Comments on: FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
The Justice Department has been asking search engines to cough up logs of search terms. What does this mean, and what happens next?
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- At last, Google has some parasites
December 1, 2009 3:55 PM PST
- Facebook and MySpace delete NY sex offenders
December 1, 2009 3:16 PM PST
- New research suggests porn is overly demonized
December 1, 2009 3:09 PM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
"Teacher John Richards and Atlanta and Pedophile" as a search term to see if anything comes up.. this "WOULD" be in the government report..
While there may be no qualifying evidence, no qualifying history, or any basis of any kind for this belief to be valid...
the government now has easily identiable information, through a little bit of research, that this John Richards (John Doe) is potentially a pedophile and that kids may be in danger..
the government may then choose to take action to alert the school to a "potential" unsafe situation involving having this teacher around children, which in turn may result in him being fired, and then investigated for being a pedophile..
the police may then issue a search warrant may for "probable cause" and anything illegal they find in his house can be used against him, and the next thing is, he is in prison from the results of the seizure of the search warrant..
just a scenario of this "harmless" action..
slowly and more slowly our freedoms are being taken and chipped away.. sounds like 9/11 just gave the government a valid reason to completely intrude on our lives, as if they are thankful for the deaths of thousands...
they are taking advantage of the deaths of thousands for their advantage.. thanks US of A..
nowonder everyone hates us..
"Teacher John Richards and Atlanta and Pedophile" as a search term to see if anything comes up.. this "WOULD" be in the government report..
While there may be no qualifying evidence, no qualifying history, or any basis of any kind for this belief to be valid...
the government now has easily identiable information, through a little bit of research, that this John Richards (John Doe) is potentially a pedophile and that kids may be in danger..
the government may then choose to take action to alert the school to a "potential" unsafe situation involving having this teacher around children, which in turn may result in him being fired, and then investigated for being a pedophile..
the police may then issue a search warrant may for "probable cause" and anything illegal they find in his house can be used against him, and the next thing is, he is in prison from the results of the seizure of the search warrant..
just a scenario of this "harmless" action..
slowly and more slowly our freedoms are being taken and chipped away.. sounds like 9/11 just gave the government a valid reason to completely intrude on our lives, as if they are thankful for the deaths of thousands...
they are taking advantage of the deaths of thousands for their advantage.. thanks US of A..
nowonder everyone hates us..
multiple search providers for the information
when a statistically valid sample can be had
from just one? The additional data points won't
add much.
How is it that subpoenas are being issued
without any related court proceeding
(particularly without one to which the recipient
is attached)?
Ostensibly, they are interested in queries
related to child pornography, but the government
is uniquely cognizant of the terms and methods
that would be used for this purpose (being in
possession of all the computers of everyone ever
arrested for that), so what more can they hope
to get?
Presumably, it would require an employee of the
company to extract the requested information
from their systems and turn it over to the
government -- an expense of time, effort, and
possibly service quality. So, the federal
government can now commandeer you or your
resources for political purposes?
And what of the government motive? The reasons
COPA had been declared unconstitutional in the
lower courts was pretty clear cut from the
ruling. Traditionally, one would simply retool
the law to accommodate the objections and try
again. The DOJ shouldn't care since they enforce
the law, not make it, and certainly similar
legislation would come up again.
The only rational motive would be if the DOJ
wanted to avoid putting the ball back in the
legislative branch's court and if they felt they
had a lock on the higher court to side with them
(it didn't come up during the hearing, but
Samuel Alito's record shows that he always sides
with the federal government in questions of
government authority). Even then, the only
reason to push it is if they want the parts
deemed unconstitutional in the first place
(prior restraint and right to censor without
regard to content and without oversight).
Either we're being misled (possibly not
intentionally) about what's going on (likely) or
that the DOJ has a sinister agenda.
Personally, if I were Google, I'd just make up
the information -- plainly state that I can't
vouch for the accuracy or completeness -- and
let them go on their way. In many ways,
providing disinformation would be more effective
than providing none at all.
If the government wants to prevent children from surfing the net
for porn sites, this is the responsibility of parents. The
government has no right to decreee what an adult can or cannot
see. So much for who logs into these sites.
If they want to disuade child porn sites... why don't they log
into them themselves and find out who they are? The search
string is really not that complicated.
In the past when I looked for "jobs" I came across quite a strange
number of sites. What would concern me is this scenario: I am
now in politics and someone is able to prove that I viewed a
particular site which could damage my reputation. Prove that I
was just looking for a job.
multiple search providers for the information
when a statistically valid sample can be had
from just one? The additional data points won't
add much.
How is it that subpoenas are being issued
without any related court proceeding
(particularly without one to which the recipient
is attached)?
Ostensibly, they are interested in queries
related to child pornography, but the government
is uniquely cognizant of the terms and methods
that would be used for this purpose (being in
possession of all the computers of everyone ever
arrested for that), so what more can they hope
to get?
Presumably, it would require an employee of the
company to extract the requested information
from their systems and turn it over to the
government -- an expense of time, effort, and
possibly service quality. So, the federal
government can now commandeer you or your
resources for political purposes?
And what of the government motive? The reasons
COPA had been declared unconstitutional in the
lower courts was pretty clear cut from the
ruling. Traditionally, one would simply retool
the law to accommodate the objections and try
again. The DOJ shouldn't care since they enforce
the law, not make it, and certainly similar
legislation would come up again.
The only rational motive would be if the DOJ
wanted to avoid putting the ball back in the
legislative branch's court and if they felt they
had a lock on the higher court to side with them
(it didn't come up during the hearing, but
Samuel Alito's record shows that he always sides
with the federal government in questions of
government authority). Even then, the only
reason to push it is if they want the parts
deemed unconstitutional in the first place
(prior restraint and right to censor without
regard to content and without oversight).
Either we're being misled (possibly not
intentionally) about what's going on (likely) or
that the DOJ has a sinister agenda.
Personally, if I were Google, I'd just make up
the information -- plainly state that I can't
vouch for the accuracy or completeness -- and
let them go on their way. In many ways,
providing disinformation would be more effective
than providing none at all.
If the government wants to prevent children from surfing the net
for porn sites, this is the responsibility of parents. The
government has no right to decreee what an adult can or cannot
see. So much for who logs into these sites.
If they want to disuade child porn sites... why don't they log
into them themselves and find out who they are? The search
string is really not that complicated.
In the past when I looked for "jobs" I came across quite a strange
number of sites. What would concern me is this scenario: I am
now in politics and someone is able to prove that I viewed a
particular site which could damage my reputation. Prove that I
was just looking for a job.
The information requested is being used to determine if minors have easy access to pornography. The data returned COULD be used to spur other investigations or requests to identify an individual.
The real worry here is that these search results are being provided by the companies the DoJ requested logs from. Should the law be upheld these companies could be found guilty of violating the law by the very evidence they provide. I think this is what has Google so worried. If they use the 5th amendment in court, you will know that's the case.
The information requested is being used to determine if minors have easy access to pornography. The data returned COULD be used to spur other investigations or requests to identify an individual.
The real worry here is that these search results are being provided by the companies the DoJ requested logs from. Should the law be upheld these companies could be found guilty of violating the law by the very evidence they provide. I think this is what has Google so worried. If they use the 5th amendment in court, you will know that's the case.
This makes about as much sense as the current gun laws. It interferes with the rights of the law abiding and does nothing to address the problem.
So they want to search the records of a publicly accessible site, what will it get them. The bad guys will just go somewhere else and a little more personal freedom evaporates.
Compare it to drugs. There are more available today then ever and far higher quality. So what did this police state mentality get us for the money. A bit fat nothing except a system the is unmatched at creating criminals.
This is just more sham to distract people from the real issues.
This makes about as much sense as the current gun laws. It interferes with the rights of the law abiding and does nothing to address the problem.
So they want to search the records of a publicly accessible site, what will it get them. The bad guys will just go somewhere else and a little more personal freedom evaporates.
Compare it to drugs. There are more available today then ever and far higher quality. So what did this police state mentality get us for the money. A bit fat nothing except a system the is unmatched at creating criminals.
This is just more sham to distract people from the real issues.
The current religious right infected government has an agenda to force what they call moral values on Americans.
Part of this agenda involved attacked TV networks by increasing fines for what the government controlled FCC deems immoral content, part of it is to try to force porn off the internet.
By using terms like "protecting children", "no personal information has been requested" they try to make this private crusade against free speech something warm and cozy.
Reality is this would set an unsettling precedent.
While most people couldn't care less if the government found out they were looking at naughty pictures, this sets up a precedent where the law inforcement could use a similar tactic in order to gather evidence without a warrant.
In fact this has already been done, but this abuse of power by the Bush Administration is just further encouragement do to the same, and adds legimitimacy to future invasions of our personal information.
By suggesting that because a company surrupticiously gathered your info, then held it in a public area, that this makes it okay for the government to datamine is ironically itself morally ambiguous.
My real problem here is what will happen in the future if something isn't done to stop this Administrations strides towards government censorship and invasions into our personal lives.
The government does not exist to micromanage our lives in a way they feel is best, but to act on the wishes of the constituents that send them to congress or the White House. Certain lattitude is granted, because you add into this that people vote for politicians that have what they think is an acceptable agenda - but the focus should be on the wishes of the voters.
This is abuse of power is not limited to one party, both Democrats and Republicans do it, for different reasons, and it's damm annoying.
It should be none of the government's business what I choose to watch on TV, the Internet, read in a Library or however else I choose to entertain or educate myself.
The fact that going to porn websites or switching to channels that include subject matter not suitable for my kids is a personal choice, not something forced on me.
These channels and websites provide me the means of preventing my kids from viewing what I deem unsuitable, and people who find it morally objectional have the right not to go to those websites or watch those channels on their TVs.
I don't need some do-gooder, communist anti-freespeech git called Chairman Bush telling me what I'm allowed to view on my own equipment, in the privacy of my home.
The current religious right infected government has an agenda to force what they call moral values on Americans.
Part of this agenda involved attacked TV networks by increasing fines for what the government controlled FCC deems immoral content, part of it is to try to force porn off the internet.
By using terms like "protecting children", "no personal information has been requested" they try to make this private crusade against free speech something warm and cozy.
Reality is this would set an unsettling precedent.
While most people couldn't care less if the government found out they were looking at naughty pictures, this sets up a precedent where the law inforcement could use a similar tactic in order to gather evidence without a warrant.
In fact this has already been done, but this abuse of power by the Bush Administration is just further encouragement do to the same, and adds legimitimacy to future invasions of our personal information.
By suggesting that because a company surrupticiously gathered your info, then held it in a public area, that this makes it okay for the government to datamine is ironically itself morally ambiguous.
My real problem here is what will happen in the future if something isn't done to stop this Administrations strides towards government censorship and invasions into our personal lives.
The government does not exist to micromanage our lives in a way they feel is best, but to act on the wishes of the constituents that send them to congress or the White House. Certain lattitude is granted, because you add into this that people vote for politicians that have what they think is an acceptable agenda - but the focus should be on the wishes of the voters.
This is abuse of power is not limited to one party, both Democrats and Republicans do it, for different reasons, and it's damm annoying.
It should be none of the government's business what I choose to watch on TV, the Internet, read in a Library or however else I choose to entertain or educate myself.
The fact that going to porn websites or switching to channels that include subject matter not suitable for my kids is a personal choice, not something forced on me.
These channels and websites provide me the means of preventing my kids from viewing what I deem unsuitable, and people who find it morally objectional have the right not to go to those websites or watch those channels on their TVs.
I don't need some do-gooder, communist anti-freespeech git called Chairman Bush telling me what I'm allowed to view on my own equipment, in the privacy of my home.
Okay Big Brother, lock me up now, I haven't done anything wrong but I'm positive in the great electronic frontier truth and lies become as intermixed as it is in the real world. Lies are true and truth become lies depending on who is telling the story. Never get into a court fight with anyone in government. They not only have everyone else's money to fight you with, they also have your money to pay for all their time and legal fees.
always,
Barb
Okay Big Brother, lock me up now, I haven't done anything wrong but I'm positive in the great electronic frontier truth and lies become as intermixed as it is in the real world. Lies are true and truth become lies depending on who is telling the story. Never get into a court fight with anyone in government. They not only have everyone else's money to fight you with, they also have your money to pay for all their time and legal fees.
always,
Barb
Just a thought but it would be interesting
- Lets Subpoena all search done by the US Government
- by navops January 22, 2006 11:25 AM PST
- I think this would be most enlightening. Since all search engines have a log of search terms as well as where they came from ( or at least that what this subpoena implies) then we the people should subpoena a list of all the search terms coming from us government IP?s. I bet we would find a lot of very interesting terms and some very interesting results of those search ( White house top search terms Machiavelli, Absolute Power)
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 3 pages (118 Comments)Just a thought but it would be interesting