Feds Demand Google Search Records

[Xodia]

Google rebuffs feds over access to search data
Bush administration wants details of what users look for

Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration’s demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet’s leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10925344/


The quote I found particularly interesting is this:

In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don’t 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 a brief filed Wednesday.

So, just to get things straight, they need an entire weeks worth of searches (millions of pages of information) just to make a statistic about how often very stupid people look for kiddie porn on the internet*? Yeah...right.

I think an emphasis should be made on "to understand the behaviour of current web users".

[Voltage Spike]

So, just to get things straight, they need an entire weeks worth of searches (millions of pages of information) just to make a statistic about how often very stupid people look for kiddie porn on the internet? Yeah...right.

From what I understand, this has nothing to do with child pornography ... it has to do with child access to pornography. This is a HUGE distinction.

Besides, it sounds like they want access to this information for really silly reasons.

[ck3k]

I see alot of propaganda being thrown around here words when used close to one another sound like something else.

children and pornography when used close together we assume it is one thing
but children accessing pornography is something entirely differant. I agree that some of the kiddies shouldn't look at porn but it is not something the goverment needs a week of searching to get, it solves no problems. I feel google does the best job of filtering out objectional material.

I will be the first to say that children should also not be allowed to view religious websites, because I deem them offensive.

Once they (big bro and co.) have said data, what do they plan on doing, telling the search engines they need to have better filtering? There is no goal here other then to spy on us.....big brother is watching....again.

[TheCotMan]

There is no goal here other then to spy on us.....big brother is watching....again.

To paraphrase John Q. Newman who has been an author of several, "creating-a-new-identity" books, has spoken at DefCon a few times:

(On the topic of erosion of rights to privacy, he used sarcasm from one of his speeches was included in this ~phrase:)
'And when they come to take away your rights to privacy, they'll say, "it's for the children."'

[Voltage Spike]

I'll first state that I don't agree with the law in question on many levels since it may color the following statement.

I agree that some of the kiddies shouldn't look at porn but it is not something the goverment needs a week of searching to get, it solves no problems. I feel google does the best job of filtering out objectional material.

As I understand it, the government wants only the search terms and not the results. They are not worried about the current filters (or lack thereof) in place. They don't care about the age of the searcher. I'm not sure they are even interested in knowing if multiple searches came from the same person.

The end goal is (conceivably) to state x% of Internet searches are related to pornography requests. If "x" is high enough, then they'll use that as proof of how easy it is to find pornography for those that are intereseted. If "x" is low enough, then they'll use that as proof of how their new regulations are not going to effect a significant percentage of the people.

It appears to be a lot effort to achieve a very small result. In other words, government.

[crazyishone]

Is this not somehow illegal? If police want to search somebody's home, they need a warrant. Should it not be the same for the government trying to find out what google users are searching for?

This whole thing wouldn't concern somebody who has done nothing wrong, but eh, I'm no angel-child. Everybody has had their share of curiosity. Stuff we'd all rather Suits&Silencers didn't know about.
Don't they realize its mostly teenage guys that do all of the porn-looking.

The internet is a global thing, not something any one national government should have jurisdiction over. I can see it now....

[Voltage Spike]

If police want to search somebody's home, they need a warrant.

A couple of distinctions. First, the police can always ask to look at your home, but, like Google, you have the right to refuse them. Second, the information isn't being used to prosecute anybody (doesn't it always start that way?), the results would be (mostly) anonymous, and many people would consider this information public.

All of this silliness makes me wonder if the government has ever purchased the aggregate viewing data that TiVo offers for sale.

[crazyishone]

Oh, ok.
Sorry for that.

[Ridirich]

...*,*....I agree that some of the kiddies shouldn't look at porn but it is not something the goverment needs a week of searching to get, it solves no problems. I feel google does the best job of filtering out objectional material.....*,*...

....*,*....I will be the first to say that children should also not be allowed to view religious websites, because I deem them offensive....*,*...

Some children? You ARE kidding right? ALL children should not see that.
How about this: I deem 'leet speak' offensive, yet you use it in your name.

There is a 'Seperation of Church and State' so, by law the government could not keep children from viewing them anyway, or it breaks those laws.

Furthermore, if you find it so offensive, why not return all money you currently have or trade it for foreign money, since all it says "In god we trust"? Keep in mind it does not specifically say WHICH god, just 'god' in general. This gives people the ability to have whatever belief system they so wish without trampling on others' rights. This is a place founded where people could believe what they want as long as it hurts no one else and in all honesty, anyone who does not like a level playing field, religion wise, can leave.

I like porn as much as the next guy, but in all honesty...I think it should be illegal for any porn site to end with any designation other than ".porn" at the very minimum, and having it's own form of 'internet', including the need for a seperate browser at the very best. I find it VERY offensive that a child can see this and find it even more offensive that adults actually take pictures of naked children in a sexual manner. It further pisses me off that a mother who has a 5 year old cannot take a candid picture of her daughter playing in the tub without having it be considered porn.

Does this mean I support Bush trampling on my right to privacy on what I search for? No. I think he can take his little idea and shove it where the son doesn't shine. My right to privacy, my right to bear arms, my right to freedom of speech, my right to do as I please as long as it causes no harm to others...these are things my entire family has faught for...and things I have upheld. It is a major reason why I became an EMT...because I had the right to learn and the right to heal others. Trampling on those rights is simply not allowed, and those terms are not negotiable.

[Thorn]

Is this not somehow illegal? If police want to search somebody's home, they need a warrant. Should it not be the same for the government trying to find out what google users are searching for?

Effectively, that is what they have. Note this in the MSNBC story:

... White House subpoena first issued last summer...

A subpoena is a demand to produce records or for a witness to testify. While a lawyer may argue the fine points of how subpoenas and warrants differ, what it amounts to is that Google was hit with a legal demand to produce those records. Countless subpoenas are served every day for all sorts of records. It is very common to demand records for things such as phone/utility and bank accounts to support investigations.

In regards to the specifics here though, couldn't they have saved a lot of time and effort if someone just bought J0hnny L0ng's book?

[theprez98]

Be safe, and avoid topics of Politics and/or Religion.

I so want to get into this argument but I think I'd be on the losing end. ;-)

[Beginner]

Is this not somehow illegal? ......(clipped extra stuff)......
The internet is a global thing, not something any one national government should have jurisdiction over. I can see it now....

I think you are right. MANY countries OTHER than the US use the INTERNET and GOOGLE. In some countries that IS legal. In others it is not. Do they think they are the supreme ruler of the world?

Since Google is technically INTERNATIONAL, being that almost all nations use it, they should have to get permission form ALL of the countries in order to do it.

Am I right?

[skroo]

The internet is a global thing, not something any one national government should have jurisdiction over. I can see it now....

No one government has jurisdiction over the Internet. Seriously folks, if, for example, China dropped off-line tomrrow, the rest of the world would get along just fine (if not better) without them. The real threats here are repressive governments trying to control the information published and accessed on the Internet.

Seriously, I keep hearing this repeated and every time it grates on my nerves just a little bit more.

[crazyishone]

Thorn, thank you for clarifying that bit about there being a subpeona. (By the way, where in Vermont do you live? I used to live in Brattleboro.)
:::::::::
Scroo,

Ok, perhaps the way I said it annoyed you, but I think that on most levels we agree. A single power (or any power) attempting to control the internet is ridiculous.

I undestand that the whole "the internet is a global...." thing is becoming quite cliche', but regardless of that fact, the statement holds true.

[VAX_to_PBX]

Heh, I think there going to use the records to bust people for google hacking, pedaphilia, and to form a list of suspects who search for books similiar to the ones published at paladin, black market press etc...

This reminds me of a book I read years ago(I forget the title,) where while a single government was gradually achieving the position as -the- one world government they where arresting all possible internal threats and putting them in special prisons.