Manage updates with the Download App
January 20, 2006 4:00 AM PST
FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
- Related Stories
-
Feds take porn fight to Google
January 19, 2006 -
Year in review: Electronic surveillance takes center stage
December 29, 2005 -
Government steps up electronic surveillance
April 11, 2005 -
FBI adds to wiretap wish list
March 12, 2004
(continued from previous page)
Q: So the Justice Department could end up using it in a prosecution?
Tim Wu, a law professor at Columbia University, says it may be fair game.
"That's one of the biggest questions in evidence law," Wu says. "It's like if you subpoena a book for another reason, and you find a murder note in it. Can you use it as evidence?"
If the records are in the hands of a third party such as a search engine, Wu says, "generally speaking they can use it to find out about other crimes."
Q: What does the Justice Department plan to do with this data, anyway?
A declaration (click here for PDF) by Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California at Berkeley, sheds some light on this.
Stark says he has been "involved in conversations" with attorneys and engineers at the companies targeted by the Justice Department to find "practical approaches to sampling their databases of URLs and user queries."
The point of the exercise, Stark said, is to evaluate "how often Web users" encounter pornographic material online, and "to measure the effectiveness of filters in screening those materials."
Q: Who cares about filtering software's effectiveness, anyway?
The Bush administration, for one. It's trying to defend a 1998 law called the Child Online Protection Act before a Philadelphia judge in a trial expected to begin in October.
When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the COPA case in June 2004, the majority voted to send it back down to the lower court for a full trial. That would, the majority said, "allow the parties to update and supplement the factual record to reflect current technological realities."
That's what the Justice Department aims to do--by arguing in court that filtering software is not a realistic alternative to a federal criminal law because the concept of filtering is flawed and unworkable in practice.
Q: Are my search terms private?
If they're unlinked from your identity, and just part of a list of anonymous searches scrolling across a screen, the privacy concerns are minimized.
Google even displays a list of live search terms on a screen that visitors can view in its Silicon Valley headquarters. That's probably one reason why the company's lawyers have been careful not to raise privacy arguments.
Instead, in a letter dated Oct. 10, 2005, Google lawyer Ashok Ramani objected to the Justice Department's request on the grounds that it could disclose trade secrets and was "overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and intended to harass."
Q: Then why are privacy groups complaining? Your article includes I-am-outraged statements from the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
There are probably a few reasons. First, they'd say, private companies should not serve as convenient information repositories for trial attorneys hoping to win court cases. Second, it's not clear where this information will end up, and how far the protective order stretches.
Third, they simply believe that search engine companies are collecting too much information about their users. Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft set cookies, collect personal information, and retain permanent logs that could be used to create a kind of dossier about a person's search habits.
Deleting cookies is one option. So is preventing your browser from accepting them in the first place. The Firefox browser, for instance, lets you block certain sites so they'll never set cookies.
Q: What will happen next?
The ball's in Google's court. The company will have to respond to the Justice Department's request, and then a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., will rule on the matter. Appeals are also a possibility.
118 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
However there is a search engine that actually is available on a country basis. It is called AnooX.
To be exact they are offering their search engine for Free & under an Open Source type of license to anyone around the world who wants to be an AnooX Search Engine provider in their country. So this way then all the
searches you do will stay in your own country based AnooX. You can find the details here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp" target="_newWindow">http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp</a>
However there is a search engine that actually is available on a country basis. It is called AnooX.
To be exact they are offering their search engine for Free & under an Open Source type of license to anyone around the world who wants to be an AnooX Search Engine provider in their country. So this way then all the
searches you do will stay in your own country based AnooX. You can find the details here:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp" target="_newWindow">http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp</a>
This was not discussed in the article.
This was not discussed in the article.
First, there is nothing "intrusive" about the government's request. Note that they only want search terms. So, while it's true that if you entered "my name is John Smith, 123 Maple Lane, Podunkville, Nebraska, and I'm looking for instructions on how to make an atomic bomb in my kitchen", you might be in danger of being found out, but I'm guessing not many people would actually do this. Or, if they did, it could be argued that anyone so idiotic deserves to be caught, since he'll probably blow himself (along with you and the rest of Podunkville) into Kingdom Come long before he ever gets the device built.
Second, it's to note that the article continues to perpetuate the myth that cookies provide "personal" information. Cookies mainly provide SYSTEM information, such as operating system, screen resolution, browser version, whether or not you have Flash enabled, etc. The only "personal" information is demographic, in that they also show which general area of the country you're located in by displaying your ISP. Actual "personal" information, such as your name, address, social security number, credit card number, phone number, passwords, etc, is the realm of spyware, viruses, trojans, worms and keyloggers.
It's also to note that the search engines, themselves, along with ICANN and Congress, are really the ones to blame that it's come to this. Remember the proposal that all x-rated sites be placed in the ".xxx" domain category? If ICANN and the major search engines had supported Congress to enact this, along with seriously stiff penalties for those who didn't comply, the entire problem would have been resolved. The search engines would simply filter out any domains ending in ".xxx" and that's that.
And, before you cry, "But how would I get my daily porno fix?!", remember sites like AdultCheck? You'd pay a small yearly premium with a credit card, thereby proving you're 21 years or older, and there are your .xxx sites, ready for perusal.
All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody.
They are taking a shotgun approach to try and justify their UnConstitutional law. Google, or any of the people who use Google are not specifically targetted. They want ALL data on EVERYONE which is unreasonable and wrong.
If they have someone specific in mind then they should get a supeona concerning that person. They should not do this broad unreasonable search and espect law abiding citizens to just sit back and let it happen.
you must be purer than caesars wife. no skeletons in your closet, eh?
but whether there are or not, the gov't has no right to information that is not the genesis of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. every law enforcement agency would love to have the right to go on fishing expeditions for crime. ever hear of the 4th amendment and due process?
submission to govt's ever reaching intrusions leads us down the path to orwellian encroachments on our valued right to privacy.
this administration is the most corrupt and disrespectful of its citizens constitutional rights since the last president who resigned from office for breaches of the constitution.
perhaps we can impeach this dolt post november elections.
it's unimaginable to me that americans can be so fearful of terror attacks that they would willingly sacrifice the protections the constitution affords its citizens from overreaching government in the name of security.
As for Mr Bolt's assertion that the .xxx domain would solve the problem, that is a non-starter. Who would get the .xxx domain for a given name - the owner of the .com, .net, .us, .org? How could this be enforced under country level domains - can (and should) the US control the rest of the world (dubya appears to think they should)? The most that could be done legally from an international standpoint is that a new .xxx.us domain name is introduced and all US based porn companies are forced to use it.
Just my 2 euro cents worth.
Stuart
Companies like Google should support such a move, it's a good way to increase their profits by providing a niche service very easily.
REally? I thought that should be parents' role in keeping their children off pornography. It's a funny thing when conservatives keep ranting about smaller government, less control but they sings a different tune when Bush administration tries to have more power & control.
Some other points,
-American kids already know about sex even before the internet ages.
-US government can't control what other countries web site decided to display
-There are more way to get x-rated flick, p2p, etc.
I applaud Google's effort to stand up on this issue
First, there is nothing "intrusive" about the government's request. Note that they only want search terms. So, while it's true that if you entered "my name is John Smith, 123 Maple Lane, Podunkville, Nebraska, and I'm looking for instructions on how to make an atomic bomb in my kitchen", you might be in danger of being found out, but I'm guessing not many people would actually do this. Or, if they did, it could be argued that anyone so idiotic deserves to be caught, since he'll probably blow himself (along with you and the rest of Podunkville) into Kingdom Come long before he ever gets the device built.
Second, it's to note that the article continues to perpetuate the myth that cookies provide "personal" information. Cookies mainly provide SYSTEM information, such as operating system, screen resolution, browser version, whether or not you have Flash enabled, etc. The only "personal" information is demographic, in that they also show which general area of the country you're located in by displaying your ISP. Actual "personal" information, such as your name, address, social security number, credit card number, phone number, passwords, etc, is the realm of spyware, viruses, trojans, worms and keyloggers.
It's also to note that the search engines, themselves, along with ICANN and Congress, are really the ones to blame that it's come to this. Remember the proposal that all x-rated sites be placed in the ".xxx" domain category? If ICANN and the major search engines had supported Congress to enact this, along with seriously stiff penalties for those who didn't comply, the entire problem would have been resolved. The search engines would simply filter out any domains ending in ".xxx" and that's that.
And, before you cry, "But how would I get my daily porno fix?!", remember sites like AdultCheck? You'd pay a small yearly premium with a credit card, thereby proving you're 21 years or older, and there are your .xxx sites, ready for perusal.
All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody.
They are taking a shotgun approach to try and justify their UnConstitutional law. Google, or any of the people who use Google are not specifically targetted. They want ALL data on EVERYONE which is unreasonable and wrong.
If they have someone specific in mind then they should get a supeona concerning that person. They should not do this broad unreasonable search and espect law abiding citizens to just sit back and let it happen.
you must be purer than caesars wife. no skeletons in your closet, eh?
but whether there are or not, the gov't has no right to information that is not the genesis of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. every law enforcement agency would love to have the right to go on fishing expeditions for crime. ever hear of the 4th amendment and due process?
submission to govt's ever reaching intrusions leads us down the path to orwellian encroachments on our valued right to privacy.
this administration is the most corrupt and disrespectful of its citizens constitutional rights since the last president who resigned from office for breaches of the constitution.
perhaps we can impeach this dolt post november elections.
it's unimaginable to me that americans can be so fearful of terror attacks that they would willingly sacrifice the protections the constitution affords its citizens from overreaching government in the name of security.
As for Mr Bolt's assertion that the .xxx domain would solve the problem, that is a non-starter. Who would get the .xxx domain for a given name - the owner of the .com, .net, .us, .org? How could this be enforced under country level domains - can (and should) the US control the rest of the world (dubya appears to think they should)? The most that could be done legally from an international standpoint is that a new .xxx.us domain name is introduced and all US based porn companies are forced to use it.
Just my 2 euro cents worth.
Stuart
Companies like Google should support such a move, it's a good way to increase their profits by providing a niche service very easily.
REally? I thought that should be parents' role in keeping their children off pornography. It's a funny thing when conservatives keep ranting about smaller government, less control but they sings a different tune when Bush administration tries to have more power & control.
Some other points,
-American kids already know about sex even before the internet ages.
-US government can't control what other countries web site decided to display
-There are more way to get x-rated flick, p2p, etc.
I applaud Google's effort to stand up on this issue
What in God's name are you people doing on the internet that is so private? Are you afraid that the search term "kiddie porn" is going to lead to your house?
I'll vote for the safety of kids over and above the privacy of perverts anyday!
We've become such a country of passing our responsibilities off to others, it's no wonder people are willing to let the government come in and take over. These are the same people arguing conservative values and limited government but are willing to let government increase in size and influence at the same time. Maybe we should start punishing parents directly when their children go places they're not supposed to on the internet..NOW THAT'S AN IDEA...let's monitor their behavior and punish parents when their children go places online that are dangerous!
What do you say about Government Safety now?
Remember, Such things as the constitution are hard to write, taking much study, but easy to tear up, taking only two hands. Putting it back together is much harder.
People like you seem to say "Sure, go ahead" to tearing it bits off the constitution. Fine, if it will "Save our Children."
And then, in twenty or thirty years, the children will say "What did you save us for? For this?"
Oscar Rat
The current controversy has absolutely nothing to do with kiddie porn or with terrorists, but these are certainly important straw men that are used to influence the public.
The current controversy is about criminalizing *any Web content* that the Government considers harmful for children to view. That could include the visual arts, political opinions, science (e.g., evolution), fiction, ... virtually anything. But they've got Nathan's vote, because he's been sold a meritricious justification.
Does anybody remember when the reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction?
Bush has to be stopped.
Uninvited marketing,
Identity theft,
Electronic harrassment,
Stalking,
Political muckraking,
Blackmail,
etc, etc...
What in God's name are you people doing on the internet that is so private? Are you afraid that the search term "kiddie porn" is going to lead to your house?
I'll vote for the safety of kids over and above the privacy of perverts anyday!
We've become such a country of passing our responsibilities off to others, it's no wonder people are willing to let the government come in and take over. These are the same people arguing conservative values and limited government but are willing to let government increase in size and influence at the same time. Maybe we should start punishing parents directly when their children go places they're not supposed to on the internet..NOW THAT'S AN IDEA...let's monitor their behavior and punish parents when their children go places online that are dangerous!
What do you say about Government Safety now?
Remember, Such things as the constitution are hard to write, taking much study, but easy to tear up, taking only two hands. Putting it back together is much harder.
People like you seem to say "Sure, go ahead" to tearing it bits off the constitution. Fine, if it will "Save our Children."
And then, in twenty or thirty years, the children will say "What did you save us for? For this?"
Oscar Rat
The current controversy has absolutely nothing to do with kiddie porn or with terrorists, but these are certainly important straw men that are used to influence the public.
The current controversy is about criminalizing *any Web content* that the Government considers harmful for children to view. That could include the visual arts, political opinions, science (e.g., evolution), fiction, ... virtually anything. But they've got Nathan's vote, because he's been sold a meritricious justification.
Does anybody remember when the reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction?
Bush has to be stopped.
Uninvited marketing,
Identity theft,
Electronic harrassment,
Stalking,
Political muckraking,
Blackmail,
etc, etc...
I wonder what the government used to influence Yahoo, AOL and MSFT to turn the data over so quickly? MSFT has spent years fighting the government's challenges on its products, there must be some reason they'd cooperate with a government request without any challenge.
I wonder what the government used to influence Yahoo, AOL and MSFT to turn the data over so quickly? MSFT has spent years fighting the government's challenges on its products, there must be some reason they'd cooperate with a government request without any challenge.
What do you do? Why you do it yourselves. Where the hell did we go wrong? I'm glad there aren't any of us guys in your human Congress. I like to think rats are more honorable and ethical than that.
And of course, get even dirtier and mention it's for the benefit of children, as thought that excuse isn't used for everything.
It's always to save the children. Bullcrap.
And we're supposed to trust you. More Bullcrap.
Yeah, I look at pictures of naked rodents, so what? I'm an adult rat.
Oscar Rat
What do you do? Why you do it yourselves. Where the hell did we go wrong? I'm glad there aren't any of us guys in your human Congress. I like to think rats are more honorable and ethical than that.
And of course, get even dirtier and mention it's for the benefit of children, as thought that excuse isn't used for everything.
It's always to save the children. Bullcrap.
And we're supposed to trust you. More Bullcrap.
Yeah, I look at pictures of naked rodents, so what? I'm an adult rat.
Oscar Rat
There is no logical reason for keeping searcher tracking info or even actual searches in a database that can be subject to a supoena.
It costs less corporate $$ to only store characteristics of a search instead of the actual searches themselves. If the search engines really wanted to protect your privacy, they wouldn't keep the actual search info in the first place.
There is no logical reason for keeping searcher tracking info or even actual searches in a database that can be subject to a supoena.
It costs less corporate $$ to only store characteristics of a search instead of the actual searches themselves. If the search engines really wanted to protect your privacy, they wouldn't keep the actual search info in the first place.
That is just as it is the job of CIA & NSA to eves drop on people worldwide, and assist the US government to dominate the world, same is the job
of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.
So when you hear that US government has subpoenaed Google it is a Hoax to fool the people to think that Google is a champion of people and privacy, when in fact Google (and Yahoo) are in the same gang as CIA & NSA.
Now as bad as this is for the people of the USA, it is far worst for us here in Europe and elsewhere. It is high time for our so called leaders here in Europe to realize that it is extremely dangerous, it is against our national
interests, to have our "eye balls" owned by few giant US search (media) companies. It is high time for us here in Europe to have our search engines based here in Europe, in our own countries. Just as we get our news from news sources here in Germany, and other
countries in Europe, from our people in our languages, same must be the case in regard to the all important search engine information.
Just say NO to Google & Yahoo, say NO to Big Brother (CIA, NSA, US government), say YES to search engines from your countries.
That is just as it is the job of CIA & NSA to eves drop on people worldwide, and assist the US government to dominate the world, same is the job
of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc.
So when you hear that US government has subpoenaed Google it is a Hoax to fool the people to think that Google is a champion of people and privacy, when in fact Google (and Yahoo) are in the same gang as CIA & NSA.
Now as bad as this is for the people of the USA, it is far worst for us here in Europe and elsewhere. It is high time for our so called leaders here in Europe to realize that it is extremely dangerous, it is against our national
interests, to have our "eye balls" owned by few giant US search (media) companies. It is high time for us here in Europe to have our search engines based here in Europe, in our own countries. Just as we get our news from news sources here in Germany, and other
countries in Europe, from our people in our languages, same must be the case in regard to the all important search engine information.
Just say NO to Google & Yahoo, say NO to Big Brother (CIA, NSA, US government), say YES to search engines from your countries.
Whatever happens between the Justice Dept and Google begs the overall problem of trying to reach anyone in the Google Company. Google is not a transparent company and hides behind a vast number of sites that frustrate the user until they just give up.
I submit to the Justice Dept. that Google should list People that can be reached without going crazy trying to make ones way through a jungle of sites that get you nowhere.Google is very adept at protecting it's own Privacy to sheild it's self from customer complaints regarding their botched services.
Thank you
"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.