Privacy experts condemn Google subpoena

Right-to-privacy groups say the Bush administration's Google subpoena has set a dangerous precedent that should worry all Americans.

The story "Privacy experts condemn Google subpoena" published January 20, 2006 at 1:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.

Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.

[Mister C]

HELLLLO!

Where are those guys that were so supportive this policy in other articles!

[peter noble--2008]

where we are

cleaning our guns

[anthonycea]

Learn more about privacy experts and how to help out!

Find out who is fighting for your rights to privacy and freedom of information online!

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.searchwars.squarespace.com/freedom-information/" target="_newWindow">http://www.searchwars.squarespace.com/freedom-information/</a>

Support the organizations linked in the above page before the government takes your rights from you!

[Don_Dodge]

Living the "observed life" in a digital world

The expressed purpose of the governments request was to estimate how much pornography shows up in the searches that children might do. How they could determine which searches were done by children and which searches were done by adults is a mystery. There are serious privacy and legal issues with this request. But in the digital age there is very little privacy.

Bill Gates and other executives at Microsoft have had all of their email captured by legal teams for various law suits at one time or another. Bill Gates once said "We live the observed life". Translation...assume that everything you say, write, or do will be reviewed by a team of lawyers...with the worst of intentions.

I wrote a blog on the subject of privacy, the limits of presidential power, and how judge Alito's supreme court nomination might effect decisions on this subject. You can read the whole thing here <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/01/living_the_obse.html" target="_newWindow">http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/01/living_the_obse.html</a>

[zaznet]

Who Google is really defending...

The Government is trying to make a court case to support a law that was approved by Congress, and then overturned by the courts.

While their request is not about an attempt to identify individuals who are breaking the law online it is possible the evidence could be later used against Google.

Google may be saying they are defending the privacy of it's users, but in the larger scheme of things they need to protect themselves from any possible liability. If Google takes the 5th amendment stand on this, they should be able to keep the information out of the Governments hands. The company is not being targeted for wrong doing, there for they have a certain right to not provide incriminating evidence against themselves in this case.

[Dead Soulman]

Oh please, shut it.

Are you afraid your friends and families are going to find out about the child porn you have in your hdd. That's what they're looking for. Stop mixing apples with oranges. They're going after child porn perverts. If you have something to worry about, then maybe you're one of the opposers to this subpoena. Sicko.

[jdbwar07]

No, you're wrong

This whole issue was never about child porn. It's about not allowing children to access pornography. There's a difference between the terms. Children and teenagers looking at porn is not "child porn."

It should be the job of parents to protect their kids from obsence images, rather than government censorship. Start being a good parent instead of depending on the government as a babysitter. Get a good internet filter. Make sure you know what your kids are up to. Talk to them about what they do on the internet.

[i_made_this]

Rob, this story has zero to do with porn...

...please read it more carefully and you will see that what Google is standing up against - as many of us including CNET editorial writers forecast was the core issue earlier this week - is abuse of our most basic privacy freedoms guaranteed by our being Americans. Forget whatever *porn* may or may not be on your system or trackable to you - and think instead personal *banking* and *shopping* etc and intimate dialogue with your dearest personal *family and friends* records. To think otherwise is naive, sir.

[jesdog]

oh please shut it

Beam up this "Rob" life-form, Scotty. No intelligence here.

[Mister C]

Food for thought

When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross, and acting in the name of protecting own children!

-Sinclair Lewis et. al.

Dual intent...

The terminology used in COPA was "...damaging to children...", not " kiddie porn" or even porn. Years ago, Rock and Roll was considered pornographic, the book Huck Finn was considered pornographic, and not too long ago, people protested the publishing of Harry Potter books because of the use of non-biblical (witches and wizards) characters. At the heart of the ACLUs intentions, are to get a better definition of this "...damaging to children..." description in COPA, or delete it from existance. To easily can this bill be used as a loaded weapon against artists, authors, not too mention the general public, in order to deem someone unethical or immoral.

The guise this bill uses is to protect children, and at the same time can be a loaded weapon. If parents stand up and take control, talk to their kids and acctually be a parent, there is no need for this kind of insane violation of rights, thus negating the assumption of power that the government has no right to as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Basically, the "Dubya-ment" needs to pack up their marbles and go home, leave me to do my parenting, and don't use me or my kids as an excuse.

[mt1955]

Online Petition in Support og Google

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.e-thepeople.org/petition/14787/view" target="_newWindow">http://www.e-thepeople.org/petition/14787/view</a>

Send-out date : March 1, 2006
Recipients :
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Jay B. Stephens, Associate Attorney General
Larry D. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General

The Bush administration has asked a federal judge in San Jose, California, to force Google to comply with a subpoena for information which would reveal the search terms of a broad swath of the search engine's visitors.

We the undersigned believe this is a violation of privacy, oversteps the boundarys of the US Goverment's constitutional authority, and applaud Google's resistance to this further erosion of liberty in America.

[mt1955]

Online Petition in Support of Google

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.e-thepeople.org/petition/14787/view" target="_newWindow">http://www.e-thepeople.org/petition/14787/view</a>

Send-out date : March 1, 2006
Recipients :
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Jay B. Stephens, Associate Attorney General
Larry D. Thompson, Deputy Attorney General

The Bush administration has asked a federal judge in San Jose, California, to force Google to comply with a subpoena for information which would reveal the search terms of a broad swath of the search engine's visitors.

We the undersigned believe this is a violation of privacy, oversteps the boundarys of the US Goverment's constitutional authority, and applaud Google's resistance to this further erosion of liberty in America.