Posted on 01/20/2006 12:26:12 PM PST by dware
Yahoo has admitted that it granted the US Government access to its search engine's databases this summer, as a battle develops over the right to privacy in cyberspace.
Google, by contrast, promised last night to fight vigorously the Bush Administration’s demand to know what millions of people have been looking up on the internet.
It emerged this week that the White House issued subpoenas to a number of US-based search engines this summer, asking to see what information the public had accessed in a two-month period. It said that it needed the information in order to help create online child protection laws.
But Google refused to comply with its subpoena - prompting the US Attorney General this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records. Details of the confrontation emerged after the San Jose Mercury News reported seeing the court papers on Wednesday.
At the heart of the battle is the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Yahoo has stressed that it didn’t reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users’ privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said last night. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."
The Google court papers show that the US Government originally asked for a list of all requests entered into Google’s search engine between June 1 and July 31 last year. When Google argued, the request was whittled down to a week's worth of search terms - a breakdown that could nonetheless span tens of millions of queries. In addition, the White House has asked for one million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Every other search engine company served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to the court documents.
The co-operating search engines were not identified. Microsoft's MSN, the third-most used search engine, has declined to say whether it received a subpoena. "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," the company said in a statement.
The US Government says that it is not seeking any data that would allow it to identify which individual made which search request.
Experts say nonetheless that the subpoena raises serious privacy concerns, especially after recent revelations that the White House authorised civilian phone-taps after the September 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.
Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse charity in California, called the subpoenas "the first shoe dropping" that online privacy advocates had long feared.
"These search engines are a very tempting target for government and law enforcement," Givens said. "Look at the millions of people who use search engines without thinking of the potential to be drawn into a government drag net."
The subpoenas were a "classic fishing trip" by federal prosecutors, she added.
Thomas Burke, a San Francisco lawyer who has handled several prominent privacy cases, said that many people contacted Google more often than they spoke to their mother. "Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too," he said.
Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum, warned that the content of search requests sometimes contain information about the person making the query, such as names, medical profiles or Social Security information.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this." She warned people to be careful what personal information they entered into search engines.
The Department of Justice argues that Google’s cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the web. In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush Administration is trying to prove that internet filters do not do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.
Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users, (and) to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in its court petition.
Google issued a statement last night promising to fight the case. "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches," wrote Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."
But Google's vigorous defence of privacy rights in the face of demands from the US government is apparently at odds with the search engine's stance in China.
There, human rights activists have complained that Google collaborates with the Chinese government, which controls the activities of its 111 million web surfers with one of the most stifling internet censorship policies in the world.
Google is locked in competition for the lucrative Chinese market, along with Yahoo and MSN, and the homegrown Chinese search engine Baidu.com.
All the US companies have been criticised for censoring news sites, search engines and weblogs that China's communist government considers subversive or obscene. For example, a web user in China who tried to search Google or Yahoo for subjects such as democracy and human rights would find nothing in his search results.
There was outrage in September when it emerged that Yahoo had supplied details to the Chinese authorities of the personal e-mail account of Shi Tao, a 37-year-old journalist. He was found guilty of "spreading state secrets" and jailed for 10 years, for forwarding to a foreign website a Chinese government circular banning the media from reporting the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
The most profoundly intellectual retort on this entire thread...
< /sarc >
You're are onto the thread of my thoughts on this: How is it that Google can be dictated by the unelected Chinese govt the terms of use and access for its people but deny a legitimate request for information from the the U.S govt? What are they really loyal to?
LOL!
Why didn't I think of that?
How THIS for an intellectual retort:
"Google's plans to copy library books, including copyrighted works, and make them searchable has sparked two lawsuits from publishers and authors, who are accusing the company of scanning books into its database without permission. Google claims its actions are legal."
http://www.linuxpipeline.com/174400468
: )
Not together --- I should hope.
Congratulations on your candid self-assessment.
The first step to recovery is finally seeing that things are not entirely normal.
You're are onto the thread of my thoughts on this: How is it that Google can be dictated by the unelected Chinese govt the terms of use and access for its people but deny a legitimate request for information from the the U.S govt? What are they really loyal to?
Okay, so you don't think it wrong that the Feds can demand to see business data from Google that has NOTHING to do with any criminal case that Google is involved in...the Feds just want it because they want it, and you see nothing wrong with that?
Where does your belief in limited government start, then?
If the Feds demanded all mortgage records from people living in your state, if they demanded to see all medical records, or all financial transactions from Wal-Mart or Sears, if they demanded the records of all clubs and organizations that everybody in a specific state belonged to, would you object to any of THAT?
Or do you truly believe that it is the governments' right to demand any records they want from any business or organization in the country, and they should just get it, because they are the government, regardless of any warrants issued or not?
If you DO believe that, then I suggest you really do not belong on this forum...
Ed
Thats correct, you did not understand it.
This is the same issue they are raising with Google.
They want to know who and how the child porn lovers are looking for and accessing it.
ok, I will bite - what does the fact this nation is at war have to do with the fact kids can see porn online unless fedgov saves us from ourselves?
Eh, sorry, when you mentioned "crime" it seemed like you were taking the tack of a couple of folks in yesterday's thread who were cocksure that this was a criminal proceeding. I tend to get bent out of shape sometimes over people's ignorance about the legal system, but given the crappy media reporting, it's sometimes hard to blame them . . . .
Thanks for the background. They link was to subpoena format, response and delivery requirements. The concern is relevance and confidentiality.
In General.
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii).
I see that Google's cache contains porn, so I see the relevance, which wasn't apparent to me before. I agree with google, that their database and tech are confidential and should not be disclosed. The relevant facts, which is the volume of porn contained on google and the easy access of it's cache are all the court needs to know. That can be provided as subsequent rules provide for.
Pretty much all of it, but this one made me laugh:
If you wrote a book, they think they can put it on the web and distribute it for free, and you should have no say.
Google has scanned many copyrighted works, which is not illegal, but has not, to my knowlege, claimed what you suggest in that sentence. If they have you can educate me, not by making an unsupported assertion, but by citing the time, place and circumstances where they made that claim...
Being a years-long supporter of the Guttenberg Project, I am very familiar with this subject.
Wrong.
Very funny.
Apology accepted.
It emerged this week that the White House issued subpoenas to a number of US-based search engines this summer,
Was it the "Bush Administration"? Did the White House issue the subpeonas?
Yes.
See posts Nos. 10 and 133.
...Our Constitution was created to limit the power of government, and to protect the rights of the people...
Children are people. How else can you go after Internet child pornographers and stop the supply, unless you go after the demand and use the Internet to find those who view it. (Tell me - Do you think the children used for the photo shoots are paid well? Do you think they enjoy being mounted by some hairy pervert? Do you think it just might cause a wee bit of psychological harm?)
...No government, at any level, has ever had the power to go on legal prosecutorial fishing expeditions to fight potential crime...
Nothing potential about it. If you visited a URL that is a child pornography site...you're busted. As well you should be.
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.