Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge May Force Google to Submit to Feds

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the lubricious-embankment dept.

illeism writes "News.com is reporting that a California judge may force Google to give the feds at least some of the information it wanted. The feds may get some of Google's index of sites but none of the user search terms. From the article, the judge said he was 'reluctant to give the Justice Department everything it wanted because of the "perception by the public that this is subject to government scrutiny" when they type search terms into Google.com.'"

4 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. Non random results by dedeman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Whats to say that Google won't decide which results to hand over, assuming that the judge feels that compromise is a great way to stomp on Constitutional rights. Perhaps they will turn over 50,000 searches on miserable failure.

    You want it feds? You got it. I'll commit to about 10,000 searches on that.

  2. Re:Less than originally expected by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1, Troll

    Yup. Google knew the Chinese people would "understand" if they caved in to their govt. without a fight, but knows in the U.S. we're not so complacent. So far. Bottom line is Google has no problem doing evil, as long as it doesn't hurt them. Hmm, kind of like Microsoft.

    --
    Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
  3. Re:Less than originally expected by twiddlingbits · · Score: 0, Troll

    What a f*cking crock of crap from the left wing "Civil Liberties" people. In fact the law is NOT needed at all, it's already a crime to reveal the existance of classified programs, and revealing a undercover operation by the police is also a crime. This is a left wing massive over-reaction to the "Domestic Spying" which is 100% LEGAL,as it does NOT target calls within the USA to another USA destination, and for those calls that are point-to-point in the USA the callers are "persons of interest in a Federal Criminal Investigation" which is also quite legal. Getting a judge to sign off is really a formality as when they see the evidence they usually will sign off. If you read the law, they are NOT breaking it and by the way every President INCLUDING BlowJob Bill used the provision in the law. Write this down, UNLESS you are a terrorist or are plotting terrorist acts with another citizen (and someone turned your name in) the Gov't is NOT listening to your calls. Congress knew all about this program for a long time, they got regular briefs, and they just choose to stir up sh*t in an election year. They (the liberals) really don't give as damn about National Security they just want to try to find SOMETHING to criticize GWB about. It's to the point where it is downright funny, they are grasping at anything to try to get an edge.

  4. Re:Reluctance? by qzulla · · Score: 0, Troll
    It isn't a "privacy issue" it is a 4th ammendment issue. Google has 4th ammendment rights. They are entitled to the protection from unwarrented searches. There is no crime being investigated in this request. This is the government trying to build a case where none exist.

    Amendment IV - Search and seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

    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.

    They do? Since when? They are a people and not a corporation? People are not corporations and vice versa and the subpeona was not unreasonable. They were notified in the due process of law.

    Hey, root for gogle in this battle but this constituional stuff really does not apply here.

    qz