Posted on 1/20/2006, 8:26:12 PM by dware
Yahoo has admitted that it granted the US Government access to its search engine's databases this summer, as a battle develops over the right to privacy in cyberspace.
Google, by contrast, promised last night to fight vigorously the Bush Administration’s demand to know what millions of people have been looking up on the internet.
It emerged this week that the White House issued subpoenas to a number of US-based search engines this summer, asking to see what information the public had accessed in a two-month period. It said that it needed the information in order to help create online child protection laws.
But Google refused to comply with its subpoena - prompting the US Attorney General this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records. Details of the confrontation emerged after the San Jose Mercury News reported seeing the court papers on Wednesday.
At the heart of the battle is the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Yahoo has stressed that it didn’t reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users’ privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said last night. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."
The Google court papers show that the US Government originally asked for a list of all requests entered into Google’s search engine between June 1 and July 31 last year. When Google argued, the request was whittled down to a week's worth of search terms - a breakdown that could nonetheless span tens of millions of queries. In addition, the White House has asked for one million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Every other search engine company served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to the court documents.
The co-operating search engines were not identified. Microsoft's MSN, the third-most used search engine, has declined to say whether it received a subpoena. "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," the company said in a statement.
The US Government says that it is not seeking any data that would allow it to identify which individual made which search request.
Experts say nonetheless that the subpoena raises serious privacy concerns, especially after recent revelations that the White House authorised civilian phone-taps after the September 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.
Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse charity in California, called the subpoenas "the first shoe dropping" that online privacy advocates had long feared.
"These search engines are a very tempting target for government and law enforcement," Givens said. "Look at the millions of people who use search engines without thinking of the potential to be drawn into a government drag net."
The subpoenas were a "classic fishing trip" by federal prosecutors, she added.
Thomas Burke, a San Francisco lawyer who has handled several prominent privacy cases, said that many people contacted Google more often than they spoke to their mother. "Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too," he said.
Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum, warned that the content of search requests sometimes contain information about the person making the query, such as names, medical profiles or Social Security information.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this." She warned people to be careful what personal information they entered into search engines.
The Department of Justice argues that Google’s cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the web. In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush Administration is trying to prove that internet filters do not do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.
Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users, (and) to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in its court petition.
Google issued a statement last night promising to fight the case. "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches," wrote Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."
But Google's vigorous defence of privacy rights in the face of demands from the US government is apparently at odds with the search engine's stance in China.
There, human rights activists have complained that Google collaborates with the Chinese government, which controls the activities of its 111 million web surfers with one of the most stifling internet censorship policies in the world.
Google is locked in competition for the lucrative Chinese market, along with Yahoo and MSN, and the homegrown Chinese search engine Baidu.com.
All the US companies have been criticised for censoring news sites, search engines and weblogs that China's communist government considers subversive or obscene. For example, a web user in China who tried to search Google or Yahoo for subjects such as democracy and human rights would find nothing in his search results.
There was outrage in September when it emerged that Yahoo had supplied details to the Chinese authorities of the personal e-mail account of Shi Tao, a 37-year-old journalist. He was found guilty of "spreading state secrets" and jailed for 10 years, for forwarding to a foreign website a Chinese government circular banning the media from reporting the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
FYI
Only a pervert uses Yahoo to search for porn. The real aficionados use Google.
Owl_Eagle
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Good for Google.
I think for now since there is so much attention on it the White House should do things legal. It would avoid a lot of trouble.
I don't know why you think its ridiculous, but I think its ridiculous that the Libertarians are so up in arms about this. I'm waiting for the small but boisterous lot of them to swarm over here to this post.
Ping
That right there tells us it's a fishing expedition.
This is getting ridiculous...
-----
It was worse than ridiculous when the camel's nose first came into the tent....
Google is trying to make themselves look honorable. But in fact they have stored, BY user (or what they have that links to users) EVERY search ever made on Google. They, a private corporation, know exactly what you have been doing for years on the internet.
And they have plans for that data, which involve THEM making billions of dollars. They have already claimed the rights to this data. You didn't think you were getting something for nothing, did you? Every time you went to the google line, you gave them some information about yourself, and they have stored it all in their large databases.
You are NOT their customer, and have never signed an agreement with Google, so you have no right to tell them what to do with the information. Instead, they own the information. So for example, in exchange for lucrative contracts, they can sell the information about searches from Asia to the Chinese government. You don't think they will? Well, do a google search and if they haven't censored it (like they do searches from china's IP addresses) you might find a host of things that they plan to do with the information.
Google has also claimed the inalienable right to publish an online copy of your work. If you wrote a book, they think they can put it on the web and distribute it for free, and you should have no say. Of course Google will get paid handsomely for this "free service" in advertising dollars, and by selling information about who is reading what book.
Google is not your friend. Google is a the liberal's version of Big Brother, a supposedly do-gooder company that has more information about you now than the government could ever hope to collect.
And because it is worth repeating, Google claims that it OWNS all that information about you, and you have NO SAY in what they do with it. And since you have been a free-loader on their web page, they are probably right.
It's a statistical analysis. They aren't "fishing" for anything, they want to show what percent of the internet searches are for pornography, and show that filtering software isn't sufficient to keep children from accessing pornography through search engines.
They aren't trying to find out what YOU were looking for, they are trying to find out if 90% of the internet is used to find naked pictures of Jennifer Anniston.
Since when does the White House issue subpoenas?
I agree. It seems to me more like a store doing inventory to see what sells and what doesn't. No personal info involved. Just trends.
You think only the records of child pornographers got scooped up?
Since the USA PATRIOT act.
They're trying to find statistical information about what people search on. However they aren't gathering any personal information about the people doing the searches.
I kind of prefer it when our government researches things and makes legislation based on factual data rather than on complete guesses.
Google likely doesn't want to hand out this information because selling this information is how they make money.
This may be a situtaion where the subpoena infringes on the civil liberties of Google and it's stockholders, but it's sure doesn't appear to be infringing on the liberties of it's users like some people are trying to spin it.
The Horror!
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,240,000 for "porn sites". (0.24 seconds)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.