Judge to Order Google to Give Up Some Data

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Judge to Order Google to Give Up Some Data
Mar 14 2:06 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP Business Writer


SAN JOSE, Calif.


A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to require Google Inc. to turn over some information to the Department of Justice in its quest to revive a law making it harder for children to see online pornography.

U.S. District Judge James Ware did not immediately say whether the data will include words that users entered into the Internet's leading search engine.

The legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government has pitted the Bush administration against the Mountain View-based company, which resisted a subpoena to turn over any information because of user privacy and trade secret concerns.

The Justice Department downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.

A lawyer for the Justice Department told Ware that the government would like to have a random selection of 50,000 Web addresses and 5,000 random search requests from Google, a small fraction of the millions the government originally sought.

The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in a pornography case in Pennsylvania.

The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google _ and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.

Although the Justice Department said it doesn't want any personal information now, the victory would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.

"The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally," Berman said. "While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be."

Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines _ Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.

Cooperating with the government "is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down," Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.

Even as it defied the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.

The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.

Ultimately, the government planned to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.

The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.

[troylaplante]

It was already so ordered this afternoon. Stupidity.

[BattleRifleG3]

Simply put - was this information subpoenad in accordance with the law, or was it demanded by someone happening to wear a government badge?

Nowhere can I find the answer to that. If I understand correctly, a subpoena for evidence has to be ordered by a judge and be relevant to a current investigation.

Either the DOJ is playing by the rules and Google's sensationalizing the issue or the DOJ is breaking the rules and Google is crying foul. Nowhere can I find the answer as to how they asked for this information.

[troy2000]

It was officially subpoenaed. Whether the subpoena is in accordance with the law is what they're trying to sort out right now.

Sounds like a fishing expedition to me...

[troy2000]

``(1) Prohibited conduct.--Whoever knowingly and with
knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or
foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any
communication for commercial purposes that is available to
any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to
minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not
more than 6 months, or both.

If it stands, the the entire internet would have to be geared down to the standards of what's suitable for a small child.

Apparently, our courageous representatives and senators were afraid anyone who voted against it would be branded as favoring child pornography in the next election.

[BattleRifleG3]

My thoughts are that the material of the pornography should not be criminal, but should be treated as evidence to find those who exploit the actual minors in the making of the material.

If the evidence was legally subpoenad then I entirely agree with the inquiry and Google would be breaking the law to refuse to provide it.

[Shaun]

we had this as a topic of conversation last night in class and it was the majority decision that Google is right in not providing this data to the government. First off how is google going to determine if the searching party was over 18 and then you have the fact that 80% of the internet is adult content. If they want to protect the kids and the content they need to push the use of specific url extensions to allow parents to limit content.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Here's the governments dilema; They want to stop kids from looking at porn, so lets go after the websites and browsers. After all it is ridiculous for the government to prosecute every parent whose kid is looking at teats and wieners when they are at work.

By the way I don't know of any minors who buy their own internet access, seeing how you need a credit card for the purchase.

Basically this is the government trying to regulate what is seen on the net.

[Rufus Rhastus J]

I applaude google for trying to do the right thing and protect it's users. Screw the government, what i search for is my business.

[dhermesc]

Originally Posted by Rufus Rhastus J

I applaude google for trying to do the right thing and protect it's users. Screw the government, what i search for is my business.

Ask the Chinese users of Google how well they are protecting their users, not only do they filter the search results they also report certain searches to the Chinese government.

As for who they are going after; Federal prosecutors have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to turn over two types of data: logs showing search terms used by people, and a list of Web sites indexed by the companies' search engines.

what's important to note is that the Justice Department has not been asking for any information that would link those search terms to your identity. It hasn't requested Internet Protocol addresses.

So if you typed in search terms indicating that you, say, have a healthy interest in marijuana cultivation, the data turned over won't implicate you.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

Originally Posted by dhermesc

Ask the Chinese users of Google how well they are protecting their users, not only do they filter the search results they also report certain searches to the Chinese government.

Google is only doing so because they want the business.... When in Rome....

[troy2000]

I'm not wild about what Google's doing in China, but one can reasonably assume that it's proper for them to follow our Constitution here wihout being obliged to follow it there. Don't people keep insisting our Constitution doesn't apply to foreigners anyway?