Big Brother goes after Google users

troy2000 · 01-20-2006, 08:36 AM

Jan. 19, 2006, 10:19PM
Google fights feds' request for data on user searches

By ARSHAD MOHAMMED
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department said Thursday that it has issued subpoenas to four major Internet companies to gather data about what people search for on the Web as part of an eight-year battle over a federal law designed to shield children from online pornography.

Three of the companies responded to some degree, but Google Inc., the world's most popular search engine, said it is resisting the demand. Privacy advocates said the subpoenas raise deep concerns about the government's ability to track what ordinary people view on the Internet.

Attracted by the Internet's apparent anonymity, Americans have turned to the Web in growing numbers to view pornography and, according to one industry publication, spent $2.5 billion on online adult entertainment last year.

The government asked Mountain View, Calif.-based Google to turn over every query typed into its search engine over the course of one week without providing identifying information about the people who conducted the searches. It also asked for a random sample of 1 million Web pages that can be searched in the vast databases maintained by Google.

Privacy experts said that while the requests appeared to have been tailored to try to protect the privacy of the millions of people who carry out searches, it could set a precedent for more intrusive government demands. They also said it raised the question of just how much information Google stores about consumers.

"Google has always been a kind of ticking privacy bomb because Google retains personally identifiable information," said Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit group that advocates privacy protections. "Even though Google may intend to protect online privacy, there will be circumstances beyond their control that will place Internet users at risk, and they include government warrants, as in this case, or future security breaches which have plagued the financial services sector over the past couple of years."

Not all information divulged
The Justice Department issued subpoenas to four companies in August: Google, Time Warner Inc.'s America Online Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s Microsoft Network, and Yahoo Inc. The news of the government subpoenas emerged this week when the Justice Department asked a federal court in California, where Google is based, to force the company to turn over the information. The San Jose Mercury News reported on the filing on Thursday.

America Online, Microsoft and Yahoo said they had responded to the requests but stressed that they did not provide all the requested information.

"We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."

"We did provide the DOJ with some information that we thought would be of use to them, but it was not the information requested in the subpoena and there were no privacy implications for our users," AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein said. The spokesman said AOL gave the Justice Department only a "generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms."

"We did comply with the their request for data in regards to helping protect children ... ," a Microsoft representative said in an e-mail. "We were able to share aggregated query data (not search results) that did not include any personally identifiable information at their request."

Trial set for October
The Justice Department issued the subpoenas in August as part of its effort to resurrect the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, a federal law that was designed to shield children from Internet pornography but whose enforcement has been blocked by a 2004 Supreme Court decision.

The law required that sexually oriented commercial Web sites take steps to keep minors out, such as requiring a credit card for entry. Visiting such sites has become a big business.

The Supreme Court held that the government had failed to prove that the law's criminal penalties would protect children without unduly limiting options for adults. It sent the case back to the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit for a trial that is due to begin in October.

Google has made it clear it will resist the government's subpoena but said it was not doing so on privacy grounds. The company declined to further explain its position, but the Justice Department said in court documents that Google believes disclosing the information would divulge trade secrets.

The government argued that the Google data would, among other things, help it to understand what Web sites people visit, estimate how much "harmful-to-minors" content may be on those sites and gauge the effectiveness of software in screening out such material.

Shaun · 01-20-2006, 08:49 AM

I am okay with the gov going after the information from google to start cracking down on the porn industry -- simply put a child cannot search the web for the subject of puppies without getting results associated with porn. I hope they get the information to see that the porn industry needs to loose all.com addresses and move them to .xxx addresses this will help in filtering away the industry.

Rufus Rhastus J · 01-20-2006, 09:12 AM

C'mon, do you really think that is what bush wants?

Shaun · 01-20-2006, 09:19 AM

Ruf it has been something that we have been trying to get the gov to regulate in the first place.

Rufus Rhastus J · 01-20-2006, 09:27 AM

i don't agree with child porn either. but, they are just liars, looking for child porn and child porn consumers is the very last thing bush wants with my surfing habits. if you believe his lies, then i want some of what you're smokeing!

Shaun · 01-20-2006, 09:37 AM

Not child porn but porn in general needs to be limited to controlable resources that means finding out every possible way its searched for so there can be legistlation put in place to control how it is accessed.

Rave · 01-20-2006, 09:38 AM

I always thought that child porn was illegal,but then again the country is being over run with illegals and that seems to be OK!

Rufus Rhastus J · 01-20-2006, 09:50 AM

good point. Rave.

Father Time · 01-20-2006, 10:03 AM

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Chris · 01-20-2006, 10:22 AM

Google has a search safe feature which is turned on by default.

So far for me I have recieved very little porn returns with this feature.

If you go looking for trouble, you usually find it.

Beer Forever · 01-20-2006, 11:36 AM

It's not about porn, its about control. THe government just wants more control and they know they can get it. They'll say one thing and do the other. Do you really trust what the government tells you. Censorship, its called parents. They want to see if people are googleing bomb recipes, and stuff like that. Porn is the last of Bush's worries. Iran is growing in power, Bin Laden is still out there and we care about porn. Prioities?????????

BattleRifleG3 · 01-20-2006, 02:19 PM

I think if anyone really cared to go after pornography, they could prosecute a large portion of it under prostitution laws.

I really don't see why going after searchers is better than going after the producers, which is what this seems to be about.

Mooseman684 · 01-20-2006, 02:24 PM

I googled "the White House" once and got a Porn site...That was during the Clinton Regime...Wonder what George thinks about That !!!LOL

Beer Forever · 01-20-2006, 02:40 PM

Funny thing, thewhitehouse.com is the biggest porn site in the country.
Besides, what is so bad about porn??? It makes life just a little better.

Troy · 01-20-2006, 04:07 PM

i like looking at the clothing challenged myself, that is one thing. an all out censorship on kiddy porn would not be a bad thing. what makes me nervous is letting the censorship monster out of the bag. once it is blatently out there, who would be in control of what should be censored then?
Ruf? comments? waiting, waiting..............

troy2000 · 01-20-2006, 08:24 PM

I think the Bush Administration is claiming the right to come crashing in any time they want, just on the off chance they may possibly catch us up to something. They want to wiretap and data-mine our phone calls in the name of national security, they want to rifle thru our internet accounts in the name of fighting child porn, they want to conduct secret, warrantless searches of our homes and check our credit card and library accounts in the name of fighting terrorists.

And if some idiot comes back and tells me, "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about," I'm liable to throw my beer at the monitor.

Ctwo · 01-20-2006, 08:48 PM

Troy, that is the exact response you will get from many.

But be fair, every administration has and will "want" to do those things, but this is certainly a precidence of openly pursuing this course of action.

Chipping away our rights is one thing, but this is pulling out the cleaver.

Father Time · 01-20-2006, 09:45 PM

I am not ordinarily a fan of Justice Scalia, but he pretty much got this right:

There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. – Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

whirlwind · 01-21-2006, 02:28 AM

well with all the identity thieves etc. on the net,seems the government is the only people that cant look at all our personal info.lol and the government has been listening to phone calls for a very long time. had a buddy of mine in the army. he told me once he was stationed at ft.huacua (sp?) in arizona and you wouldnt believe some of the stuff he said they listened in on there! he said it was amazing.

wirehunt · 01-21-2006, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy2000

And if some idiot comes back and tells me, "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about," I'm liable to throw my beer at the monitor.

Have you got your webcam on?

If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.

Na just stirring.

At least google is putting up some kind of fight which is more than the tosser's at MS are doing.

XP has a fair amount of control, not prefect, but if the government was that worried about it I'm sure they would lean on MS to do a lot more. H*ll I'm sure if Georgy got on the phone to what's his name and said " hey can you sort that program out so it does or doesn't do blah,blah,blah" MS would be "and how high are we jumping?"

Like what has already been said " it's just an excuse"

01-20-2006, 08:36 AM	#1
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 10,017 Images: 9	Big Brother goes after Google users Jan. 19, 2006, 10:19PM Google fights feds' request for data on user searches By ARSHAD MOHAMMED Washington Post WASHINGTON - The Justice Department said Thursday that it has issued subpoenas to four major Internet companies to gather data about what people search for on the Web as part of an eight-year battle over a federal law designed to shield children from online pornography. Three of the companies responded to some degree, but Google Inc., the world's most popular search engine, said it is resisting the demand. Privacy advocates said the subpoenas raise deep concerns about the government's ability to track what ordinary people view on the Internet. Attracted by the Internet's apparent anonymity, Americans have turned to the Web in growing numbers to view pornography and, according to one industry publication, spent $2.5 billion on online adult entertainment last year. The government asked Mountain View, Calif.-based Google to turn over every query typed into its search engine over the course of one week without providing identifying information about the people who conducted the searches. It also asked for a random sample of 1 million Web pages that can be searched in the vast databases maintained by Google. Privacy experts said that while the requests appeared to have been tailored to try to protect the privacy of the millions of people who carry out searches, it could set a precedent for more intrusive government demands. They also said it raised the question of just how much information Google stores about consumers. "Google has always been a kind of ticking privacy bomb because Google retains personally identifiable information," said Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington D.C.-based nonprofit group that advocates privacy protections. "Even though Google may intend to protect online privacy, there will be circumstances beyond their control that will place Internet users at risk, and they include government warrants, as in this case, or future security breaches which have plagued the financial services sector over the past couple of years." Not all information divulged The Justice Department issued subpoenas to four companies in August: Google, Time Warner Inc.'s America Online Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s Microsoft Network, and Yahoo Inc. The news of the government subpoenas emerged this week when the Justice Department asked a federal court in California, where Google is based, to force the company to turn over the information. The San Jose Mercury News reported on the filing on Thursday. America Online, Microsoft and Yahoo said they had responded to the requests but stressed that they did not provide all the requested information. "We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue." "We did provide the DOJ with some information that we thought would be of use to them, but it was not the information requested in the subpoena and there were no privacy implications for our users," AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein said. The spokesman said AOL gave the Justice Department only a "generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms." "We did comply with the their request for data in regards to helping protect children ... ," a Microsoft representative said in an e-mail. "We were able to share aggregated query data (not search results) that did not include any personally identifiable information at their request." Trial set for October The Justice Department issued the subpoenas in August as part of its effort to resurrect the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, a federal law that was designed to shield children from Internet pornography but whose enforcement has been blocked by a 2004 Supreme Court decision. The law required that sexually oriented commercial Web sites take steps to keep minors out, such as requiring a credit card for entry. Visiting such sites has become a big business. The Supreme Court held that the government had failed to prove that the law's criminal penalties would protect children without unduly limiting options for adults. It sent the case back to the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit for a trial that is due to begin in October. Google has made it clear it will resist the government's subpoena but said it was not doing so on privacy grounds. The company declined to further explain its position, but the Justice Department said in court documents that Google believes disclosing the information would divulge trade secrets. The government argued that the Google data would, among other things, help it to understand what Web sites people visit, estimate how much "harmful-to-minors" content may be on those sites and gauge the effectiveness of software in screening out such material.

01-20-2006, 08:49 AM	#2
Shaun Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 8,619 Images: 1	I am okay with the gov going after the information from google to start cracking down on the porn industry -- simply put a child cannot search the web for the subject of puppies without getting results associated with porn. I hope they get the information to see that the porn industry needs to loose all.com addresses and move them to .xxx addresses this will help in filtering away the industry. __________________ "Homeland Security is the responsibility of an armed citizen" ME http://webpages.charter.net/s.s.v/

01-20-2006, 09:12 AM	#3
Rufus Rhastus J Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America Posts: 6,339 Images: 1	C'mon, do you really think that is what bush wants? __________________ "They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf

01-20-2006, 09:19 AM	#4
Shaun Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 8,619 Images: 1	Ruf it has been something that we have been trying to get the gov to regulate in the first place. __________________ "Homeland Security is the responsibility of an armed citizen" ME http://webpages.charter.net/s.s.v/

01-20-2006, 09:27 AM	#5
Rufus Rhastus J Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America Posts: 6,339 Images: 1	i don't agree with child porn either. but, they are just liars, looking for child porn and child porn consumers is the very last thing bush wants with my surfing habits. if you believe his lies, then i want some of what you're smokeing! __________________ "They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf

01-20-2006, 09:37 AM	#6
Shaun Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 8,619 Images: 1	Not child porn but porn in general needs to be limited to controlable resources that means finding out every possible way its searched for so there can be legistlation put in place to control how it is accessed. __________________ "Homeland Security is the responsibility of an armed citizen" ME http://webpages.charter.net/s.s.v/

01-20-2006, 09:38 AM	#7
Rave Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 7,053	I always thought that child porn was illegal,but then again the country is being over run with illegals and that seems to be OK! __________________ USAF '62-'66 .

01-20-2006, 09:50 AM	#8
Rufus Rhastus J Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: West, Central Florida, Third World America Posts: 6,339 Images: 1	good point. Rave. __________________ "They cannot be trusted.....The Romulans (our politicos) are without honor." Worf

01-20-2006, 10:03 AM	#9
Father Time Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 375 Images: 2	Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

01-20-2006, 10:22 AM	#10
Chris HMFIC Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,834,259 Images: 19 Blog Entries: 20	Google has a search safe feature which is turned on by default. So far for me I have recieved very little porn returns with this feature. If you go looking for trouble, you usually find it. __________________ Rules \| Contributing Members No one has the right to deny my personal safety Please be descriptive in your thread titles! NRA Life Member

01-20-2006, 11:36 AM	#11
Beer Forever Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 2,718	It's not about porn, its about control. THe government just wants more control and they know they can get it. They'll say one thing and do the other. Do you really trust what the government tells you. Censorship, its called parents. They want to see if people are googleing bomb recipes, and stuff like that. Porn is the last of Bush's worries. Iran is growing in power, Bin Laden is still out there and we care about porn. Prioities????????? __________________ Paramedic sks forever

01-20-2006, 02:19 PM	#12
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,454 Images: 13	I think if anyone really cared to go after pornography, they could prosecute a large portion of it under prostitution laws. I really don't see why going after searchers is better than going after the producers, which is what this seems to be about. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

01-20-2006, 02:24 PM	#13
Mooseman684 Super Moderator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Alaska Wilderness Posts: 10,528 Images: 2	I googled "the White House" once and got a Porn site...That was during the Clinton Regime...Wonder what George thinks about That !!!LOL __________________ You know you might be facing your doom,when all you get is a click when you're expecting a BOOM!

01-20-2006, 02:40 PM	#14
Beer Forever Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 2,718	Funny thing, thewhitehouse.com is the biggest porn site in the country. Besides, what is so bad about porn??? It makes life just a little better. __________________ Paramedic sks forever

01-20-2006, 04:07 PM	#15
Troy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Manitoba Canada Posts: 2,505 Images: 3	i like looking at the clothing challenged myself, that is one thing. an all out censorship on kiddy porn would not be a bad thing. what makes me nervous is letting the censorship monster out of the bag. once it is blatently out there, who would be in control of what should be censored then? Ruf? comments? waiting, waiting.............. Last edited by Troy; 01-20-2006 at 10:17 PM.

01-20-2006, 08:24 PM	#16
troy2000 Resident Armed Liberal Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Southern California Posts: 10,017 Images: 9	I think the Bush Administration is claiming the right to come crashing in any time they want, just on the off chance they may possibly catch us up to something. They want to wiretap and data-mine our phone calls in the name of national security, they want to rifle thru our internet accounts in the name of fighting child porn, they want to conduct secret, warrantless searches of our homes and check our credit card and library accounts in the name of fighting terrorists. And if some idiot comes back and tells me, "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about," I'm liable to throw my beer at the monitor.

01-20-2006, 08:48 PM	#17
Ctwo Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 344	Troy, that is the exact response you will get from many. But be fair, every administration has and will "want" to do those things, but this is certainly a precidence of openly pursuing this course of action. Chipping away our rights is one thing, but this is pulling out the cleaver.

01-20-2006, 09:45 PM	#18
Father Time Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 375 Images: 2	I am not ordinarily a fan of Justice Scalia, but he pretty much got this right: There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. – Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

01-21-2006, 02:28 AM	#19
whirlwind Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: oklahoma Posts: 3,751 Images: 1	well with all the identity thieves etc. on the net,seems the government is the only people that cant look at all our personal info.lol and the government has been listening to phone calls for a very long time. had a buddy of mine in the army. he told me once he was stationed at ft.huacua (sp?) in arizona and you wouldnt believe some of the stuff he said they listened in on there! he said it was amazing. __________________ De oppresso liber !