Slashdot Mirror
DoJ search requests: Yahoo, AOL, MSN said "Yes"
d2viant writes "Elaborating on a previous article on Slashdot, it appears that the search engines which complied for Department of Justice requests for logs were apparently AOL, MSN, and Yahoo. According to the article, Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound."
As of July, 2005:
2 156431
Google: 36.5%
Yahoo: 30.5%
MSN: 15.5%
AOL: 9.9%
Ask: 6.1%
InfoSpace: 0.9%
Others: 0.6%
Soure: http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/
Probably more recent numbers around, but I doubt anything's changed dramatically in the past 6 months.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Google has been sued for not releasing the requested information.
There is no knowledge that is not power.
For an article on "administrative subpoenas," see here (linked to from here). I have not read the entire article, so I don't know if it's biased or not in its facts, but it does discuss some situations in which there doesn't need to be a trial to have subpoenas.
Quotes from the article here: http://news.com.com/Feds+take+porn+fight+to+Google /2100-1030_3-6028701.html?tag=nefd.lede
AOL response...
AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein confirmed that the company received a subpoena from the DOJ but said the information from the ACLU was not accurate.
"We did not and would not comply with such a subpoena. We gave (the DOJ) a generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly one day period. There were absolutely no privacy implications," Weinstein said. "There was no way to tie those search terms to individuals or to search results." He declined to elaborate.
Yahoo response...
Yahoo acknowledged on Thursday that it complied with the Justice Department's request but said no personally identifiable information was handed over. "We are vigorous defenders of our users' privacy," said Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako. "We did not provide any personal information in response to the Justice Department's subpoena. In our opinion this is not a privacy issue."
MSN response.... ?????
Please don't let the details hit you in the ass in reguards to AOL/Yahoo.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I work for an attorney, though I myself am not a lawyer, and our firm handles what are know as section 1983 cases. Section 1983 deals with police misconduct. One of our current endeavors (pardon the the lack of details, too much info would reveal the client) involves a person who had an arrest warrant issued on them as part of a civil case. Such an issuing is illegal. There was a case pending but, given that it was civil and not criminal an arrest warrant being issued became grounds for liability on the part of the county the warrant was issued from. That being known, I would think (this is in no way to be taken as legal advise) that issuing a subpoena when no case is pending would be a gross violation of the 4th Amendment which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, in this case I would think Google has a good leg to stand on. They are being asked to hand over information with no probable cause.
But I guess it's up to the courts to decide.
Say bad words about my book, in cold oatmeal, or I shall sue!
The Mercury News article explictly says that DOJ is asking for a court order because Google declined to comply with a subpoena.
And by your reasoning how big are MS's?
3 252582 49231
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/22/1
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=98/08/31/1
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
It's called the 4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It has been interpreted by the judicial system as a constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy on more than one occasion.
Someone care to make the connection between pornography and national security for me, because I'm not clear on the relationship. Not only is there no national security issue here, the Justice Dept. is starting with a conclusion and assembling mountains of meaningless data to support it. It's Iraq deja vu all over again.
Is there anyone still willing to stand up and defend this criminal and over-reaching administration? Anyone besides the drug addict windbag, the pervert with anger management issues and the neurotic shrew? Which one of you losers wants to include themselves with those dirtbags?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
However, in US v. Knox, a man got convicted of possessing kiddy pr0n for a videotape which showed underage girls who were fully clothed dancing.
No sexual acts + no nudity = child pr0n
It's a lot worse than you think.
I don't think so. It's a reasonable expectation that a private corporation should refrain from publishing or sharing information that you wish to keep private, such as your porn browsing habits, your credit card information, your medical history, and so on.
Of course, this will vary from company to company. It's best to check out someone's privacy policy to see whether they agree with you or not.
Go away, little troll.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?typ e=internetNews&storyID=2006-01-19T200124Z_01_N1930 3715_RTRUKOC_0_US-GOOGLE-PORNOGRAPHY.xml
Palaces, barricades, threats, meet promises
I think that speaks for itself. Child pornography laws are not just about exposed skin; they're around to prevent the exploitation of children in which Knox was very obviously (and self-admittedly) involved.
Uhm...
l
I just looked at the Budget for 1999 and 2005. 1998's actual spending on everything education-like was ~ 46,700,000,000. 2004's actual spending on everything education-like was ~ 52,542,000,000. That's not an increase of 86%. 46.7b is around 86% of 52.5b, true. But that isn't an 86% increase. Sorry.
Source: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/browse.htm
It's not just you guys. We have this sort of crap in the UK, too.
One of my favourite political comments of recent times came from Lord Hoffman, a Law Lord (our highest judicial authority). In the conclusion of a review of our recent "anti-terrorist" legislation, he stated:
I take some small comfort in the fact that the tide seems to be turning. Tony Blair has been handed a string of defeats in the House of Lords this week, including a heavy slap-down of his ID card proposals. In Parliament, there are enough rebels in his own party that even with his undeserved absolute majority of seats, he's unlikely to pass any further draconian legislation without making major concessions. His political career is effectively over, and when he goes, hopefully he'll take the heavy-handed Home Secretary types like Straw, Clarke and Blunkett with him.
Now all we need is some sort of written constitution so we can immediately overturn previous laws like the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and we might restore some semblance of civil liberty in this country. We can but hope...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Remember that unlike Google (and MSN), Yahoo, AOL and others use 'redirect' links, rather than direct links to sites. As a result, Yahoo, AOL etc track far more than the words you type into a search box because they actually know where you went after that.
;-)
u rveillance
Thus, any such spider should be 'clicking' those redirect links to inflate the stats somewhat
Incidentally, if you want a starting point, have a look at http://www.coofercat.com/wiki/EuropeanElectronicS
everyone needs to stop being confused about the issue here! we're talking about children accessing pornography, rather than starring in it. The term "Child Porn" is being thrown around a lot but that is not the issue at all.
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...