whatever your search term is, the bot just takes it and makes up a porn site incorporating the search term. You put in "Dick Cheney" and you'll eventually get something like "Dick Cheney Does Dallas" XXX Over the Top Adult Fun ...
And this is WITH "moderate screening" invoked, the default setting--the everyfamilyhomecomputer setting. I've never clicked on any of them, so I don't know where they lead and of course, they're not cached.
Therefore all the gov is looking for is what sort of searches are being done.
I don't see a problem with this at all. It's like asking the car companies to report how many of each model in each color was sold without asking who it was sold to.
I'd go with the gov on this one. No intrusion into anyone's privacy at all.
How so? From the article we see that the gov is collecting more or less statistical info that doesn't identify anyone
Although the government doesn't want Google to turn over anything that would identify a person making a search request, Gidari said the content of certain queries often contains sensitive information about finances, Social Security numbers and sexual preferences.
Anyone who enters their SSN into a search engine deserves whatever happens as a result. Protect people from too much of their own stupidity and you just get more stupid people. (That is, people should have to suffer the consequences of their own actions)
And even if it is private information, why should I feel more comfortable that Google has it, rather than the government?
I don't either. This invasion of privacy argument is analogous to the freedom of speech argument used by the 'Geography' teacher in Colorado to protect his "right" to spout his personal leftist views at the captive teenagers.
Maybe they could just hide all their records under their beds and repeatedly answer "I don't recall" when the judge asks where they are.
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.