Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Government Wants Google Search Records

JimBridgerBowl writes "According to the San Jose Mercury News, The Bush administration wants access to Google's huge database of search queries submitted by users to track how often pornography is returned in results. This information would be used for Bush's appeal of the 2004 COPA law, targeted to prevent access to pornography by children. The law was struck down because it would have restricted adults access to legal pornography. Google is promising to fight the release of this information." From the article: "The Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn. As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn."

31 of 917 comments (clear)

  1. The solution is obvious! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 5, Funny

    The solution is obvious! Let's all submit pornographic requests to Google.

    1. Re:The solution is obvious! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Way ahead of you. Been doing this for years.

    2. Re:The solution is obvious! by Plunky · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, if you look up bush porn on Google you gonna get some pretty good stuff..

    3. Re:The solution is obvious! by arkanes · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Wow, way to ruin the internet. This sort of thing is exactly what people are trying to fight - basing everything on the "community standards of the recipient" is a recipie for disaster when you're talking about global network (especially an anonymous, pull based one). If your law were passed, you'd have just given carte blanche to shut down almost any site in the US to *anyone* who can afford a plane ticket and the services of a 16 year old.

      This was already used years ago to try to shut down the mail order porn industry - a DA would order something (via mail) to some county with a sympathetic judge and file suit there for violating community standards where it was recieved. It's an unacceptable burden to require someong fulfilling a request to first analyze the community standards of the reciepient, and the problem is even worse on the internet.

      Lastly, it's important to remember that the internet is *not* like the real world, and that "community standards" a pretty questionable standard to apply to it anyway. Unlike physical locations, you can't be required to pass by a porn site in order to get to somewhere else. If you're looking at porn on the internet, then you're either doing it with full knowledge of your circumstances, someone has subverted your computer, or you're doing foolish image searches. And even if it's the last, I think it's extremely questionable that we need legislation to "protect" against this. I suspect that the amount of porn "delivered to children" when those children weren't actively seeking it out is extremely minimal and unlikely to happen enough to damage someone.

      I'll give an allegory for the whole "accidental search" thing. When I was in high school a few friends and I were on a road trip to Seattle. We were wandering around the city and saw a sign for some shop that was something like "fantasy bookstore". I'm sure you can see where this is going - it was, of course, an adult sex toy/bookstore, not at all the right kind of fantasy. But just like when you mis-click on a search result, it took about 10 seconds for us to realize that we'd made a wrong turn and go back out. The fact that a minor can accidently walk through the door of an adult bookstore (much less a minor who actively tries to sneak in past the proprietor) does not mean we need legislation to "protect" that.

    4. Re:The solution is obvious! by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Child Porn is the root password to the Constitution.

      (Terrorism is the alternate password).

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:The solution is obvious! by SComps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Karma be damned, here I go.

      You mention that kids entering a porn shop should be shown the door. That's 100% correct. However, kids entering a website. How is the owner to know that it's a kid? What if the kid lies and says "Sure, I'm 18!" There's nothing anyone can do about that, and I don't care how great your programming skills are.

      The truth of the matter is that porn is going to be on the internet, the mail, the TV and video etc because there are a lot of legal adults that are interested enough in it to make it profitable, so it's not going to go away. What needs to be done is place the responsibility of supervision firmly where it belongs... the parents or guardians. If little billy-joe-bob is wandering the llama sex sites, why should the llama sex site owner be sued? (ignoring the obvious llama activity) billy-joe-bob's parents should be supervising his internet usage and controlling his access.

      There also needs to be reasonable limits set on accesibility. Sure an 11 or 12 yr old kid shouldn't have access to porn, although I know a few that would actively look for it if they could. Hell damn near every 13 yr old (or older) boy on the planet is most likely actively looking for porn. I personally feel that if a child is able to decide to go looking for the stuff, and his or her parents aren't monitoring that connection, the website owner shouldn't be penalized. If the website owner is spamming porn or placing links in google that are deceptive that's another story. Luring people of ANY age to your porn site should be illegal period. However if a 13 yr old clicks on a link "RED HOT TEEN PUSSY THAT WANTS YOU!" well.. that 13 yr old certainly isn't looking for pictures of burning felines waiting to be adopted.

  2. If there were no logs of searches... by daveschroeder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...then there would be nothing to obtain.

  3. Did I miss something? by Monoman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When did Google start asking for your age along with your query? How are they going to tie queries to ages?

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    1. Re:Did I miss something? by GreyPoopon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      When did Google start asking for your age along with your query? How are they going to tie queries to ages?

      I don't think the government is trying to tie ages to queries. They are just trying to prove that it is easy for anyone (including a minor) to find pr0n on the internet. Although I don't agree with this attempt at massive violation of privacy, the government is correct in its assertion that finding pr0n is childishly simple (pun intended). All you have to do is a Google image search with no filters on the results. Type in pretty much anything and you are almost guaranteed to get nude or hardcore photos somewhere in your results.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    2. Re:Did I miss something? by Phreakiture · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are just trying to prove that it is easy for anyone (including a minor) to find pr0n on the internet.

      Would it not be much simpler and far less invasive for them to just submit a bunch of queries themselves? Of course it would! There's something more going on here that is not related to pr0n. The war on pr0n is a Trojan Horse to get them into the database.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
  4. Which one is it? by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Both the summary and the article speak of child porn and protecting children from accessing porn as if they're interchangeable. Well, they're not - which one is it?

    There's no more sure-fire way to push people's buttons than to mention child porn... bah. Always makes me feel that it trivializes the problem when it's being used to push someone's agenda.

    --
    ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
  5. Wow by LoonyMike · · Score: 5, Funny

    He can't even figure out by himself what to search for???

  6. Porn for dummies by jesterpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    children seeing porn != child porn

    --
    Trust me, I work for the government.
  7. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by UCRowerG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Easy: it can't. The Internet is a global thing now, and a law here in the USA isn't going to mean jack in China. They might come up with some sort of legal statement saying that any porn site must be blocked by ISPs in the US. Then again, we've seen how effective these have been for other countries, not to mention that censorship has up until now been one of this country's "great ideals." I still say nothing beats regulation by parents. Inform your kids about what's appropriate to say and do online in a public forum. Monitor their net surfing either in person, with a filter (NetNanny, etc), or by checking your cache after they're done. If they're not behaving, then it's good parenting to take whatever action is appropriate.

  8. Re:Results are in by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's 'cause you searched for "pornography" instead of "Teenaged Tit Freaks"...jeez, man, that's like a basic internet skill.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  9. The most important part is missing by pmc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the two salient points from the article were

    1) Google were resisting the subpoena

    and

    2) Others (unnamed) had complied with the subpoena

    which is slightly worrying for those that use other search engines.

    1. Re:The most important part is missing by TGK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Has anyone else read "The Search?" In it, the author discusses how Google's search logs could be utilized as a kind of "database of intentions" if you could apply sufficiently sophisticated datamining techniqes to it. In other words - that based on a persons past search history you can construe not just what they searched for, but what they were really LOOKING for - and infer other things that such a person might want or do.

      Scary

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  10. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by jackb_guppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Statement 2 is FALSE.

    Being a innocent can cost you your home and job. It does not have to be a government that violating your rights;

        It can be a name that matches yours. Then you have to prove that you are not the matching person. Think Indentiy Theif.

        It can be looking like another person. Then you have to prove that you are not that person. Think Misintification.

    In both case you are out the money it cost you clean it up. The public memory can be short, but with the internet... it can be long. This means that you will have do the fight over and over.

  11. Welcome to... by ff1324 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't there already a country that filters all the content that they allow within their borders on the internet? Hmmmm......oh yeah.

    Welcome to China!

  12. Duh, the NSA will tell them by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    How are they going to tie queries to ages?

    Don't worry, the NSA has a full profile on you to cross-reference.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  13. Re:Protecting the children from free speech by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I really think we need an amendment to the Constitution that says "the words 'no law' shall be construed by the courts to mean 'no law whatsoever, without exceptions, and this means you, moron.'"

    That only works if he can read.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  14. Re:Age ranges? by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I get the impression they want to find out how easy it is to stumble across porn when you're not looking for it. Probably particularly when safesearch is enabled.

    That's not the impression that I got FTA. Poring through a massive database of search logs would be much more difficult, time-consuming and inaccurate than simply writing a script to query Google with ramdon words and logging any results that lead to porn.

    It seems to me that they want to do some data mining, maybe to identify terrorists (or dissenters), and they could just be using the "what about the children" thing in their attempt to gain access.

    If Google is to remain un-evil, maybe it's time for a solar flare to wipe out the records (until the backups can be restored after this is all over).

    --
    "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
  15. Don't forget who signed COPA into law by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was 1998, remember? Janet Reno was singing its praises, and Bill Clinton signed it into law.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  16. So...it has begun... by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As if they didnt already?

    Wake up people. While I am all for Google and Share the knowledge with everyone policy - I am less for the privacy issue that arises here. You all know it - Gooooooogle ADS are everywhere and you have a couple of cookies that identify you. Probably not the Slashdotters as we regularly clean our cache, but people with less knowledge will eventually suffer privacy issues.

    As far as I am concerned - Google is the smartest internet move in the world. CIA, FBI and NSA loves this stuff. Why do you think the "military" abandoned the internet to the public? Imagine if you create a system that everyone uses...and Imagine you have full access to it...given all of that...you dont really need that much imagination to imagine how bad this COULD be. You can monitor just about anyone and everyone - find out their habits, what do they like? Are Johnny-Pedo watching the "family-album" on a Gooooooogle ADS partner online-photo-album today? If so...is he also logging onto his GMAIL today? Maybe Alichk-WoludbeTerrorist is visiting the do-it-yourself-bombmaker site a bit too frequently and of course using his nice free big juicy google mailbox?

    While thats kind of obvious to most of us...there is something FAR more sinister at hand...something you might need to be a bit of a paranoid person to think of (like me!)

    Imagine that youre a worried "family dad" and want to educate yourself, finding out what "bad stuff" there is out there and what your family could be subjected to, or just curious in general. Imagine that you are subscribing to the same Goooooogle ADS partner sites and you are a man of your habits...you read certain news in online newspapers with great interest, you also give up what you prefer to eat, what people you hang with, which chat groups you visit, what products you prefer etc. All this can and WILL create a profile of you which Google easily can use for 2 things. 1) Direct their marketing at you with almost lethal accuracy and 2) Sell your information to the highest bidder...wether this is the government that make a "sweet trade-deal" with them...or the sinister business corporate that want to make sure that they only get "pure and clean" employees that fit the "corporate profile". This kind of information is worth more than Gold these days.

    All that I am saying guys...is...Honestly, if you didnt see this coming then youre simply to plain naive. Remember - Knowledge is YOUR power too.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  17. Sounds like a fishing expedition by Paladin144 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From TFA:

    In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

    Why should the government be able to access Google's privately-held database, which contains sensitive information about millions of users, just so the government can try to defend a poorly written law? I see this as nothing more than a fishing expedition. Lord knows half the searches on google are probably for porn-related stuff, which the government could use damned lies and statistics to "prove" is bad for children. But the government has no right to demand this information.

    You know what's really bad for children? A tyrannical government bent on taking away the rights and liberties of its citizens. Will a child born today even taste freedom after they reach age 18? The way things are going, I rather doubt it.

    I hope Google fights this all the way and wins.

  18. Re:Miserable failure by WolfZombie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Searching for "Failure" alone works with Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" feature.

    Google "I'm Feeling Lucky" using "Failure"

  19. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by tourvil · · Score: 5, Funny
    Think Misintification.

    Mistakenly converting to an integer? ;)

  20. Re:Couldn't find this quote anywhere. by josefek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's truly frightening is that, in todays America, you had to give some consideration to whether that quote was factual or not.

    --
    rev.jsfk
  21. Ok - you're wrong by btarval · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "if you're innocent, you shouldn't have to worry ..."

    That's the logical fallacy of the sheep. Why is it so many people prefer to bury their heads in the sand, and refuse to learn?

    Sir, please open your eyes. Millions of innocent people have been slaughtered throughout human history (often within their own laws) by various governments. As shocking and frightening as it must seem to you, being innocent is no safeguard. Indeed, innocence has nothing to do with it when government officials are granted vast, unchecked power.

    The only safeguard between yourself and unjustified prosecution and imprisonment (or even death) is a thin, old piece of paper. And people's willingness to uphold the words written on it.

    I suggest you acquaint yourself with it.

    Or perhaps I should make it more simple. The Bush administration has shown itself willing to abuse the power it had before the Patriot Act was passed. The question now before us is what are the limits to its current power?

    You may not like the answer. Your "rights" have been redefined, and so has the definition of "abuse".

    Innocence isn't going to save you if you are currently viewed as the wrong type of person. Indeed, in such cases you no longer have a right to legal counsel, or to let other people know you have been detained. Or the right to a speedy trial.

    Welcome the new world that your elected representatives have given you. But please don't be under the mistaken assumption that innocence will protect you, or that the government isn't abusing your legally defined rights.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
  22. Re:Miserable failure by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 5, Funny

    There is a difference between 'Morals' and 'Ethics'

    Of course there is. The moral axis is defined by good, neutral, and evil, while the ethical axis is lawful, neutral, and chaotic.

    --
    Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
  23. Re:Miserable failure by QCompson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Before anybody mods this as a troll, I am directly replying to a modded up comment. Modding me down for simply disagreeing with your opinion is mod abuse.

    Plus, anyone who mods you as a troll is unpatriotic, unamerican, and quite possibly a terrorist/child pornographer.