Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Privacy Concerns

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the who-needs-that-kind-of-pressure dept.

Philip K Dickhead writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns over a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests on privacy grounds. The department claims this will help revive an online child protection law that the Supreme Court has blocked, by proving that Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography online. A federal court hearing is scheduled in San Jose, California, March 13th."

40 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. War on porn by October_30th · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this a surprise? The Bush admin is waging a war on porn and this is a logical step.

    --
    The owls are not what they seem
    1. Re:War on porn by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
      The Bush admin is waging a war on porn

      Stopping porn movies altogether is the only way to keep his daughters from eventually starring in one.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:War on porn by typical · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm reminded by Ashcroft (Bush's last Attorney General -- remember him?) covering up the statue "The Spirit of Justice" with curtains so that its one bare breast would be hidden.

      I thought that that was rather nicely symbolic.

      I rather figured at that point that things were probably going to keep going downhill.

      I like to consider the implications of that.

      It means that the British (who have *toplessness* on their television) are all hopeless perverts. Cultured? Certainly not. At least, they certainly don't give a damn about their children. In the eyes of the Bush Administration, that is.

      The British *invented* Victorianism and decided that it was a bad idea long ago, and moved on. We still haven't figured it out. I'm reminded of the Imperial unit system.

      We invaded Afghanistan, and encouraged women to throw off their burkas afterwards. We freed them from their social norms and gave them ours, because ours are clearly best.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  2. But... by keyne9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...wait, I thought censorship was bad and UnAmerican(TM)?

    1. Re:But... by Valdrax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...wait, I thought censorship was bad and UnAmerican(TM)?

      Only if you're some sort of commie liberal! In this post-9/11 world, UnAmerican is anything that criticizes the government, and anything the government does in violation of the Constitution and its amendments is kosher as long as it's to protect Americans from Evil People.

      Really, though, who's surprised at this. Their stated agenda here was to invade privacy to bolster a case for overturning a Supreme Court decision that prevents them from invading privacy... for the children, of course. Considering how much this administration has stacked every single non-partisan agency with as many political operatives as possible, it's no real surprise that the DoJ would rule in its own favor.

      Hell, even without that, it's no surprise that the DoJ would rule in its own favor. They've never been the most objective of agencies.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:But... by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, It's American for the parents in America to take responsability for raising their children. I monitor, as well as I can, the activities of my children, whether it's their time on the web, or what movie they go see with their friends. I don't care what other adults do together. They can watch what they want. I would rather explain to my son what that lady was doing to that pig rather than explain why he had such a hard time researching breast cancer online for his health report.

  3. Today Search, tomorrow Desktop by clevershark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All of you who use Google Desktop might want to uninstall it, just in case the "DoJ" starts going after that data next.

    --

    My sig is too lon

  4. Great Moments in Hypocrisy by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can the government really go after Google for aiding Chinese censorship and for NOT aiding US censorship AT THE SAME TIME?

    1. Re:Great Moments in Hypocrisy by RaymondInFinland · · Score: 2, Informative

      Is it possible to host a datacentre out at sea?

      Yes. See http://www.sealandgov.com/ and http://www.havenco.com/

    2. Re:Great Moments in Hypocrisy by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it possible to host a datacentre out at sea?

      Yeah, but if open water is a lawless land, can't a displeased government just blow it up without penalty?

  5. So what if a child sees pr0n on the Internet? by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I saw plenty of nudie pics and porn as a child and I'm pretty well-adjusted as an adult. Yes, seriously. I'm getting pretty sick of government types thinking they can run our lives better than we can.

    1. Re:So what if a child sees pr0n on the Internet? by cecom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I mean rubbing the clitoris gently and firmly is not that hard a concept!

      Well, this is somewhat of an oversimplifaction - you obviously lack the experience of a true master :-) Things like the pressure, the rythm and and sensitivity can vary significantly from female to female ... Constant and disciplined training with different partners is the only path to greatness.

      BTW, I am not speaking from experience - I read this on the Internet when I was 8 ...

  6. It could be worse ... by dc29A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh wait, it is worse. Let's hope it's not true.

    1. Re:It could be worse ... by Scarblac · · Score: 2, Informative

      That one is a hoax. When you upload a video to Google Video, you get to choose which countries you want to exclude from viewing it (say, for copyright reasons). Whoever uploaded that video of an explosion, supposedly in Iraq, chose to exclude only the US. End of story.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
  7. Asking for search data... by pubjames · · Score: 2, Informative

    Has the government really thought this through?

    They have to realise they're setting a precident here.

    Google works in many countries around the world. How is the US government going to react if, say, the EU requests the same data from Google? How about China? Or Iran?

    Are they restricting the data they gather to searches only made by US citizens? Because here in the EU there are pretty strong laws about how companies can use personal data they gather. If the US government forces them to hand over data that pertains to EU citizens, I believe Google will be breaking EU data laws and could be opening themselves up for legal action in the EU.

    Actually, there maybe something that EU citizens can do about this. Perhaps EFF Europe should start a campaign...

    1. Re:Asking for search data... by SolitaryMan · · Score: 3, Funny
      Has the government really thought this through?
      Have you seen the government?
      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
  8. No suprise here. by AltGrendel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    .. the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns over a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests on privacy grounds.

    This administration has no concept of the right to privacy, except when it come to them and their friends.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  9. Since When? by TheWorkz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since when did the government start caring about our children. I have a simple solution, Don't leave your child on your computer with internet access alone. When they are old enough to browse and be responsible by themselves, they are old enough to look at porn.. BUSH ADMIN, quit wasting resources on BS and fix the real issues at hand.. Like our Deficit, the war, social security and countless other items. Leave the parenting up to us.

  10. No surprise... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this a surprise? The Bush admin is waging a war on porn and this is a logical step.

    Logical yes.. but one gets the feeling that this has more to do with getting yet another controversial surveillance law enacted by attatching it to a campaign against child porn. The clever aspect of this tactic is that it is hard to be against this sort of a law because it is probably one of the the best ways to hunt down one of the most revolting but also elusive and dangerous species of pervert out there. On the other hand experience teaches us that once it is in place, such a law allowing the US. Govt. agencies to rifle through peoples search queries to their hearts content, is guaranteed to be massively abused by those same agencies for all sorts of other reasons that have nothing to do with catching pedophiles.

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:No surprise... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it is hard to be against this sort of a law because it is probably one of the the best ways to hunt down one of the most revolting but also elusive and dangerous species of pervert out there.

      No. Not really. Catching people who view child porn does nothing to help catch the ones who are actually making child porn. And even they are only a minority of the people who are actually ruining lives by abusing kids.

      If you want to stop 70% of sexual abuse of children, lock up their fathers. To stop another 30%, lock up their other close relatives too. You can knock off the next 8% by stopping them going to school. The tiny handful actual elusive pedophiles are involved in the remaining 2% of abuse. They are not a big problem, if you look at the full picture.

      Seriously. If you want to save the maximum number of children from the horrors of sexual abuse, target fathers, not strangers.

      Of course, that requires us to admit that the temptation to abuse children is, in fact, a natural part of human nature, just like the temptation to steal, the temptation to murder, and the temptation to cheat on your wife. The people who abuse kids sexually are not "monsters" or "perverts"... they're ordinary people, just like me, just like you, who have given in to one of the many dark sections of our nature, just like I have in other ways, just like you have in other ways.

      That's why people are so afraid of pedophiles. Because they know that in other circumstances, it could so easily have been them...

    2. Re:No surprise... by Glock27 · · Score: 2, Funny
      If you want to stop 70% of sexual abuse of children, lock up their fathers. To stop another 30%, lock up their other close relatives too. You can knock off the next 8% by stopping them going to school. The tiny handful actual elusive pedophiles are involved in the remaining 2% of abuse.

      Excellent! You've accounted for all 110% of them!

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
  11. Data Usefullness by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article:
    The Justice Department submitted a declaration by Philip B. Stark, a researcher who rejected the privacy concerns, noting that the government specifically requested that Google remove any identifying information from the search requests.

    "The study does not involve examining the queries in more than a cursory way. It involves running a random sample of the queries through the Google search engine and categorizing the results," Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said.

    So... exactly what information is these representatives of the US Government after? The fact that people search for porn? If they remove any identification of who, and thus what, the person is... what's going to tell them that any given search conducted by a wide-eyed innocent (queue Bush jokes) vs. a consenting adult?
    1. Re:Data Usefullness by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So... exactly what information is these representatives of the US Government after? The fact that people search for porn? If they remove any identification of who, and thus what, the person is... what's going to tell them that any given search conducted by a wide-eyed innocent (queue Bush jokes) vs. a consenting adult?

      IANAL, but.

      The government has tried repeatedly to censor the Internet over the past decade. The stated intention is to prevent minors from accessing material deemed harmful to minors, and whenever the issue comes up, elected officials of both parties fall all over themselves to make it look like they're doing all they can to protect the children (won't somebody please think of the children?!?)

      The Child Online Protection Act (COPA) passed about 7-1/2 years ago; it set a penalty of $50,000 and/or six months imprisonment on anyone who, for commercial purposes, makes information available online deemed harmful to children, without performing adequate checks on a user's age (e.g. credit card verification or user certificate). The Supreme Court blocked enforcement of the act because it intruded on protected First Amendment speech and because the government had failed to prove that the intent of the law could not be achieved through less intrusive means than, say, commercial filtering products that parents can buy and install on their own computers.

      I expect that the government's intention here is two-fold.

      First, they want to demonstrate that the problem of material "harmful to minors" is so widespread that no filtering product can be effective in blocking access, thus reopening the door to punishments levied against Web publishers. They don't have evidence of that themselves, so they're trying to force Google to make the case for them.

      Second, they're trying to shove the camel's nose into Google's tent--to set a precedent for future demands. If they can demand information on legal, constitutionally protected searches, they can demand it for anything. Google will become just another input into Bush's Orwellian data mining universe.

  12. Parents! by lennart78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once more, a nice display of reverse logics! If I, as a parent, fail to keep track of what my child is doing and/or looking at, I find someone to blame. And the federal government is backing me up on this one.

    If you have a small child, you, as a parent, should be aware of what kind of content your child has access to. Preview television shows, whitelist certain webpages. If you leave smutty magazines lying around the house, do you blame the editor if a child finds them and looks through it?

    Besides, sex is a natural thing, use education to enable your child to discern right from wrong, instead of keeping the whole subject hidden from him/her until marriage.

    Google has nothing to do with this battle the right-wing christians wage against the porn industry. I'm not saying that pornsites should advertise all over the net, or judge porn altogether, but the federal government is taking a very one-sided approach in this matter. The net has always been free, and it should remain that way. I agree with Googles view on this matter.

  13. Re:Hmm - maybe they should be allowed after all? by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 3, Informative
    They're right. Internet filters sucks, and if they can throw a court verdict after them, then maybe this will help end the censorship and convince the government that filters are a dead end.

    Or maybe I'm missing something?

    Sadly, you're missing something.

    Their conclusion will not be "Filters are a dead end, let's give up and throw them out."

    Their conclusion will be, "Filters are not absolutely 100% bullet-proof!!! Our kids are looking at PORN ON THE INTERNET!!! Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!", after which they will be free to re-pass a controversial, struck-down-by-the-courts censorship law restricting Internet porn. Sure, this will be about as effective as a law restricting the sharing of copyrighted mp3s, but even so, it's kind of sketchy that they're making these sorts of laws in the first place...

    --

    I am the man with no sig!

  14. Wedge Issue by Valdrax · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You're close but not quite on the money. This has wedge issue written all over it. Much like gay marriage in 2004 (and soon to be gay adoption in 2006), this is an issue to draw out the single-issue conservative voters to the polls. The point isn't necessarily to win this battle, though that'd be feather in the cap of the Republican Party, as it is to have the fight in the first place.

    The majority of American's wouldn't support a conservative agenda on the environment, healthcare, and corporate welfare, but they will support an agenda about terrorism and "protection of values." This is known as a "wedge issue." It's designed to drive a wedge between the conflicting loyalties of swing voters to force them to choose between two different positives and to draw out partisans from the woodwork who couldn't care enough to vote about economic policy issues.

    Bringing back up net filtering and monitoring gives the Republicans another chance to decry "liberal judicial activism" in a bid to install more pro-executive power, pro-business judges. As a bonus, they get to legislate morality and provide an in for more monitoring of citizens. In case you don't recall, sexual scandals are just about the only scandals that have any traction in the media any more, so the opportunity to catch a current or future politician looking at porn is a great tool for whoever's in power, and it's even better if your opposition consider using that power against your people to be wrong.

    This is just a win-win fight for the Republican Party no matter how it plays out.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  15. So let me get this straight by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Children need protection from porn, because it would be too bad if they would discover their sexuality on a normal speed which coupled with a good sexual education program can significantly reduce the number of underage pregnancies, on the other hand the administration encourages and is fine with the military recruiting from schools, sharing schoolchildren's data in a huge opt-out database and sending these kids to Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Clearly, porn is the danger here. Think of the kids!

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:So let me get this straight by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Is "normal speed" age 6-8, and is the place for "good sexual program" the internet?"

      The real question is, should kids at the age of 6-8 use a COMPLEX electronic equipment at all without parental supervision?

      If you think they should, is it the government's job to protect them instead of their parents?

      Personally I think that kids under 10 shouldn't be exposed to porn, but that is a parental responsibility to take care of. I don't see the government planning to ban sexual content from television in it's whole, because if we assume the same amount of parental neglect which surfing for porn on the internet would assume, then it is entirely likely that young children can stay up and watch porn on tv after 11 or something.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
  16. Government motives by Valdrax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh, Chinese are leftist, current US Government is viewed as Right Wing. Silly me!

    Hoo boy. A partisan. Guess what? Just because you take somebody's side on one issue (like Google and the DoJ) doesn't mean that you have to take their side on another issue (like Google and China). Yes, shocking -- I know.

    My main complaint is in why the government wants this data. I'm less happy with Google after the China bit, but I'm more unhappy with China itself. In case you didn't know, China also claims that censorship of porn and terrorism are their major reasons for filtering the internet. A lot of people don't know that despite being officially atheist, the Chinese government spends just as much time beating the drum of public morality as many openly religious political organizations.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:Government motives by FinalCut · · Score: 2, Informative

      are you a tool or just a fool?

      Google isn't doing anything particularly bad in China - google.com is still available just like it always was to the Chinese - uncensored. Oh wait, it is censored just the user's don't know what parts are cut out. Hrm... So now google.cn is there and censored just like google.com except now the users actually know when something is being censored AND they have a more responsive experience.

      So by giving Chinese users the same access to information they had before, with better performance, and furhter insight into the dataset returned Google is wrong?

      please. Google would have been worse by doing nothing or pulling out of China all together. But, of course, nobody wants to actually think about the consequences of Google fully censoring themselves (shutting down in China) or of not taking a more proactive stance towards the problems faced by the govenmental censorship of google.com

  17. Re:Who gave the DoJ jurisdiction? by A+Commentor · · Score: 2, Informative
    Google should be forced to turn over evidence in response to a court's order, and by nothing less. The DoJ can shove it.


    Noone has, yet... this was just a filing by the DeptOfInjustice to the court. Of course they would reject the claim, if not, they would have their case thrown-out...

    Doij: "Yes, Judge we agree with Google that this violates the customer's privacy, but we still want the records anyway."...

    Judge: "?!?!?"

    --

    Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com

  18. Not really accurate by brunes69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The SC *is* the last word when it comes to interpereting the constitution. If the SC rules a law is unconstitutional, the other branches have basically four options - re-write the law so that it is constitutional, give up, wait until the structure of the SC changes enough that they may win a reversal, or amend the constitution.

    The last option, is of course, difficult to pull off. So for the majority of issues you only have the first three options. But none of this says that the government can not continue to push new evidence before the SC to try and get it to reverse it's opinion. Then again, the SC doesn't have to hear those cases either.

    What's really going on here, is the government is trying to get new evidence just as *an excuse* to place the issue befor ethe SC again, because they think that with the recent change son the bench, they will prevail regardless of the new evidence.

    1. Re:Not really accurate by acvh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you left out an important option: remove the SC's jurisdiction from the matter at hand.

      The only reason the SC is treated as the last word is because they claimed that right in Marbury v Madison. There is nothing in the constitution about it.

  19. When did the issue become "privacy"? by chris81 · · Score: 2, Informative

    A few days ago, Google's official response to the DoJ was posted on the Google Blog.

    According to Google, among the reasons they are refusing to comply is because they are trying "to protect their trade secrets and proprietary systems". They add that complying with the request would be a great technological burden, and possibly create legal risks.

    There is only a single mention of concern for its users' privacy - and that concern is not based any moral grounds: they merely fear any liabilities for violating their privacy policy.

    Note: I'm not critizing Google for this. Their actions are entirely reasonable; after all, Google is not a charity, it is a company. I'm just sick of all the "Google does this, Google does that" media hype distorting reality. If you're going to put Google on a stand for its China decision or any privacy-related issues, do the same for the others among the "Big-Five" search engines. I own Google stock myself; I don't care if you idealized Google and your dreams burst, I want my investment protected.

  20. Re:Google Gives US The Finger, But Gives Head To P by typical · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or *maybe* it's because Chinese law and social norms state that the Chinese government gets to censor. US law and social norms state that the current administration doesn't get to demand data of random companies (without criminal investigation or other justification) to push their partisian issues.

    1) Much of Google's assets are their search data.

    2) Google has a reputation to protect. If they don't draw a line in handing over data, people cannot trust that their searches are private. If I can go use a search engine based on Sealand instead of Google because that one is private because it doesn't fall under US law, then obviously I'm going to use that. Google is protecting their customer.

    Man, you Google-haters *love* to try to use the "but teh chinks is evil!" argument.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  21. For MY Child!!!!!! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Think of the Children!!! Think of my poor child!!!

    At the tender age of 15, my child was brutally and without warning assailed by Janet Jackson's breast during the superbowl. This callous and unjustified act of forcefull thrusting the wide world of filthy perverted sex upon my innocent offspring forever changed the way I looked at this issue.

    My child, while on the internet can be exposed to images of the naked breasts, and even obscene images of female genitalia. This is a shocking and tramatic expierience for any child, and I resent having to deal with the fallout from what some people like to call "excercising their rights". There is no excuse for ludity on the internet. None!

    I fully support the governments efforts to protect my child from the shocking plethora of scandel and depravity that exists on the world wide web.

    I support this for my child! She deserves better!

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  22. Fishing expedition????? by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't this really just a fishing expedition? The law they wanted to implement to protect children from porn was struck down by the Supreme Court.

    Now, in an effort to get evidence that what they wanted to do isn't really in violation of the constitution, they want the chance to go on a fishing expedition and get the information they've been told they can't have.

    So now the DOJ is saying they reject the right of Google to not furnish information to allow them to appeal the constitutional ruling which went against them?

    So the DOJ is, in effect, saying that they require the search engines to provide the information they need to appeal a court ruling? (Which if enacted, would be the search engine's responsibility to implement.)

    So, why is Google being forced to help make the government's case, when the SCOTUS has already told them they can't have it?

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  23. Do it for the children... by stewie's+deuce · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, this is NOT at all suprising. Americans are just about willing to give up their first born (pun) for security. One of my favorite political drivel is ".. for the children." For the children we have laws that raise property taxes and take away more individual freedom.

    us constituation states "..people to be secure in their persons... " well... unless its "...for the children."

  24. this is not a privacy issue by thisislee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...At least not for the average googler(of course it is a privacy issue for google itself) The government is not asking for records of who searched for what. All they want is statistics on behavior of googlers as a whole with no identifying information.

    That said, Google's real argument is that this puts on undue burden on them, the government has no reason to expect that this data is at all useful, this data, by the govenrment's admission, is not ment to be used as evidence, and that this data could be used to discover trade secrets.

    Most people seem to be complaining that this is very bad because it violates their own privacy. It seems like it's very bad moreso because the government is abusing its power to force Google to give it information that may hurt its business most likely in order to use shotty science to further its religious conservative agenda.

  25. Why is the government priveliged in this case? by snowwrestler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Justice Dept. is not prosecuting a crime, they are appealing a ruling. And the data from Google would not prove the DOJ's case (it is not direct evidence), but would rather assist in building circumstantial support for the case.

    So why should Google be forced to comply? In such a proceeding it's not clear to me that the DOJ somehow has "greater" rights than any other appellate litigant. If I appeal some ruling someday, can I force Google to give up their trade secrets, on the basis that they might provide circumstantial support for my case?

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.