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."

Comments

Re:whats the usage

[StikyPad]

As of July, 2005:

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/2 156431

Probably more recent numbers around, but I doubt anything's changed dramatically in the past 6 months.

Re:Sore Thumb -- Google Sued!

[skaet]

Google has been sued for not releasing the requested information.

AOL/Yahoo Misinformation...

[NullProg]

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,

Re:AOL/Yahoo Misinformation...

[afree87]

MSN response (from the same article):

A Microsoft representative said: "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested....It is our policy to respond to legal requests in a very responsive and timely manner, in full compliance with applicable law." The company would not confirm or deny whether it complied with the Justice Department's subpoena.

Re:IANAL, but...

[plantman-the-womb-st]

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.

Re:not only that

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[hondo77]

Go away, little troll.

You're misrepresenting the Knox case

[xiphoris]

You are misrepresenting the case. If you are really interested in the details, you can read more about it yourself. I'll post a relevant portion of the case, which is an advertisement (placed by the defendant) for the videos on question:

"Sassy Sylphs" will blow your mind so completely you'll be begging for mercy.

Just look at what we have in this incredible tape: about 14 girls between the ages of 11 and 17 showing so much panty and ass you'll get dizzy. There are panties showing under shorts and under dresses and skirts; there are boobs galore and T-back (thong) bathing suits on girls as young as 15 that are so revealing it's almost like seeing them naked (some say even better).

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.

Re:HornySpiderV1.0

[coofercat]

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.

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/EuropeanElectronicSu rveillance