Judge May Force Google to Submit to Feds

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.'"

Comments

Less than originally expected

[ackthpt]

At least the judge is favouring less than the gorvernment originally requested, still... I feel this is again the over-eager government wiping its feet on the flag and blowing its nose in the Constitution.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Tweekster]

if you read the article you would notice that google does not oppose the extremely limited amount of info requested. and if the govt would have asked in the first place they wouldnt have gone to court.

Re:Less than originally expected

[TheGavster]

Just to be on the safe side, I'll move the gift shop copies from a childhood visit to the National Archives to the side of the desk away from the memory slot ...

Re:Less than originally expected

[MightyMartian]

How much does anyone want to wager that Dubya has never even read the entire text of the Constitution?

Re:Less than originally expected

[nwbvt]

Yeah, but "Google defending privacy against evil government goons" is a nicer soundbite. That way they sound like they care about the rights of their users (unless of course they live in China).

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bill Dog]

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.

Re:Less than originally expected

[flyingsquid]

How much does anyone want to wager that Dubya has never even read the entire text of the Constitution?

What George W. Bush really needs is a practical lesson in checks and balances: people need to make sure they're registered to vote and then, this fall, go out and vote against the Republican congressional candidates. Even assuming their Democratic replacements aren't any better, losing a few seats will help limit the damage that Bush and the Republicans can do.

We've had a disastrously planned war, spending increases that make the Democrats look like cheapskates, a massive deficit, an incompetent response to Katrina, a gulag in Cuba, they're chipping away at our civil liberties, and they're destroying the checks and balances that have kept this country running for the past two hundred years. All of this has happened on the Republican party's watch. With complete control of Congress and the White House, the Republican Party has been free to do whatever it pleases, and the result of implementing their ideas has been a disaster for this nation.

At worst, voting the Republicans out would result in total gridlock, with the government unable to do anything. But that would be a massive improvement over the way the country is currently run.

Re:Less than originally expected

[qeveren]

"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - Dubya

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bill Dog]

Not sure how that pertains to anything, but since the judge surely must have, since it's directly applicable to his job, I wonder where he saw the part about "perception by the public" in there. As in, being reluctant to decide a certain way because of public perception. Maybe he should instead just fucking do his job and make a judgment based on the Constitution and existing laws and legal precedent, and let the branch of govt. that should be highly susceptible to public perception change the law if and when enough people are outraged.

Re:Less than originally expected

[PoconoPCDoctor]

I posted similar sentiments on my blog - "But this President's time in office will pass, and we will elect another in his stead. I can only hope that when the next President swears to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.," that Constitution will still be worth defending."

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bull999999]

Even assuming their Democratic replacements aren't any better, losing a few seats will help limit the damage that Bush and the Republicans can do.

While I'm not fan of the current administration, I don't think that blindingly voting Democrats to spite Republicans. The problem is that there are too many people who expect the government to do everything for them. Take a look at Europe and Canada. People expected the liberals to fix everything for them and when that didn't happen, they started to elect more conservatives. If Democrats gain power in a couple of years, do you really think that the Americans will:

1. Spend less money on crap that they don't need. Even worse, putting it on a credit card? Current savings rate for the Americans is at -0.4% and it looks like Canadians are headed that way as well.

2. Eat better and exercise more? While people bitch about health care costs going up, they do nothing to curb it themselves because obesity rate is going up and I'm pretty sure that doesn't help with the medial costs.

3. Have higher turnout for the Election Day? Kerry was a favorite amongst the younger crowd but unfortunately for him, they proved again that they have the poorest turnout of all age groups. This shows that while the younger crowd bitches loud, they constantly fail to deliver.

Re:Less than originally expected

[bishop32x]

I think it runs along the lines of the avoiding "corruption or the appearance of corruption" which is written into the campaign finance reform laws. The judge is saying that the knowledge that the gorvernment is reciaving all of the google search from a given period, say a month (what the DOJ requested), would having a chilling effect on free speech whether or not the gorvenment actually does or can do anything with that data.

Re:Less than originally expected

[killjoe]

A couple of days ago there was a topic about a bill that would criminlize critizing the presidents survaillance program. Many people said something to the effect "this will never get through the courts".

I invite those people to carefully observe how far backwards the courts can bend to appease the federal govt.

Re:Less than originally expected

[wile_e_wonka]

At least the judge is favouring less than the gorvernment originally requested, still... I feel this is again the over-eager government wiping its feet on the flag and blowing its nose in the Constitution.

Is this a Brit or Canadian speaking up for the US citizenry?

Re:Less than originally expected

[Punboy]

Um, Google's presence in China is a good thing and they, being an all-powerful corporate entity in control of a lot of resources, can help pressure China into lessening their crazy web restrictions.

But, Google has to be ALLOWED in China first.

Re:Less than originally expected

[DoofusOfDeath]

This is so hard for me...

I really do think strict constructionism is the only correct approach to the constitution. And I'm mostly convinced that abortion is murder. And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution. (Perhaps there are other reasons for permittting it however.) For these reasons I am, no... was, pro-Republican.

But how do I weigh those really important issues against what Bush + the Republican congress has done to us? The deficits make me fear for my childrens' future. I think global free trade is probably a bad idea. His appointment of the inept guy to run FEMA prior to Katrina was truly, in my mind, a case of graft deserving of impeachment. And his administration's acceptance of torture, or near torture, as a good idea make me want to vomit - forget about have him represent my country. And of course there was the administrations basically dropping Microsoft's antitrust abuse culpability when Bush came into office.

It's so hard to balance these issues. Will we ever have a president we can feel really good about again? This all makes me so sad...

Re:Less than originally expected

[hobbit]

A couple of days ago there was a topic about a bill that would criminlize critizing the presidents survaillance program.

Could you please provide some references for this?

Re:Less than originally expected

[scotch]

Heterosexual marriage isn't a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution, either.

Re:Less than originally expected

[ToxicBanjo]

...over-eager government wiping its feet on the flag and blowing its nose in the Constitution.

Good ol' "W" himself has some thoughts on this.

Re:Less than originally expected

[bladesjester]

I think this is what he was talking about.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Here is the story in question. It's even worse than outlawing criticism, actually; it would outlaw any reporting on the program at all. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that this is the worst challenge free speech in the US has faced since the Sedition Act.

Re:Less than originally expected

[yurnotsoeviltwin]

There's a big difference: in the US, they had a chance of winning. In China, it was either censor or nothing, and as the other poster here mentioned, it gives Google a foothold in China from which they can attempt to affect some change.

Re:Less than originally expected

[ttfkam]

First, conservative and liberal mean different things in Canada and Europe. To those regions, a conservative is what the US would call a liberal Democrat. A liberal is what the US would call the Green party or a socialist party.

And before you continue to slam those regions, check out what the US spends on health care versus those countries. Bear in mind that these stats are from 1991. They are worse now in most areas except paid maternity leave (unless Bush rolled back those improvements too).

We spend more and get less. Nice.

Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world's median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year--or close to four hundred billion dollars--on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance. A country that displays an almost ruthless commitment to efficiency and performance in every aspect of its economy--a country that switched to Japanese cars the moment they were more reliable, and to Chinese T-shirts the moment they were five cents cheaper--has loyally stuck with a health-care system that leaves its citizenry pulling out their teeth with pliers.

...

The issue about what to do with the health-care system is sometimes presented as a technical argument about the merits of one kind of coverage over another or as an ideological argument about socialized versus private medicine. It is, instead, about a few very simple questions. Do you think that this kind of redistribution of risk is a good idea? Do you think that people whose genes predispose them to depression or cancer, or whose poverty complicates asthma or diabetes, or who get hit by a drunk driver, or who have to keep their mouths closed because their teeth are rotting ought to bear a greater share of the costs of their health care than those of us who are lucky enough to escape such misfortunes? In the rest of the industrialized world, it is assumed that the more equally and widely the burdens of illness are shared, the better off the population as a whole is likely to be. The reason the United States has forty-five million people without coverage is that its health-care policy is in the hands of people who disagree, and who regard health insurance not as the solution but as the problem.

  - Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker

Re:Less than originally expected

[kimvette]

This is nothing new. Every president for the last 100 years or so has been disregarding the Constitution, as has Congress. Why should the judicial branch be any different?

Re:Less than originally expected

[3fiddy]

Will we ever have a president we can feel really good about again?

Again? When did we have a feel-good president in our lives (or ever?) You're fooling yourself if you think anyone has lived up to that recently. I will grant that dubya is about the worst president I can think of in this nation's history, but I think you'd be hard pressed to convince me we've had a truly decent president in the last 30 years (my life.)

A big part of the problem is the single-issue voting that the two-party system creates, perpetuates, and feeds off of. But anyway, this is pretty far off topic. So, boooo google for rolling over.

Re:Less than originally expected

[necrognome]

It's so hard to balance these issues. Will we ever have a president we can feel really good about again? This all makes me so sad...

I think you could feel good about Feingold, Hagel, or (maybe) Mark Warner; possibly others... McCain and H. Clinton have shown themselves to be mere politicians.

Disclaimer: I am of the left side of the fence, sort of a "libertarian with a social conscience".

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bull999999]

So are you saying that the Americans eat poorly and exercise less because of high health care costs? Or are you impling that diet and exercise has no impact on health care costs?

To those regions, a conservative is what the US would call a liberal Democrat.

And since when did liberal Democrats wanted to reach out to Bush? Warming relationship with the US is one of their goals.

We spend more and get less. Nice.

My wife got an MRI in less than a week so that counts for something. If Canadian healthcare is so perfect, why are private clinics poping up?

From http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page6.html The advantage of private clinics is that they typically offer services with reduced wait times compared to the public health care system. For example, obtaining an MRI scan in a hospital could require a waiting period of months, whereas it could be obtained much faster in a private clinic. Why did they pass a law to prevent private clinics? What are they afraid of?

Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act. Regardless of this legal issue, many do offer such services.

From http://www.mult-sclerosis.org/news/Dec2002/WomanwM SCanadianPrivateClinics.html

But at the Canada Diagnostic Centre clinic in Halifax, Viscount said public demand for private clinics in Nova Scotia -- where waiting times are weeks rather than months at hospitals -- will remain.

In her case, the MRI scans of her brain could show telltale fissures and reveal multiple sclerosis, an unpredictable neurological condition that in extreme cases causes blindness and paralysis.

With early treatment, the disease is easier to combat. That's why patients eager to relieve anxiety will keep paying for private-clinic results, said Viscount.

"I think it's another option for the public," the woman, in her 20s, said before her test.

"You have a choice of where you want to eat, where you want to drink. This is the same.

From http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/01/11 /private-care060111.html

But critics say the cost associated with such private clinics is out of reach for most families. Sharon Sholzberg-Gray, president of the Ottawa-based Canadian Healthcare Association, says a family of four could face a $10,000 bill.

"There's a certain limited client base for that. That is not the way to run a health-care system and that is not going to solve access issues for most Canadians."

She says the opening of private clinics highlights the government's need to address a shortage of family physicians.

Combined with dwindling savings and rising healthcare costs, it looks like Canada's on track to becoming a 51st state of USA. No wonder why its citizens are fed up with their government. Do you still think that the grass looks greener on the other side? Oh and bare in mind that the above article was updated January 2006.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Anonymous Coward]

"And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution. "

Neither is eating ice-cream with a fork, but you are still alloweed to do it.

Re:Less than originally expected

[fuzznutz]

... For these reasons I am, no... was, pro-Republican.

I couldn't have said it better myself. As a registered Republican, I intend to vote against all the incumbent Republicans this fall, simply because I fear having no opposition to the President. I cannot believe they didn't call him on the wiretap issue. I cannot believe they renewed the PATRIOT Act.

I am worried...

Re:Less than originally expected

[LouisZepher]

Could be USian as well, I prefer spelling in that manner myself. Eitherway we have someone that's a) standing up for US citizens, b) using proper spelling (albiet, with a cultural lean) and grammar...on Slashdot.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Maxo-Texas]

McCain is the one republican I could see voting for right now.

I voted against bush both elections (can't say that I really voted "for" the dems).

I want a libertarian party.

Small government, small taxes, and small benefits.
Large social freedoms. Since no benefits- personal responsibility for the social freedoms you decide to act on.

But libertarian philosophy doesn't work in an age of billionaires- it is to easy for them to warp libertarian into "give all rights to the billionaires and their lawyers".

I'll probably end up voting against the republicans again--- unless it's mccain.

Re:Less than originally expected

[PoopMonkey]

Completely offtopic, but with the whole "u-spelling" of many words, I'd say its use is inappropriate if you look at the etymology of the words. For instance, look at favor. "Middle English, friendly regard, attractiveness, from Old French favor friendly regard, from Latin, from favEre to be favorable." It might be because I took Latin as my language in school, but I generally consider words closer to the original form to be the correct spelling. Might also be because I don't like wasting things, even letters :P Which is also why I liked Latin, if you saw a letter, you pronounced it, none of this "silent letter" crap.

Re:Less than originally expected

[zcat_NZ]

It's outragous that a gentle and social company like Google should be subject to the same law that Jane LOL Webcunt has to obey.

And vice-versa.

When's the last time J. L Webcunt had to had over a bunch (only a few mere terrabytes) of their personal or business data to the Feds for no better reason than because the Feds thought it might be useful to have?

An actual court case I can understand, if it's relevent, and if the same information can't be obtained by some less obtrusive means. But the Government hardly needs to ask googke to figure out that there's a crapload of pr0n on the web and an approximately equal number of people looking for it.

Re:Less than originally expected

[LouisZepher]

A very valid and interesting point. However, as far as the "cultural lean" I mentioned goes, the usage of the "u" is correct. Unless you mean to imply that "your" is appropriate when meaning "you are", I don't think many of the spelling issues we see everywhere can be chalke-up as the "l33t" culture.

Re:Less than originally expected

[necrognome]

I can respect that, although I'm stilled pissed that McCain has seen fit to "make nice" with the same asshats that stabbed him in the back in the 2000 elections (n.b. Rove's "tactics" in the South Carolina Republican primaries).

Re:Less than originally expected

[DanTheLewis]

One person's strict constructionism is another person's extratextual bastardization. I sympathize with this position on the Constitution, because I have lived it in an analogous context (Biblical interpretation), but I have come to see it as deeply flawed special pleading. [/hermeneutics]

I'm heartened by your words that abortion and gay marriage are no longer the only part of your politics. I voted for Bush in 2000 because of abortion (in Washington State), and I've regretted it since. Real life is a bit more squishy than these single-issue stands. The Schiavo case only made that fact more clear, in my view.

Keep running with these ideas. Religious civil war in Iraq: a moral issue. Being spied on by the government: a moral issue. Poor people dying in the aftermath of a hurricane: a moral issue. All of life is a moral issue.

Re:Less than originally expected

[rwven]

Give me a break and do your research. The Sedation Act outlawed willfully and purposely reporting false information that would aid the enemies of the US or hurt the US' national security. It had nothing to do with free speach.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Nefarious Wheel]

If they want the information, why don't they just search for it? I'd suggest Alta Vista...

j/k, honest...

Re:Less than originally expected

[tolkienfan]

Gay marriage and abortion may be important issues - but none that should be the concern of government.

To choose an administration based on such marginal subjects is to miss the point.

The two parties agree on more than they disagree on, and use these highly controversial subjects to (incredibly successfully) distract the general public. Ever notice that the public is roughly 50/50 split on most of the issues that were debated the last few elections?

Ever wonder what WASN'T debated???

Re:Less than originally expected

[ttfkam]

Population of the US: 295,734,134
Number without any health insurance: ~45,000,000

With Canada, you speak of the difference between an MRI in a week instead of months.

With the US, it's the difference between getting an MRI or not at all. (Any stats on how long it takes on average to get an MRI in the US?)

With Canada, you bring up the anecdotal evidence of one woman with multiple sclerosis.

With the US, I bring up the statistically sound evidence that the life expectancy of the entire country of Canada per capita is higher than the US, the infant mortality rate is lower than the US, the amount of money spent per capita is less than the US, the death rate is lower than the US (even if you subtract the US's obscenely high murder rate), etc.

If Canadian healthcare is so perfect, why are private clinics poping up?

1. I never said that Canadian healthcare was perfect. Go back and review my post Mr. Strawman Argument.
2. Private clinics are popping up because people are commonly willing to shell out some extra cash -- if they have it -- when sick and usually (with justification) afraid.

Those with larger disposable incomes will always be more vocal about their right to cut in line on the basis of wealth than those below the poverty line. But rather than pooling their funds to get more physicians in the general workforce, they go for the quick fix that helps far fewer as long as the fewer includes themselves.

It's like bottled water. With all the money spent on bottled water every year, imagine what it would be like if that same money were spent managing the general water supply and enforcing clean water laws.

Canadian healthcare is far from perfect. Then again, it's like capitalism: the worst form of economic policy known to man, save all the others. US healthcare falls within the category of "one of the others."

Re:Less than originally expected

[mrraven]

If by "The current [Dems] leadership are a bunch of wild-eyed, press hogging nutballs." you mean ball less wonders who have done NOTHING to oppose Bush's lying us into war and riding roughshod over the constitution I would agree with you. The Dems have a few good eggs like Feingold, McKinney, Conyers, and Kucinich who actually act as opposition to Bush but in the main the Dems DLC leadership like Lieberman are ball less suck ups to the neo-cons and Bush. In fact the Dems actively destroy their best up and coming leaders like Hackett and Cindy Sheehan both of whom were forced to bow out by the Dems leadership. The Daily Show had an excellent look at the ball less wonder quality of Dems on Tuesday night. If you have a good local Dem who stands up for your rights by all means vote for them, but don't expect me too DLC Dems like Lieberman, Hilary Clinton, Schumer, Biden, etc, to change anything other than possible be WORSE prigs about censorship than the heavily distracted Bush and call for a draft in the name of "fairness." Fuck that!

Re:Less than originally expected

[Anonymous Coward]

"To those regions, a conservative is what the US would call a liberal Democrat. A liberal is what the US would call the Green party or a socialist party."

Actually, outside of the US, they still think of liberals as being small government people, more like what American libertarians are. Your comparison would have worked better if you'd used the terms right/left, which carry better. Conservatives refer to people trying to maintain the status quo: the socialists.

The basic point is sound. Bill Clinton would have been considered right of center (or centre) in most countries. However, your use of the American terms to categorize non-Americans left me re-reading your post several times trying to figure out what you were trying to say.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Toba82]

I couldn't have said that better. This is exactly how I feel about politics right now and I wish more people realized what you and I (and based on the number of replies, quite a few others) do.

Now time to go way out on a (semi serious and semi humorous) limb:
Do you really think everyone who voted for Hitler realized what kind of man he was at the time?

Re:Less than originally expected

[houghi]

Google's presence [...] can help pressure China into lessening their crazy web restrictions

Google is a company and should stay away from politics. Eiter they comply to what is being done or they stay away. Those are the only options.

Having companies go in for political reasons is wrong in very many levels.

Re:Less than originally expected

[LordEd]

In Canadian public healthcare, there are 2 types of waitlist: urgent and non-urgent. If you need urgent care, you receive it asap. If you are not in immediate need, you go on the waitlist.

In some cases, the waits might be longer than a non-public system, but at least you won't go bankrupt due to emergency healthcare bills.

Of interest, google thinks that 1/2 of all bankruptcies are caused by medical bills

Re:Less than originally expected

[Anonymous Coward]

God damnit people. Get it straight. The primary function of the constitution wasn't to define "rights" it was to restrict the power of the government. The bill of rights was an afterthought. Just to make double sure certain things were really clear. Turns out that was a big fucking mistake. Now everyone thinks things like that have to be in the constitution.
 
"Honey? Do we have a right to free speech? I don't know honey, let me check the CONSTITUTION!"
 
"Sweetheart, what's a right? .. I don't know sweetheart, isn't it something that is written in the constitution?"
 
You people have lost the spirit of independence. Who gives a shit about Canadian healthcare? Is that what this country is for? To maximize lifespan and minimize infant mortality? The FEDERAL government's response to Katrina? Let me knit you all some big fluffy fucking mittens. You can bump around in padded suits all day long and let the government feed you SOMA. I hope you all rot. The stench around here is unbearable anyway.

Re:Less than originally expected

[BungoMan85]

That's because no one here in America has any concept of saving up in case of emergencies. They'd rather spend their money now on stuff they really don't need than save it in case they have to shell out tons of money for a hospitol bill. I'm super paranoid about it, and I will be prepared, even without insurace.

Re:Less than originally expected

[killjoe]

" 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."

So why are republicans pushing for this law? It's because it goes much further then you have stated.

  ""Domestic Spying" which is 100% LEGAL,"

Lie

"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. "

Lie

"Getting a judge to sign off is really a formality as when they see the evidence they usually will sign off. "

Since the FISA court is nothing but a rubber stamp for the president why bypass them in the first place?

"If you read the law, they are NOT breaking it"

Lie

" and by the way every President INCLUDING BlowJob Bill used the provision in the law."

Lie.

" 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."

Lie

"Congress knew all about this program for a long time, they got regular briefs,"

Lie

  " They (the liberals) really don't give as damn about National Security"

Lie

  "they just want to try to find SOMETHING to criticize GWB about."

Lie.

So are you pants on fire yet?

Re:Less than originally expected

[Martigan80]

they're chipping away at our civil liberties

Ahh I don't think there are any chips flying friend-it's more like huge freakin boulders being blowen away via explosives.

Re:Less than originally expected

[10Ghz]

A liberal is what the US would call the Green party or a socialist party.

Huh? I'm from Finland, and in here the word "Liberal" is associated with personal liberties and responsibilities, free markets, low taxation and the like. Hardly something the Greens and Socialists advocate.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Asic Eng]

Will we ever have a president we can feel really good about again?

Probably not, but is that a reasonable expectation to have of a person anyway? That a whole country, or even just the majority of the electorate would feel good about him? Consider how different people are, how many things which seem trivial to one person are central core beliefs of the next. The only hope someone could have of pleasing all, would be to lie to most. Not a very desirable option, I think.

So why not accept that you just need to find someone for the job, that you'll probably never find someone who is perfect, and that you can only help to select which of the available candidates is the better one? The US system does not assume that the president is perfect - quite the opposite, it put in checks and balances for a good reason.

Re:Less than originally expected

[MattParkins]

I'm from the UK and I'm pretty sure these guys have no idea what they're talking about regarding at least UK politics. -m@

Re:Less than originally expected

[Pakaran2]

Yeah, because Diebold is certain to record votes for democratic candidates.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Breakfast Pants]

Explain why.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Politburo]

And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution.

Do you believe heterosexual marriage is guaranteed in the Constitution? Why or why not?

Re:Less than originally expected

[danpsmith]

Waiting for care for a month is still better than no care at all, which is what a large number of people many of whom take on the majority of the tax burden have to deal with. We pay more in taxes every year it seems, despite the promises otherwise, and yet we don't get much back for our money. State run health care, no matter how bad, is a step up from none, and I believe we pay enough to receive it. Health care is so bad in this country we have movies about it (John Q.). The private sector has ultimately failed in its attempt to provide whole health care, they are simply too greedy. Why not give state-run health care at least a partial shot?

Re:Less than originally expected

[Politburo]

Take a look at Europe and Canada. People expected the liberals to fix everything for them and when that didn't happen, they started to elect more conservatives

What an insightful political analysis. However, at least for Canada, it is completely wrong based on what I've read. My understanding is that conservatives won in Canada for three main reasons. One, the liberal government was corrupt. Two, like in the US, conservatives successfully convinced many Canadians that liberals were only interested in the cities. Three, the liberal vote was diluted by the smaller parties Bloc Quebecois and NDP (not meant to imply that all Bloc or NDP voters would have voted liberal otherwise). Canada isn't going to suddenly give up national heathcare because they have a 'conservative' government. As the sibling pointed out, Canadian con != US con.

Any canucks please chime in and correct as necessary.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Kjella]

Gay marriage and abortion may be important issues - but none that should be the concern of government.

Well, last time I checked someone who didn't like gay marriage or having abortions had every right not to enter a gay marriage or have an abortion. The only remaining question is if a majority can pass laws forbidding it. It's a nice strawman argument to end up at free gay marriage and free abortion, but you don't make much of a case as to why - the government seems to meddle with everything else.

On gay marriage, around here it's the biggest non-issue I've ever seen but then we seem to be a lot more liberal than the US when it comes to sex and nudity in general. I *almost* got tired of seeing tits after that Janet Jackson incident when every newspaper and TV channel was posting close-ups all the time. And what you do in private, well it's your own fucking business (literally).

As far as abortion goes, IMO either it has human rights or it doesn't, and if it does that it has them in full and equal to any other human. I'm of the opinion that they don't, but I realize some people do. What I don't understand is the intermediate stages where the fetus has the right to life - except if it is incest or rape or whatever. Either it has, or it hasn't, or you're saying that some right of the mother overrides the most fundamental right there is - the right to life itself. I can't make such "half-human" rights make sense.

Ever notice that the public is roughly 50/50 split on most of the issues that were debated the last few elections?

It is a result of the US election system. If the "middle line" is moving, both parties would change their politics to match since having 40% of the votes makes you essentially powerless. So no matter if the US is moving left or right you'll always have 50/50 splits.

Re:Less than originally expected

[LordEd]

I never thought of it that way, but I think here in Canada, we call that "taxes".

Re:Less than originally expected

[Hrodvitnir]

The USA is a perfect example of why Corporations dabbling in politics is a Bad Thing(TM). Corporations have a lot of money to bribe-er.. lobby the government with, which can get laws enacted that benefit them and not the average citizen.

All I need to say for an explanation is: D.M.C.A.

Re:Less than originally expected

[s!mon]

The primary function of the constitution wasn't to define "rights" it was to restrict the power of the government. The bill of rights was an afterthought. Just to make double sure certain things were really clear.

My understanding is that the amendments were literally proposed during the ratification process. The amendments were literally debated during the ratification process (okay I could be wrong here). The framers literally ran out of time (harvest time was upon them) and they left the amendments unfinished (see Amdt 9). The key is that the amendments in view of the constitution have a structure that have a different interpretation than just a textual reading (this is where the right to privacy is found). This was their intent, not some accident.

Alright, we have a fundamental right to marry. If you want to debate me on that, I'll friggin' pull out a stack of Supreme Court cases that will make your head spin. Is this fundamental right in the amendments or the constitution? Fuck no.

And so what does it mean to be a fundamental right? The government cannot burden the right unless it has a substantial reason for the burden (which means the statute is always held unconstitutional).

Re:Less than originally expected

[jeffvoigt]

I think you may be overlooking the real reason why this is important.

I have no problem with the government screening American's phone calls, e-mail, or other communications to a foreign country. But every president since the FISA Act was passed in 1978 was required to submit information as to who was being tracked and a polite bit of evidence as to why. This president ignored that act.

By ignoring the FISA Act the president removed the minor bit of oversight that existed; the only legal body that could verify that the president was doing what he said he was doing, and that it was within the law. The secret FISA court very rarely rejected any request previous administrations have submitted, so ignoring this court seems strange and leads to the following two conclusions:

1. The administration is preforming data mining on a massive scale, and it is infeasible to submit requests for each communication individually.
2. The administration is doing something legally questionable, which it didn't want the court to see.

While congress has been "briefed" on the program, it has not been "informed". Briefings have a tendency to gloss over details and use generalizations. My gut reaction is that the administration is mainly data mining, and from their reluctance to just say that it implies that there are more Americans being data mined than they are letting on. (If more Americans weren't being tracked, this administration would have just lumped this new tool into the Patriot Act.)

I'd like to believe what the administration is saying, but their track record for trust is highly tarnished and we need some oversight on this one.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Well, Google did say they were moving servers out of China to prevent the goverment from gaining access.

They should do that with every intrusive country whose government wants to spy on its citizens.

Wait a minute. This isn't about the War on Terror?!?!? It's about porn??!?!?!? The government wants to spy on its citizens about porn?!?!?!?

Christ Almighty, we're a pathetic, small-minded society. England, this is your fault for sending Puritans over here to get things going.

Re:Less than originally expected

[rwven]

Funny how you didn't finish quoting what i said. false and harmful are fine. false and harmful that hurts the us while at war or helps their enemies is a totally different story. Frankly if it was up to me, anyone who did that should be tried for treason and shot dead anyway. Willfully harming your country is sickening.

Obviously they're not enforcing the act though as you can see from the moron media in the iraq war...so what's the big deal...?

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bull999999]

The private sector has ultimately failed in its attempt to provide whole health care, they are simply too greedy. Why not give state-run health care at least a partial shot?

Actually, I did argue for a two-tier system in the past as it looks like that's where Canada is headed at this point. One the uninsured get screwed is that insurance companies get a "bulk" discount for treatments where as uninsured gets charged a full price. If the government get setup barebones universal (tier-1) coverage for everyone. While this coverage may have a high deductible, everyone will at least get the discount that the insurance companies enjoy. As is now, no one will be denied emergency care even if they can't pay for it. Then there's tier-2 with a monthly out-of-pocket premium for those who expect more frequent visits and need less waiting time and lower deductible.

However, the universal healthcare still doesn't address the issue of Americans eating poorly and not exercising. No matter how many reforms we pass, as long as this issue does not get taken care of, the health costs will go up in the future.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Bull999999]

That's because no one here in America has any concept of saving up in case of emergencies.

Amen to that. The savings rate in the US is now at -0.4%. That's right, it's negative. Consumer spending went up so it's not due to people not having money.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Abcd1234]

As far as abortion goes, IMO either it has human rights or it doesn't, and if it does that it has them in full and equal to any other human. I'm of the opinion that they don't, but I realize some people do. What I don't understand is the intermediate stages where the fetus has the right to life - except if it is incest or rape or whatever. Either it has, or it hasn't, or you're saying that some right of the mother overrides the most fundamental right there is - the right to life itself. I can't make such "half-human" rights make sense.

This is such a silly issue. Another Slashdotter made a point I'd never considered, and it closes the issue for me: We already determine when a life ends. Brain death. Most people, medical professionals, etc believe that life ends when brain activity ceases. Hence the term "brain dead". So, why don't we use the same standard to decide when life begins?

The problem is, this isn't isn't about *fact*. This is about religion. People talk about fetuses having "souls", even though they have no developed brain. But if that's the case, then there's no way we should be allowed to stop resuscitating people who are brain dead because, apparently, brain activity is not the end-all and be-all of life.

Re:Less than originally expected

[Brad Mace]

I really do think strict constructionism is the only correct approach to the constitution. And I'm mostly convinced that abortion is murder. Claiming that a fertilized egg is the same as a human being is ridiculous. Claiming that a fetus at 8 months and three weeks is nothing like a living baby is ridiculous. What if, instead of taking an extremist stance, we go for a middle ground. First trimester, abortions are legal, no questions asked. After that, if the mother's health is in danger, then she gets the choice. I think something along these lines could get broad support, but both parties are taking absolute stances for partisan benefit.

And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution. I think you're looking at this wrong. Where in the Constitution is the government given the right to restrict marraige? And how do you justify discriminating against a group of people just because they make you uncomfortable?

The republicans are using gay marriage to distract people from the real issues that actually affect all Americans, and to get support from the far right. Even if you're disgusted by gays and think they're all going to hell, hopefully you consider the handling of the Iraq war, the Katrina relief, the national debt, etc more important issues. The secrecy and invasiveness of this administration are incredible, and if you're not concerned about it, you probably haven't been paying attention.

I think we're best off when we have a divided congress, or a President with a hostile congress. Overall things are pretty good in the US, so if both parties can't come to an agreement, that tells me that the status quo is currently the best option for the country

.

Re:Less than originally expected

[mfrank]

You know, slander falls into this category. As well as yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

Re:Less than originally expected

[etrnl]

Considering that google.com is not filtered by Coogle in China, only google.cn... I'm still trying to figure out why everyone thinks Google is being so evil by setting up something that works more reliably for data the Chinese government doesn't care about.

Re:Less than originally expected

[greenrd]

Indeed. I believe British spelling is more modern than American spelling (which corresponds roughly to old English English spelling).

Reluctance?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

...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.

Perhaps he should be more reluctant because it's against the US constitution.

Re:Reluctance?

[conJunk]

no kidding. what really trives me nuts is the way that we put so much value on "reaching an agreement" in this culture that people look the other way to "doing increadibly wrong things"

doj asked for a million urls and 50,000 searches... "well," says the judge, "they've reduced that to much smaller numbers, so i'm impressed with their ability compromise, so i'm inclined to give it to them"

well hold the fuck on! discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong. *especially* since it's (a) not for an investigation of anything, and (b) being used to try to justify their own failed attempts at legislation

excuse me, but it's not google's job to do the government's homework for them.

Re:Reluctance?

[BewireNomali]

interesting that you said the government's homework. I'm curious as to what you mean by that.

Re:Reluctance?

[winkydink]

Perhaps he should be more reluctant because it's against the US constitution.

Isn't it the judge's job to determine Constitutionality?

Isn't the disagreement between Google & the DOJ what the case is all about?

You may not personally like or agree with DOJ asking for the data, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Re:Reluctance?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I'm interested in is what exactly the Feds wanted. From what I can see all they want is the search terms and results for those search terms, not who was doing the searching. If that's the case (and I have yet to see that it wasn't) I don't see a privacy issue here.

Imagine if the government asked for purchase data on cold meds to look for patterns meth makers use to get their ephedrine. So long as the stores don't tell the government who did the purchasing I don't see a problem.

Re:Reluctance?

[conJunk]

from tfa:

The outcome will determine whether the Justice Department will be able to use Google search terms in a social science research project that will be used this fall to defend an antipornography law. The Bush administration argues that criminal sanctions in the 1998 law--which has been placed on hold by the courts--are more effective ways to shield children than antiporn filtering software.

from teh beeb

Essentially it wants data from search engines to prove how easy it is to stumble over porn on the net. If it can prove this the result might be onerous regulation for many websites.
In court documents the US government said it had tried to generate the same information using the Internet Archive website but did not get the results it wanted.

essentially, the doj wants this data to make a point about child porn online. they are not investigating any violations of any law. this is not an issue where a warant even *could* be issued

rather, they are trying to make a point regarding aspects of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the ACLU has successfully blocked in court. the government wants figures to support it's position in that case, but those figures don't exist, so they're demanding that google *give* them the raw data they need to make the argument they want to make

Re:Reluctance?

[cpt kangarooski]

No, this is not about child porn. It's about how readily children can see any kind of online porn (and thus whether legal pornographers should have to take steps to make it harder to access porn).

Re:Reluctance?

[penix1]

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.

B.

Re:Reluctance?

[iminplaya]

The law doesn't matter. It's the perception. The gov't operates by pure public relations. The people that you elect merely work in the PR department. You will never know to whom you're giving the real power. Unless, of course, you (en masse) really want to know. It's as easy as you want it to be.

Re:Reluctance?

[Loconut1389]

everybody that uses google does.

http://www.google.com/privacy.html
http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html

Re:Reluctance?

[syukton]

EXACTLY. This is what people are failing to understand. It isn't about child porn, it's about childrens' access to porn. It's more "for the children" bullshit. To quote George Carlin, "Fuck the children."

I don't get this at all really...suppose they pass a law stating that you need to make it harder for kids to find porn online. So then everyone will simply host their websites overseas, circumventing the jurisdiction of the USA and keeping their porn easily accessible. What does the new law then accomplish? Answer: nothing!

Re:Reluctance?

[BewireNomali]

more for the children bullshit?

I don't understand. You're opposed to making it harder for kids to find porn online?

Re:Reluctance?

[oasisweb]

discolsing private information is still disclosing private information. who cares if they're even asking for just one url and just one search term... it's still wrong.

While I do not agree that they have the right to force Google to give them this information, I do not believe this privacy justification is really that justified. I think we are all going a bit extreme here whenever this topic appears. First of all, the information they want is not personally identifiable, as in they will not know who searched for these terms. All they will have is a bunch of search terms and their statistics, but no personally identifiable information. This is akin to a hospital releasing statistics of diseases of patients it has diagnosed in the past year and their corresponding mortality rates. For example, I would probably not want anyone to know without my consent if I have AIDS or cancer, but I could hardly say the statistics violated my privacy. I think this whole thing is just a publicity stunt for Google, and a chance for them to display their "commitment" to "do no evil". The privacy concerns have been blown out of proportion. The only legitimate violation of privacy is Google's privacy. Since they have done nothing wrong, I don't think they are in any way obliged to give any information. It's their privacy they're trying to protect, in the name of ours.

Re:Reluctance?

[Anonymous Struct]

I'm opposed to it. It's not the federal government's job to make it hard for kids to search for porn on the internet. It's also not their job to make sure kids eat the right food and avoid playing violent video games. And that's coming from a guy who leans left.

Re:Reluctance?

[slavemowgli]

Thank you. I really wish mod points so I could spend one on this comment - it's probably the most insightful I've read on /. today.

Re:Reluctance?

[dartarrow]

t's still wrong. *especially* since it's (a) not for an investigation of anything

I would say that they are for once attempting a preventive method rather than wait for something to happen first. Which was apparently not the case with many other bigger crimes (or attacks) that they knew was possible, or even knew was going to happen but never bothered to try to avoid.

Re:Reluctance?

[cpt kangarooski]

Depends on how it's done. So long as it only affects children, and doesn't hinder adults, then fine. So far Congress hasn't been able manage this, and so the laws keep getting overturned.

Re:Reluctance?

[RagingFuryBlack]

essentially, the doj wants this data to make a point about child porn online. they are not investigating any violations of any law. this is not an issue where a warant even *could* be issued

The query by the US Department of Justice has nothing to do with Illegal Child Pornography. They are attempting to see how easily it is for children to access any type of legal, adult pornography no matter how immoral it may be.

Even though I am morally against pornography and believe it should be ban as well as being a staunch conservative, what the DoJ is doing is completely horrendous. They're attempting to blaitently violate the privacy of the users of Google, who believe they have an expectation of privacy. If I were the Federal Judge, I would give them the search terms used and the pages returned, but NO USER INFORMATION whatsoever. If the DoJ wants to go on a lock-me-up-for-looking-at-porn crusade, they can do it with federal warrents for violating a law that doesn't exist. Then again, the NSA has a way of doing these things all the time.

Re:Reluctance?

[bloosqr]

If they are trying to show how easy it is to find child porn why don't they do the searches themselves? It seems to me all they have to do is take a list of search terms and plug it into google and analyze the results? Why do they need googles list? I think they are doing the Total information Awareness trick. They will use the google info to set precedence for a larger search, then datamine that to find suspicious activity for which they will use that info to get warrants for.

Re:Reluctance?

[CaptainCarrot]

Which is strange, becuase I find that Google's "Safe Search" option generally results in work-safe content. Granted that it's fairly easy to turn off -- but if they're worried about children accidentally stumbling over porn it's sufficient.

Children deliberately seeking out porn is another matter. A determined adolescent will be able to access it no matter what the government tells him. (It's not just on the Web, after all.)

Re:Reluctance?

[LouisZepher]

You could even make it *impossible* for children to find porn online and the brats would still find it under their fathers' mattresses like children did before the advent of the net in the first place.

Re:Reluctance?

[Bill Dog]

There are a lot of things that are not the federal government's job. For example, disaster relief. Spreading democracy. Etc. Too bad both sides of the political spectrum are convincing more and more people that their desired expansions of government are things it just always was responsible for.

Re:Reluctance?

[raoul666]

Yup. I figure, oh, I don't know, parents should make sure kids don't go looking for porn, or at least sit down with them and say, "well Timmy, while you search for stuff, you might find things you weren't looking for, like pictures of people doing adult things. You're not to look at such things..."

Laws shouldn't replace parenting. That's just retarded.

Re:Reluctance?

[spazoidspam]

"I don't understand. You're opposed to making it harder for kids to find porn online?" I don't know if thats what he is trying to say, but the message should be that parents need to protect their childen, NOT the government. Plus, kids are very, VERY resourceful, when I was 10-15 years younger my mom attempted to limit my television watching by hiding the cord for the television when I was home alone, you know what I did? I made a cord myself, the only thing she did by trying to limit me was increase the risk that i will shock and kill myself by messing around with electricity. The point is, I'm getting sick of this "protect the children" crap, because its only an excuse to take rights away from adults. Plus, there is much worse content that junior can find online then porn.

Re:Reluctance?

[Jason Earl]

Hooray, that's precisely what the DoJ is asking for.

Re:Reluctance?

[qzulla]

Perhaps he should be more reluctant because it's against the US constitution.

Why do people ALWAYS trot out the constitution on matters like this? Here, I have done your homework for you:

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If google had posted it and was told by the govt. not to then it would apply.

Then we hit:

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.

Is a corporation a "people" and did the govt. raid their offices?

Anyway, I think people should read what the constitution actually says before they post meaningless references to it.

qz

Re:Reluctance?

[boarder8925]

It's not the Federal government's job to do anything outside of the Constitution.

Re:Reluctance?

[jesusfingchrist]

I'm not sure if you know this but the 4th Amd. doesn't exist anymore.

Re:Reluctance?

[J2000_ca]

Corporations legally are people (well technically there a natural person in most jurisdiction).

Re:Reluctance?

[Deviant Q]

"It isn't about child porn"

"Fuck the children"

Hmmm.... ;)

Re:Reluctance?

[mrraven]

I wish I could mod you up to 10. All this crap about being bi-partisan, moderate, and compromising has done nothing but allowed the country to drift dangerously far towards the authoritarian right with no active opposition being given. We were supposed to have a balance of powers, well that balance produced by opposition doesn't happen if there is no opposition.

Ask yourself what Dr, Martin Luther King would do in these situation would he compromise? Hell no he'd be out in the streets fighting our increasing tyranny with non violent civil disobedience. Here's what Dr. King had to say to the moderates of his day:

"This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy."

Dr. martin Luther King ,""I had a dream speech, Aug 28th 1963

http://www.jdscomm.com/drking/kingdream.html

Many people today mouth respect for Dr. King, few realize how radical he truly was by the standards of today.

Re:Reluctance?

[Khyber]

They better pass a law to make it a crime for my baby brother to look at and suck on my mother's tit, then.

Re:Reluctance?

[shmlco]

So you think the federal government should be able, at any time, to ask any business to drop what they're doing and provide them with whatever information they want, free of charge?

Personally, if allowed by the court this sounds as if it could be another way for the government to punish "uncooperative" businesses and industries by burying them under a deluge of information "requests".

Re:Reluctance?

[WilliamSChips]

It's impossible to make something only affect children and not adults on the Internet. Because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a child.

Re:Reluctance?

[mfrank]

Google is owned by people, many if not most of whom are American citizens, so yeah, the government is raiding their offices. If you owned a bakery, would it be OK for the government to search the place without a warrant? If a legal resident alien owned it, would it be OK?

Re:Reluctance?

[nova_ostrich]

As one of those guys on the left, I've always considered the "For the children..." stuff to come from the right. I'm starting to get the feeling that there's a good deal of this crap coming from both sides.

Why does the government need this data?

[bcarl314]

I've said it before, but I can't understand why the government needs this data when they already have search results from MSN, Yahoo, and AOL. One would think that statistical analysis should be able to give enough information to make or break their case already. What are they looking for from a MOE perspective?

I'm just not sure what they need this data for. Are the google search results that much different than MSN or "live.com"???

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're correct, the government doesn't need this information.

What the government does desire, however, is established precedent which permits it to seize information from any company, even when no actual crime is being investigated.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[Phillup]

One would think that statistical analysis should be able to give enough information to make or break their case already.

But... they aren't trying to *break* thier case.

That is why they need this data.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[Repton]

It would be interesting to know if they are!

The perception is that google is used by more net-savvy people, whereas MSN (say) is used by the mum-and-dad types who just use the search button in IE. So, it'd be interesting to see how much the actual searches made reflect this.

I bet there's more porn in the google results :-)

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[heatdeath]

I can't understand why the government needs this data

Because if google says no, and they give in, then they look weak. This government has had a "not backing down under any circumstances" complex for the last 6 years. Hrm, I wonder why.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep modding this up. This is exactly the point.

I am not sure if I understand the legal difference in this case between subpoenas for a half dozen or so search engines and a subpoenaing 10 million Americans for the same info. This is going to be one hell of a precedent.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[multiOSfreak]

What the government does desire, however, is established precedent which permits it to seize information from any company, even when no actual crime is being investigated.

Thank you so much. Thank you for pointing out what should be obvious to even the slowest of Americans. I only wish I hadn't just wasted my last mod point.

Re:Why does the government need this data?

[SeaFox]

I've said it before, but I can't understand why the government needs this data when they already have search results from MSN, Yahoo, and AOL.

Probably because they went through the data from MSN, Yahoo, and AOL and found nothing to build their case with. It's kinda like the search for WMD. They look almost everywhere for something and don't find it. But rather than admit they were wrong they think this can only mean one thing; they were right and what they're looking for must be in the one place they haven't been able to look yet. Therefore they must gain access at all costs and any attempt to block them only further proves they are right and makes them more anxious to get in.

Time to Google Bomb them

[WillAffleckUW]

Just imagine what would happen if people decided to rebel, and started typing in useful search phrases over and over, while hosting web pages which had those keywords.

It's like a thousand al-Qaedas all at once.

That's how you deal with an intrusive government in Soviet America.

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[realcoolguy425]

It will be 911 times 2356.

My God, that's... I don't even know what that is!

Nobody does!

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[iminplaya]

That's how you deal with an intrusive government in Soviet America.

Silly me. I always thought you could vote in qualified people that actually represent you, the voter. I guess as long as you simply vote for the guy with the most money, then that is what the candidates (and party) will represent. It seems to me that they are doing an excellent job of that. If big money is what gets them into office, it's because we vote for big money. Waddaya know, the system works!

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[Belial6]

Given the last couple of presidential elections, I highly doubt that.

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[geminidomino]

Silly me. I always thought you could vote in qualified people that actually represent you, the voter.

You're right, that was pretty silly. At least you've learned your lesson.

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[Christopher Rogers]

+1, Good Idea

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[WilliamSChips]

911 times 2 356 = 2 146 316

Go Google Calculator! :P

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[iminplaya]

At least you've learned your lesson.

I most certainly have...Majority rule is a miserable failure.

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[RexRhino]

Voting was never supposed to put the "best" candidate in power, or a candidate that truly "represents the people". Never, ever, ever. It was supposed to keep political parties battling against each other so that the government would never become too powerful (and thus, oppressive).

Unfortunatly, the government became powerful anyway. So long as the government remains so big and powerful, you are going to have "bad" leaders elected, because the flaw of the system is extreme centralized power, not who wields the power.

"Big Money" in elections is the inevitable result of merging the political and economic. Of course, when you have central planning, huge government contracts, regulations that can destroy competitors, you are going to have "big money" involved in elections.

Re:Time to Google Bomb them

[iminplaya]

They are all welcomme to throw as much money as they want into the elections. We have the choice to not be influenced by it. The big money thing is our problem. We are the ones that are most affexcted by it. It shows in our voting records and in theirs, but we are the ones that can change that. What this all shows to me is that we are just as corrupt as the people we elect. Gore Vidal wrote a wonderful, if a little harsh, treatise on the subject. I can't remember where or how to find it. It was written quite a few years ago.

Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Because we all know that if the government really wanted that information from Google, they'd have persued it via Patriot Act style secret warrants. Since I haven't heard about a bunch of Google employees going to jail, I assume they're following the law.

It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.

The reason that the Justice Department publicised this rejection from Google is because they thought it helped them. That's what baffles me about this case. Was it their public image that they thought this helped? Was it in their interest to make people think their information was safe with Google? Did they think it would cause Fox News to smear Google? (And how would that help them?) Is this information honestly going to help them get their preferred verdict? I don't see how...

Iduno. I can't tell if I'm over thinking this or under thinking it.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Gyga]

Since I haven't heard about a bunch of Google employees going to jail

Good, they are being quiet enough.

I might have left my tin-foil off to long but I think you are over thinking it. The DOJ might in this case be telling the truth and they are getting only the list of sites (and no names/IPs).

Correct me if I am wrong isn't this what they originaly wanted, just the list of sites that are indexed.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[necro2607]

"It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google."

Oh, what? So my internet browsing habits are subject to scrutiny by foreign governments? I live in Canada. IMHO the US government should keep the hell out of my personal information completely, and should have not even the slightest rights to ever know of such information unless I actually enter their country. Otherwise, GTFO ...

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Petrushka]

It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.

And this is why I long for a search engine that isn't based in the US, and which isn't subject to US law.

It's weird that the DMCA controls what comes up in my search results in spite of the fact that I don't live in the US; but that's almost incidental in comparison to the truly dreadful notion that my internet searching habits are likely, over the next few years, to become more and more subject to the scrutiny of a foreign, hostile, government. It seems pretty obvious that this case is just one step along the way to the US government conducting surveillance on pretty much everyone in the world.

Can anyone recommend any non-US-based search engines? The only one that I've managed to find out anything about is one that hasn't actually debuted yet, Quaero; if there are others I'd love to know. I hope Quaero turns out to be half as good a search engine as Google (somehow I think that unlikely), but at least maybe it'll encourage the existence of non-US-based search engines.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The one possibility you missed- they publicised it to change people's behavior- to now use other search engines.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[ewe2]

The only thing making sense for me is:

bwahahaha, you see, NOONE can stop us now!!!1111

That anything of this gets out at all convinces me they're on a trophy hunt and are keen to beat their chests about it.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[bnenning]

These guys proxy Google and claim to keep no permanent records.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Elwood P Dowd]

The US Government has way fewer scruples about spying on Soviet Canadia. With y'all they don't even have to pretend to follow the Bill of Rights.

If you care about this, use a Canadian service provider. I guess Canadia could sign a treaty with the US providing privacy for your data, but... somehow I don't think that's going to happen.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Thanks. Mod parent up.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

The reason that the Justice Department publicised this rejection from Google is because they thought it helped them. That's what baffles me about this case.

"Think of the children!"

Perhaps they are trying to suggest that in refusing to cooperate with them, Google is enabling child molesters. This type of hyperbole has worked in the past...

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[hackstraw]

Because we all know that if the government really wanted that information from Google, they'd have persued it via Patriot Act style secret warrants. Since I haven't heard about a bunch of Google employees going to jail, I assume they're following the law.

Clearly, you know nothing about the USA PATRIOT Act.

1) There are no warrants under it.

2) You do not hear of people going to jail. They are illegally seized and detained indefinitely without charge or warrant and without legal council.

It is subject to government scrutiny when you type something into Google.

scrutiny (skr?t'n-?)
n., pl. -nies.
1 A close, careful examination or study.
2 Close observation; surveillance.

That too is illegal according to our constitution, without a warrant for a specific charge looking for specific information.

Iduno. I can't tell if I'm over thinking this or under thinking it.

I know if you live in the US, you should think more about this stuff.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[hackstraw]

And this is why I long for a search engine that isn't based in the US, and which isn't subject to US law.

Try google.de, google.fr, google.cn :)

Sheitt. US law is no longer subject to US law anymore.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Omnifarious]

Well that whole exchange has tons of stupidity and shows none of the participants in a particularly favorable light. OTOH, it demonstrates that you have views that I find so utterly repugnant that I would likely not be able to manage to sit quietly in the same room as you.

And by referencing it, it seems you want everybody to not only know that tomhudson is a git, but that you hold the opinions and viewpoints you do.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Experiment 626]

Because we all know that if the government really wanted that information from Google, they'd have persued it via Patriot Act style secret warrants ... The reason that the Justice Department publicised this rejection from Google is because they thought it helped them. That's what baffles me about this case.

Perhaps the reason they are requesting the information openly instead of through Patriot Act style secret warrants is because of what they are planning to use it for. The point of the data is to prove that there is pr0n on the Internet and justify some sort of CDA / COPA censorship legislation. If they obtained their pr0n evidence through cloak-and-dagger channels, the debate would shift from "OMG! There is pr0n on the Web!" to "OMG! You've been spying on people's Google searches!" when the government presents its findings, and undermine their own case.

If the Governement wanted to know your Web searching habits for their own benefit, sure, they decide secret warrants are the way to go, but not when the data is going to be presented in a highly public forum. Plus, doing it this way sets a convenient precedent for search engines having to cough up data when the Government wants it.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Petrushka]

Normally I'd use google.co.nz: but it's still censored according to US laws, and a US corporation is still collecting data about me and will probably be required to pass it all on directly to the US government by the end of the decade. I'd bet the same goes for google.de, google.fr, etc. -- unless you know something I don't :-)

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Petrushka]

And they even have a Firefox searchbar plugin. Great, thanks for that!

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

My viewpoints are so internally contradictory that I welcome any support in sorting them out that I can get. "Morally repugnant" though is a judgement call that requires a knowledge of a moral system. I try to reference the moral systems- though Tom did cut them out a bit taking it out of the context of the discussion of morality by evolution. My only real point is that Canada isn't exactly the land of free speech either.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[necro2607]

Okay there, uninformed anonymous troll.

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Read #3.

I'd search for more material but it's not really worth my time. Regardless, putting something on the net does not make it public domain, legally. I'm guessing you mean that, realistically speaking, anyone can copy anything on the net all they want. However, that's not whatsoever how things work in a legal sense.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Ooh. Thank you. I'll treasure that forever.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Penguinoflight]

Your post is interesting, but it's wrong. As a person without citizenship in the US you are not protected by any of the laws governing the United States. Only if Canada found a problem with the US government snooping your stuff would there be trouble (and you'd still likely loose, since you contact google, and google is inside the united states).

My problem with the patriot act is basically opposite to your problem here. Citizens of the United States are now subject to loss of constitutional rights simply if they are suspected to be involved in terrorism. A citizen of another country already has their own rights, which are protected by their respective country. The US has been more aggressive with other countries, and acted in ways that are not very smart while overseas. There has however been no breach of international law, and all of the international political demands made by the united states were legitimate.

As the United States grows more and more communistic, the people hurt are more and more within the borders, not outside.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Omnifarious]

I didn't say "morally repugnant". I said "repugnant", which is purely a personal value judgement.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Omnifarious]

Also, and this is completely off-topic here, morality by evolution does not justify your viewpoints. Survival depends on more than just reproduction. I would argue that the single biggest survival trait of humans is our ability to form large-scale cooperative societies. I think the dynamics of human sexuality and ability to form sexual relationships that don't have reproduction as their primary goal are a major force enabling us to build such societies. I think the idea of limiting the expression of sexuality to those things that drive reproduction have negative survival value.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[unitron]

"The one possibility you missed- they publicised it to change people's behavior- to now use other search engines."

Mmm-interesting theory. Perhaps it has something to do with manipulating the stock price to make moeny selling it short, or somebody from one of those big financial houses (that didn't get to make a bundle on Google's IPO because of the dutch auction way they did it) got one of their buddies in government to screw over Google for them as revenge.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[will_die]

1) There are no warrants under it.
And what section is this??
You are probably confusing this with PATRIOT ACT II which never got anywhere, it did allow some no warrants activities under very special circumstances.
Where some people get confused is with Section 212 which allowed communications providers to provide information at thier own discresion to police in the event of an emergency. It removed a law that forbide communications providers from providing information and allow the communications providers the right to do so if they thought the reason given by the police was an emergency.
2) You do not hear of people going to jail. They are illegally seized and detained indefinitely without charge or warrant and without legal council.
Again under what part of the US PATRIOT Act is this?

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[hackstraw]

You do not hear of people going to jail. They are illegally seized and detained indefinitely without charge or warrant and without legal council.
Again under what part of the US PATRIOT Act is this?

Under the USA PATRIOT Act:


SEC. 236A. (a) DETENTION OF TERRORIST ALIENS-

(1) CUSTODY- The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who is certified under paragraph (3).
(2) RELEASE- Except as provided in paragraphs (5) and (6), the Attorney General shall maintain custody of such an alien until the alien is removed from the United States. Except as provided in paragraph (6), such custody shall be maintained irrespective of any relief from removal for which the alien may be eligible, or any relief from removal granted the alien, until the Attorney General determines that the alien is no longer an alien who may be certified under paragraph (3). If the alien is finally determined not to be removable, detention pursuant to this subsection shall terminate.
(3) CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General may certify an alien under this paragraph if the Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien--
(A) is described in section 212(a)(3)(A)(i), 212(a)(3)(A)(iii), 212(a)(3)(B), 237(a)(4)(A)(i), 237(a)(4)(A)(iii), or 237(a)(4)(B); or
(B) is engaged in ___any other activity that endangers the national security of the United States.___

There you have it. You are now an "alien" if you do any activity that endangers the national security of the United States. That means smoking pot (funding terrorism), speeding (you may run into a government building), or whatever.

You are removed from the country, and the rest is up to them.

Are we clear yet?

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[hackstraw]

You're misreading the law.
The Attorney General may certify an alien

This doesn't mean that the Attorney General may certify a US citizen as an alien if they meet the requirements. It means that if somebody is already an alien (i.e. not a US citizen) and meets the requirements then the Attorney General may certify them as a terrorist alien subject to detention.

Apparently, I'm not the only one misreading the law: http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

Jose Padilla is the U.S. citizen who supposedly plotted to detonate a "dirty bomb." Since his capture -- not on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq, but at Chicago's O'Hare Airport -- he has not been charged with any crime. Yet, for more than a year, Padilla has been held incommunicado in a South Carolina military brig.

But yes, he is brown.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[will_die]

You should read the whole thing it contains statements such as

The Attorney General shall place an alien detained under paragraph (1) in removal proceedings, or shall charge the alien with a criminal offense, not later than 7 days after the commencement of such detention. If the requirement of the preceding sentence is not satisfied, the Attorney General shall release the alien.

and

Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Attorney General shall submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, with respect to the reporting period,

followed by a list of things.

Far from the hey are illegally seized and detained indefinitely without charge or warrant and without legal council. A time period is given, with a few allow allowable extension(not indefiniely).
Remember that this portion of the US PATRIOT ACT is an change to 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq. which go into greater details about giving a lawer to the person being help and all of that is in effect. So none of this held without legal council
The US PATRIOT ACT just changed it so a person being help cannot inform any people they are working with that the police know about them and are about to arrest them.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[smellsofbikes]

>The reason that the Justice Department publicised this rejection from Google is because they thought it helped them. That's what baffles me about this case. Was it their public image that they thought this helped? Was it in their interest to make people think their information was safe with Google? Did they think it would cause Fox News to smear Google? (And how would that help them?) Is this information honestly going to help them get their preferred verdict? I don't see how...

Because, by making sure everyone knows they've done this, when they win (which they will, somehow, hopefully not involving torture but who knows) then they will have the advance publicity to make their win general public knowledge. Then next time they have a fight, they have precedent, and in the meanwhile they have the intimidation factor working for them.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[will_die]

Abdullah al-Muhajir formerly known as Jose Padilla is being help under the Authorization for Use of Military Force(AUMF). He has no dealings with the US PATRIOT ACT.

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And yet- many tribal societies punish sexual abnormality with death. Which was my original point. I agree that the alternate point of view you put forth has validity- but it's also a recent, relatively untested point of view. The older, more tested by time point of view is that the nuclear family is the basic building block of civil society- and the fact that Rome Defeated Greece kind of supports that older point of view. Do you have any examples of openly gay cultures defeating closed, duty bound cultures?

Re:Of course he's concerned with the *perception*.

[Omnifarious]

Culturally, who defeated who? I would argue that Greece has it all over Rome from the standpoint of who's memes managed to infect the world.

sad really

[Anonymous Coward]

for the GOV to be undertaking this blatent fishing expedition (still convinced the gov is on the right path ?)

of course if Google had stopped logging every bit of shit that goes over the pipe this problem wouldnt exist, as they say "you have made your bed, now sleep in it"

Re:sad really

[Anonymous Coward]

I think in this case Google made our bed, and now we're sleeping in it.

Re:sad really

[raoul666]

But the thing is, I don't mind google having all that info on me. Not one bit. Because I know all they want it for is to make money. The government, on the other hand, I don't trust one bit, cause their intentions are nowhere near as simple or honest.

Re:sad really

[repvik]

Are you serious? You are aware that Google is a giant data-miner? Their business depends on that logging...

How about zero search queries?

[Zarel]

From the article:

...the Justice Department...demands a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through Google's search engine, and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted to Google in a one-week period. During negotiations, the Justice Department narrowed its request to 50,000 URLs and said it would look at only 10,000. It also said it wanted 5,000 search queries and would look at 1,000. Ware said that the reduced demand coupled with the government's "willingness to compensate Google" for up to eight days of its programmers' time had convinced him to grant the Justice Department at least some of what it had requested.

So the reduced demand somehow makes it okay to violate first-Amendment rights?

Re:How about zero search queries?

[necro2607]

Like I keep seeing quoted in the news articles about this whole thing - Your privacy will be invaded bit by bit, in a gradual, not-so-harsh manner. But in the future you'll look back and realize what has happened...

Re:How about zero search queries?

[heinousjay]

You:
So the reduced demand somehow makes it okay to violate first-Amendment rights?

The Constitution:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Me:
WTF? I hope you don't get paid for your legal brainery. Same goes for the mods that gave you insightful.

(NOTE: this post in no way expresses my opinion regarding the government's actions. Please keep that in mind if you decide to mod/respond.)

Re:How about zero search queries?

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in that is the government asking for the identity of the searchers? They're not asking "who searched for X?" They're asking "what results were generated for a search for X?"

Frankly the government should just ignore google and hiring someone good with writing a web spider and just crawl google for the data they want. Hell if they don't want the most recent results they could even hit the google cache for those searches :)

Re:How about zero search queries?

[nvrrobx]

As I read the Constitution, it seems like the first amendment doesn't apply here, but the fourth amendment might:

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.

I would imagine my search results and queries fall under this amendment. What probable cause exists here?

Re:How about zero search queries?

[hackstraw]

WTF? I hope you don't get paid for your legal brainery. Same goes for the mods that gave you insightful.

Yeah. But the thing is this.

What law is there that the judge is going by here?

me: reads article real quick to see.

OK, exactly as I thought, there is none.

FTA:

"A civil subpoena by the government is not one of the methods that ECPA lists" as a permissible mechanism for obtaining search results, said Gidari, a partner in the Seattle office of the Perkins Coie law firm.

Deciding to grant part of the Justice Department's request--effectively splitting the difference--would permit Ware to avoid some of these thorny privacy concerns. It would also avoid the possibility of setting a precedent that could create new hurdles for prosecutors in future criminal investigations.

So, IANAL, but civil suits are not a matter of law per se. You are not "guilty" of anything, just liable or whatever jargon there is for it at most. Even if Google were a person, they could only fine them or whatever else illegal action against Google, but nothing really can come from it.

Google stick to your guns please, so I can keep mine in my holster.

Re:How about zero search queries?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Well, you could have just pointed out that it is #4 instead of being an ass. Like it really changes the GPs point.

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.

Re:How about zero search queries?

[heinousjay]

Oh, so you mean I should point out that this amendment is being followed, because Google said no, went to a judge, and a judge is now making a decision according to those guidelines?

And thanks for the personal attack. It's always nice when someone refute themselves immediately with invalid arguments.

Re:How about zero search queries?

[StikyPad]

First of all, the First Amendment protects religion, speech, press, assembly, and petitioning. You probably meant the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search & seizure, or perhaps the Ninth Amendment's implied right to privacy.

Regardless, Google's own argument (PDF warning) is primarily about the burden of the request:

"A court must quash or modify a subpoena issued to a non-party if it subjects that person to undue burden." The court basically agreed, and the government agreed to accept less information.

Google goes on to say: "Search queries run on Google's databases come from such a wide variety of sources that Google's query data, stripped of personally identifying information, will not reveal whether the search query was run by a minor or adult, human or non-human, or on behalf of an individual or business. No conclusion can accurately be drawn from this data about individual behavior."

So if the search information isn't providing any useful data about individuals, as they argue, then it can't possibly be a violation of users' privacy. The court disagreed that the information was useless without identifying information.

Nowhere in Google's response do they mention anything about their Fourth Amendment rights, which is most likely because there is no legal challenge on those grounds. Furthermore, the court will only consider the arguments presented. It's like the old saying: You'll never get something if you don't ask for it. If Google fails to make a compelling argument, the judge typically won't just make one up on Google's behalf. That's not his job -- his job is to decide which argument has the most merit.

Re:How about zero search queries?

[Zarel]

Erm... Eheh... I seem to have thought of the wrong one... I meant the one about privacy... Which would be the 5th one... No, the 34th... No, the -12th...

Oh, you know what I meant! ;)

And, no, I don't get paid for my legal brainery. Which is quite fortunate.

Re:How about zero search queries?

[10101001 10101001]

Yea, it's like that one time I demanded a googolplex of dollars, and then through negotiation got it down to $1 trillion. Boy was the government willing to give me the money then. Good thing to know that all it takes is being unreasonable fom the start to get what you really want.

Re:How about zero search queries?

[Reziac]

It would be interesting to see the public's reaction if the principle were demonstrated more visibly: pick out an equal percentage of random citizens. Tape their mouths shut to prevent free speech.

Remember, citizens, enough duct tape silences anyone!!

From forum

[Viraptor]

Probably someone from Justice Department asked something on a web forum and got standard "STFW" with google link.
Some people should just learn to use google, not ask feds to force informations out of it, really... ;)

Blade:Trinity

[Bodysurf]

Ever see the movie Blade: Trinity where the Feds try and seize the computers?

I wouldn't be upset if Google pulled a "Abraham Whistler" on them.

Google's records are none of their business and the courts shouldn't have standing to seize them.

Re:Blade:Trinity

[Rob T Firefly]

For those of us suffering from a Wesley Snipes deficiency, what'd they do in the movie?

Re:Blade:Trinity

[hey!]

Snipes gave the Feds a stirring speech about the Fourth Amendment, and convincingly demonstrated that under the Strict Construction theory they lacked the constitutional authority to be conducting this search anyway.

Half the Feds hung their heads in shame and chagrin and went home. The others stayed for the practical demonstration of Second Amendment rights.

Re:Blade:Trinity

[identity0]

The film was so terrible that Chuck Norris, who was watching it while banging your wife, roundhouse kicked the screen so hard it killed all the FBI agents, deleted all the evil data, and made Wesley Snipes into a good actor named Abraham Whistler.

Chuck Norris says you're welcome, he knows you're going to thank him. For banging your wife, that is.

He says he's sorry about the Matrix sequels, though. Even he couldn't roundhouse kick those into goodness.

Re:Blade:Trinity

[Barny]

They actually took this to excess, Dead on Demand http://www.ensconcedata.com/faqs.html drives from Ensconce Data Technology do a great job of takeing out the data in a "non-hollywood explosion" type manner, a simple mist of acid is sprayed over the drive platters when the required situation is reached.

C4, plastique or TNT is definitely not required :)

What happened to less government regulation?

[Serveert]

I'm very confused here, I thought that a certain party was for less government regulation? Is this justified because we must "protect the children"?

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It's justified because a certain group of fascists have hijacked that party's name for their own purposes.

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[Locke2005]

Exactly. An unbiased, rational analysis would show that according to traditional Republican principles, Bill Clinton was a much better Republican than George W. Bush. But just try getting the Republicans to admit that!

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly that party is either out of power, or no longer exists, or is too small.. Since Reagan's time, the Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility and minimum regulation in your personal life. The Libertarian party is the only party that ever really wanted less government regulation overall.

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[RiffRafff]

AC or not, this parent needs to be modded up.

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[killjoe]

LOL. Bill Clinton was called the "first black president" now he is the "the first republican from the democratic party president".

I would take him over our current clown in chief any day.

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[Esion Modnar]

Is this justified because we must "protect the children"?

The road to Hell is paved with
(protect the)
children. Know shallow excuses for what they are.

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[RexRhino]

The Republicans sometimes give some lip service to "less government", but the Republicans have never provided less government, ever, period. Both parties have expanded government regulation as fast as they can, with the only difference being that Republicans can get away with increasing government more than the Democrats, because when Republicans increase government, Democrats complain that Republicans "aren't doing enough", where as when Democrats increase government, Republicans complain about the size of government. This has created the weird situation that the Democrats are actually less for big government than Republicans in practice (Clinton was the biggest fiscal conservative of the 20th Century), although they are clearly for totalitarian government ideologicaly.

Re:What happened to less government regulation?

[jwiegley]

Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility and minimum regulation

What??? Are you kidding me? Both the republicans and the democrats are the parties of fiscal irresponsibility and maximum regulation.

Yes, I am a libertarian because of this.

I just don't get it

[phoenix.bam!]

What standing does the government have to even ask for this information?

I see no reason whatsoever that google should be forced to provide for the request other than the DOJ saying "Can we see your information?"

No law has been broken, no crime is under investigation... Can they come to my house next and ask to see the last 1,000 things I searched for? Why can they do that to google? This is insane and that judge is a moron.

What's the theory?

[Black Parrot]

What's the political theory that supports the idea that the feds can just demand anything they want and expect to get it?

Would any judge be supporting them if it wasn't about pornography? Did they get whatever they wanted from Enron without a warrant?

Re:What's the theory?

[Tony]

Would any judge be supporting them if it wasn't about pornography? Did they get whatever they wanted from Enron without a warrant?

See, that's the problem. They didn't want to get anything on Enron; perhaps too many people in the government would be implicated. (Just look at the government folks Enron met with in the year or two prior to their debacle. Interesting list.)

Since this is about people and their own personal "web experience with a happy ending," it must be too nasty for the kids to see. I know when I use Google, all I get is pornography results.

Might have something to do with all my search terms including the word "porn," though.

Re:What's the theory?

[RexRhino]

What's the political theory that supports the idea that the feds can just demand anything they want and expect to get it?

No one has political theories any more. People have an agenda they want the government to work towards, and the government is simply a machine for promoting the agenda. The "morality" of the government comes from the "morality" of the causes it promotes, not from any idea of what is moral or immoral for a government to do.

So the left are trying to get the government to promote its social agenda, and the right it's own social agenda, and none have any concept of obeying the constitution, or of limited government, seperation of powers, due process, etc. The government is simply the rope in the tug-of-war, or the big club that everyone is trying to grab to beat the "bad guys" on the other side.

Compromise is not the problem.

[jd]

Compromise would be trying to figure out what part of their search fit within the law, the Constitution and the authority's need to know. (The Federal Government does NOT have an automatic need to know, even when it lawfully CAN know.)

Compromise would also involve determining how much of the request would actually be meaningful - signal versus noise. Handing the Feds a bunch of noise would weaken the Feds' ability to do useful work. Which, given the useful work done since the Total Information Awareness campaign began, explains a lot.

And, lastly, compromise involves looking at what data Google has that is essentially public knowledge (eg: it can be looked up through Google, given time) and what information should rightfully be more widely distributed.

THAT is compromise, the essence of "reaching an agreement". The only ones who "reach an agreement" by giving the other side essentially everything they want are the victims of a crime like a mugging, extortion or a protection racket. I can't help it if that's the view of compromise that certain politicians have, but it's flat-out wrong.

Time to move servers again...

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem, Google can just move their servers to China to keep them safe from a government that thinks it needs to track every citizens activity.

Why is it...

[gillbates]

That Google bends over backwards when it comes to Chinese censorship, but stonewalls the U.S. Justice Department when it comes to our civil liberties?

Why do oppressive regimes get special treatment?

Re:Why is it...

[daemones]

Because oppresive regimes don't have constitutions that (pretend to) limit government power.

Re:Why is it...

[Rob T Firefly]

Why do oppressive regimes get special treatment?

Perhaps because the oppressive regime has a few billion people who weren't already engaged in increasing Google shareholder value, whilst most of us here have been doing so for years.

Re:Why is it...

[N1AK]

Because it follows the laws of that country (right or wrong). The scary part is that in China it is the law that they censor search results, last time I checked in America what the goverment is forcing them to do is clearly against it :| Hell it seems to me google resisted because it didn't want to give away secrets, take the cost of goverment fishing and possibly for the geek pr. I never got the impression they were doing it to protect their users in any way.

Re:Why is it...

[adisakp]

That Google bends over backwards when it comes to Chinese censorship, but stonewalls the U.S. Justice Department when it comes to our civil liberties?

Google is offering Chinese citizens the rights and protections they have for computer access under Chinese law. Unfortunately under these laws Chinese citizens DO NOT have a right to privacy and DO NOT have a right to search sites censored by their government.

Google is trying to offer US citizens the rights and protections they have for computer access under US law. In the US, there are constitution rights to free speech and to privacy (as interpreted by previous Supreme Courts). Google is trying to uphold these constitutional rights and the US Justice department is trying to circumvent these rights.

I fail to see how Google has done wrong by trying to protect the rights that citizens of a country have been given by their respective governments.

Re:Why is it...

[Stormy Dragon]

For the same reason newspapers are terrified of offending Muslims but show little concern for offending other religious groups.

It's easy to stand up to people you know aren't going to retalliate.

Re:Why is it...

[Esion Modnar]

Why do oppressive regimes get special treatment?

You know, when in Rome...

This country doesn't yet have a set of laws as oppressive as the Chinese, but we're heading there. Just give it another ten years.

Problem is, if you think of the US as a car, now matter what we do, our steering keeps pulling to the right. At the least the Justice Dept keeps trying to.

Time for a big fucking re-alignment. AND an oil change.

Re:Why is it...

[hackstraw]

Why do oppressive regimes get special treatment?

Time will tell.

Re:Why is it...

[slavemowgli]

The GP has a point, actually, but he has it backwards. The solution is not that Google should just give in and give the US administration what it wants - the solution would've been for Google to not work with the Chinese government in this area, either.

From a moral (as opposed to a legal or business) point of views, Google's actions in China are condemnable. But the solution is not to do even more condemnable things - two wrongs aren't better than one wrong and one right.

Re:Why is it...

[bombadier_beetle]

I fail to see how Google has done wrong by trying to protect the rights that citizens of a country have been given by their respective governments.

Because rights aren't granted by governments.

Re:Why is it...

[sjschoo]

So i guess we're all just going to ignore the obvious joke that bush administration is an opressive regime ok, just want to make sure the elephants still in the living room and everyone is ok with it

Re:Why is it...

[Isthisagametou]

Why is it Google's job to fight for the rights people of a country that
won't fight for themselves? This is the same erroneous view on reality
that got us fighting for the freedom of Iraquis that were not going to
do it for themselves.

Write your congressman, your senator, your president. Go on a march to
Washington. Do something to let gov't know your views on this. Don't
expect Google to fight your battles for you, nor those of the Chinese
people. If they don't like being censored let them take up their own
battles to repeal that.

Do I give any of us citizens much chance of ever changing anything our
governments are doing wrong? None at all. Google is in the same situation.
They can protest a little to China about censorship and protest a little
to US about privacy, but in the end it's all the same. You, me, Google,
and the Chinaman do what we are told.

Re:Why is it...

[The Cydonian]

Actually, a more pertinent point here is that Google has refused to maintain any identifiable information from its China-based users; note that Blogspot and Gmail are not operating in China.

Re:Why is it...

[The Cydonian]

I meant, there's no gmail.com.cn or blogspot.com.cn, unlike google.com.cn.

Re:Why is it...

[epee1221]

Tanks on the American one, buildings on the Chinese one...
Nope, no difference at all.

While you're at it, try searching:
falun gong -- obvious difference in what is displayed
taiwan -- nothing too obvious at first, but the difference in the number of hits is 2 orders of magnitude

Re:Only Because It's The American Government

[Locke2005]

shame they can't do a little in the name of safety. What exactly is this executive overreaching of the law making us safe from? If you want to protect your children from objectionable material on the internet, the only truly effective way is to set up a firewall that only allows white-listed URLs to be viewed. Stopping curious adolescents from googling for porn isn't going to accomplish a thing. Personally, I can't imagine why this data would be even remotely useful to the government -- the only reason they are demanding appears to be in order to send a clear "Big Brother is watching You!" message to the unwashed masses.

Could someone remind me what they need it for?

[Opportunist]

Wasn't it the question how many "ordinary" search queries return sex pages?

Would generate a few questions for me:

1. Who cares?
2. Should someone care, of course ALL of them do, sooner or later.
3. What do you need Google's database for? Too stupid to use Google?
4. Or too out of touch with the people you're supposedly representing to come up with "ordinary" search phrases?

Re:Could someone remind me what they need it for?

[BeanThere]

Wasn't it the question how many "ordinary" search queries return sex pages?

Hmm ... that implies that the idea is to prevent children from accidentally stumbling across porn, but if children actively search for porn then that's OK?

(I tend to think that kids are going to find porn anyway. I know we always did when I was a kid, and we never even had any of this "Internet" stuff.)

BC Medical Records

[temojen]

That's why there was a controversy over the contracting out of medical billing in BC. Had a fertility test in BC in the last 2 years? A US defence contractor knows about it....

Re:Only Because It's The American Government

[shawb]

Invalid comparison. In China, the law states that certain things must be censored. In the USA, the law states that people and organizations have a certain expectance of privacy, and that search and seizure can not be done without a court ordered warrant and evidence of a crime. Guess what... this falls under search and seizure. There was no warrant, therefore the demand was illegal.

Welcome to the new world

[nurb432]

Where nothing is considered private and personal.

Live your life accordingly.

You may be sadly deluded

[LunaticTippy]

All I can say is Never check your parents browser history.

Re:You may be sadly deluded

[Lehk228]

i installed firefox on my parents computer even thought they never use it, SPECIFICALLY so i don't find outwhat they do online

Re:You may be sadly deluded

[tilde_e]

Browser history?

You don't even have to look that hard. You'll find porn right in the Start menu that they didn't know how to hide. Don't even bother uninstalling this stuff in doing them a favor because it will just find its way back... always does.

Re:skewed sample

[cpt kangarooski]

Why not do a google search to find out?

So how does this work for International users?

[rediguana]

Will they only be handing over information about searches from Americans? Or is it going to be pulled from all Google users? I know this probably doesn't breach any privacy laws in the US (do you have any?) but could be of concern to Europeans. Does anyone have more info on this aspect?

Re:So how does this work for International users?

[Lehk228]

the data they are looking for is in the form of (SEARCH TERMS, SEARCH RESULTS)

if someone searched for private data then it would be exposed but that is the only personal data that is exposed by THIS demand.

exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN work

[TheAxeMaster]

Its not like what you transmit to a search engine via the internet is private and secured. Its fully open to the public and viewable by all. What the administration is trying to do is get google to do the legwork for them using the courts. Google doesn't want to do it, doesn't want to get tangled into what it could lead to. Its not like the NSA or someone else couldn't aggregate the data.
 
And it is bullshit, they shouldn't have to. Others have to pay a lot of money for this data, and google doesn't even want to be in the data selling business (read: non-evil ;).

Re:Gotta Maintain The Illusion

[ScrewMaster]

What constitutes terrorism is relative to that which you are afraid.

They're justifying it under the takings clause!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet Slashdot that I've figured the judge's legal reasoning out. The key is here, from TFA:

"Ware said that the reduced demand, coupled with the government's "willingness to compensate Google" for up to eight days of its programmers' time, had convinced him to grant the Justice Department at least some of what it had requested."

The government is claiming the data as private property to be taken for public use under the 5th amendment. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented, anyone heard of anything like this before?

Re:They're justifying it under the takings clause!

[deblau]

I'll take that bet. Oh wait... never mind.

Because they are paranoid...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I've said it before, but I can't understand why the government needs this data when they already have search results from MSN, Yahoo, and AOL.

Google's data it probably a better sample than the other two, and all three combined provide an excellent pool of numbers to derive whatever their statistitions are looking for.

But there may be more to it. I think they are also interested in establishing a precedent as well, a "toe-hold" they can try to exploit later for additional, and perhaps more invasive data. Think of it: MSN is in their pocket, and Yahoo is not far behind. With Google and the other three, there would be endless ways for them to mine and extrapolate all sorts of extremely personal data on just about anyone. These people are by their nature extremely paranoid, so who knows what they would ultimately try and do with the information, but they have an extensive history of trying to do oppressive and illegal things, so look to the past for ideas.

Apologies to Bill Hicks....

[Tony]

It's easy to stand up to people you know aren't going to retalliate.

Yeah. Thanks for turning the other cheek, Bub.

Missing the real issue

[Billosaur]

Gidari said that Alexa Internet, which is owned by Amazon.com, is a site that offers Web analytics services that can produce similar information "without entangling us in litigation going forward."

That point was raised repeatedly by Ware, who seemed concerned that if he granted the request, "a slew of trial attorneys and curious social scientists could follow suit."

"Now Google could face hundreds of university professors (saying), 'I've got a study I'd like you to conduct,'" Ware said.

Further on...

The dispute has elevated the prominence of search privacy, touching on how divorce lawyers or employers in a severance dispute could gain access to search terms that people have typed in. It's also raised eyebrows because Google chose to cooperate with a demand by the Chinese government to censor searches on the company's Google.cn site.

If the Justice Department does win this case, Google would likely face a second round of subpoenas from the American Civil Liberties Union for follow-up information. The ACLU is challenging the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, or COPA, which makes it a crime for a commercial Web site to post material that some jurors might find "harmful" to any minor who stumbles across it.

The point becomes: if Google complies with this request, either voluntarily or by court order, then that open's a Pandora's box for any group that wants a crack at their data, to prove their pet theory or compile information to use in other court cases. Ultimately, the government doesn't care about the actual data. They'll find enough porn searches in MSN, Yahoo, and AOL to keep them salivating for a good while. But if they can't bring Google to heel, they will a) look powerless in the face of one of the world's largest Internet companies and b) lose any grip they have on the others, who will say "if Google doesn't have to do it, we don't either."

Because the goal *IS* the invasion of personal dat

[PetriBORG]

They want to set a precedent however losely for collection of search data without a warent so that they can do it randomly in the future.... Think of this in the same way they want to go after your library records.

What's the point, really?

[illspirit]

The whole reason the DOJ wants the records is to prove that filtering software isn't as effective as COPPA, no? So how exactly is any number of random queries or page indices going to prove this? Even if the random sample was all hardcore porn pages and search strings, there's no way of telling if it was a child who did the search (or viewed the page). And if they're not asking for IP addresses (which they claim they're not), there's no way to know if a search or page even originated in this country, right? So, in theory, the data the DOJ is after might contain the results of people looking at porn in other countries in which it isn't illegal.

So, basically, they want to prove that someone, somewhere, might be breaking a US law, possibly in a country where said law doesn't apply, as evidence to support said law. Brilliant. What's next? Since other countries allow boobs on TV, we should ban TVs here?

Re:What's the point, really?

[Lehk228]

they are not looking for people searching for porn. the investigation is how often SFW search tems give NSFW results....

Re:What's the point, really?

[PPH]

Furthermore, it doesn't indicate whether the URLs returned would make it through filtering software (if any). This isn't under Google's control (or Yahoo's, MSNs, etc.).

"Honest, mom! I just typed in 'big boobs' to find some articles about Bush and Cheney."

Re:What's the point, really?

[illspirit]

Oooooh. I thought they were like trying to figure out how often porn was searched for, and how much porn was indexed. Between all the vague and conflicting stories (some say 'child porn', others say kids looking at it), it's kind of confusing. Thanks for clearing that up. But, yea, in that case, it doesn't sound so bad. However, it still doesn't seem too productive since anyone who wants to spam search results could do so from a foreign server where COPPA wouldn't affect them anyway.

Re:What's the point, really?

[Lehk228]

with a script you can't tell whether or not your "test" searches are strings people would actually be searching with. by using real world data they can classify each search string as seems to be looking for porn, and not seems to be looking for porn. the subject of study is how many not looking for porn strings turn up porn and why.

I doubt they will find much with google. the only time i get porn on google, is when i look for porn on google.

Re:Gotta Maintain The Illusion

[Spy der Mann]

We have ALWAYS been at war with the terrorists.

Yeah but when will they pack and leave the White House? :(

Eh..

[neurokaotix]

Before anyone spreads anymore misinformation, it's not to stop child pornography. It's to stop children from looking at porn, which, anyone with half a brain can tell you, is impossible because of how the Internet works. There is no identification layer to the 'net. The only way these extremely prude, old ass ignorant senators are going to be able to stop kids from looking at porn (and we all know they don't like porn at all, for anyone anyway) is to simply ban porn sites. Or forbid the viewing of any pornographic material to anyone who hasn't used a credit card to pay for it (this kind of indentifying the person as being at least over 18). The government is out of control. The time to start bearing arms and getting ready for the revolution is now.

Re:Eh..

[HTTP Error 403 403.9]

The only way these extremely prude, old ass ignorant senators are going to be able to stop kids from looking at porn [...snip...] is to simply ban porn sites.

What an excellent simple solution - just ban porn sites. After we ban porn sites, let's ban drunk driving. Cool! No more drunk driving.

Re:Eh..

[Lehk228]

shit why didn't i think of that. we can ban crack and meth too so no more crackheads right?

Re:Eh..

[ShadowFlyP]

Actually, a much better solution is to enact the evil bit. You claim that there is "no identification layer to the 'net", but RFC3514 was exactly for this purpose. Any packets that could be deemed "evil" should be marked as such. Then we just prevent the distribution of evil-bitted packets to children.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html

Re:Eh..

[QCompson]

Thank you. I'm amazed at how many people have misunderstood the intended purpose of this law. You put the words "child" and "porn" in the same sentence and people block out all other information and start babbling about child porn. I believe this may be part of the government's plan, however. Stringing two words together to create a symbolic connection is apparently very effective with the american sheeple: Sadam Hussein & 9/11 anyone?

1776

[the_REAL_sam]

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

A FASCIST in power is a tyrant, right?

The administration's CLAIM is that they want to sort the data to find the child porn downloaders. But all that means is they would like to be able to search in a blanket way, without first meeting the requirements set forth in the bill of rights.

From Article 4 of the Bill of Rights:
"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."

The article spells it out: blanket searches are unconstitutional b/c they do not spell out the particular place to be searched. Just saying "there's got to be SOMETHING on that server that's illegal just isn't good enough.

On those grounds, conducting blanket evesdropping on server(s) that THEY DON'T OWN is completely unconstitutional; furthermore, there is already a supreme court ruling which says they cannot perform ANY evesdropping on THEIR OWN servers. So they couldn't "work around it" by putting "snoopy routers" at various checkpoints.

Re:1776

[G)-(ostly]

A FASCIST in power is a tyrant, right?
No.

Many facists are democratically elected rulers. It badly weakens your argument when you fail to recognize the most basic terminology involved in it.

Re:1776

[qzulla]

Somehow I keep thinking the right of the people is someone like me, not a corporation.

I think what we need here is a Supreme Court ruling on what "people" means. I don't know if I would like the outcome but at least there is a line drawn in the sand on this definition. It's too bad google didn't take that angle and run with it. It's not like they don't have the bux.

Lines are easier to fight than slippery slopes.

Or whatever your analogy is.

But, man! In the internet world that article is left wide open. If persons is a corporation we are goners. There is no probable cause in this case.

qz

Re:1776

[Shajenko42]

I think what we need here is a Supreme Court ruling on what "people" means.

We already have one. It says corporations are people.

other resources available

[evildogeye]

Can't our government just use the keyword prediction feature on wordtracker.com? It works for me! There is a monthly fee, though, which I can understand wanting to avoid.

new motto?

[bk4u]

Do no evil...unless forced to

Re:new motto?

[tapo]

Uh, Google's motto isn't even "Do no evil", it's "Don't be evil." Besides, they're only allowing the government to access their index, they fought to keep user searches off limits. I'd say that's pretty much within their motto to me, especially when their competitors didn't even try.

Filters

[cyphercell]

Seeing as how most "Normal" search engines use their own search filters, raw urls and raw search terms will represent a rather inaccurate set of search results. For instance searching for "tits" should return results for the "blue tit" a type of bird with safe search on*. Turn safe searches off and it's a different ballgame. *Oddly, enough this used to work on google, but no longer does, nowadays google just filters out "tits" all together. I'm still curious about how the DOJ is going to compensate for the major search engines filtering. As a technology minded parent I think google is doing precisely the right thing. I am afraid that one day my kids might act irresponsibly on the Internet, but it's my job to correct and guide my children's behavior. At the same time I am also concerned about the rights my children will enjoy on the Internet in the future. I haven't read COPA but, if just gets the nudity and sex off the sites home page I don't see anything wrong with it, but the way the Department of Justice is collecting evidence is outrageous. They would not be able to do this with say medical records and that I think is easily an equivalent privacy issue.

Re:exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN wor

[pete-classic]

Its fully open to the public and viewable by all.

What? What the fuck are you talking about?

I'm going to do a search on google right now. I'll check back and see if you can tell me what it was.

HTTP in the clear is potentially viewable by a reasonably determined attacker, but that's a hell of a long way from "fully open to the public and viewable by all."

Its not like what you transmit to a search engine via the internet is private and secured.

If it's not private, why is there a privacy policy governing it?

-Peter

Re:sad really -totally flawed "logic"...

[necro2607]

No, that's thoroughly unreasonable.

The entity "at fault" here is the US government for essentially trying to overstep their legal restrictions.

Google isn't causing the US DoJ to act that way simply because Google logs detailed statistics.

That logic is just as flawed as saying rape is justifiable because "those girls shouldn't look so good in the first place", "she chose to dress like a slut so that's what she gets", etc.

Yeah and verily forsooth, like, totally

[ackthpt]

if you read the article you would notice that google does not oppose the extremely limited amount of info requested. and if the govt would have asked in the first place they wouldnt have gone to court.

Only thing is, at first the Just-Us Dept wanted far more -- but have back-pedaled to a position the judge is more favourable to.

You overlook that during this battle the Just-Us Dept. was hungrily viewing online records as a whole new avenue to take their investigations down. Some ISP's have fought hard against opening records for RIAA/MPAA/DMCA proceedings, while others have been more than willing to help investigators track down those who prey on children. Google, et al, do have a heart, but this was simply another battle in an ongoing war between privacy and giving investigators information which may find its way out of the primary objective and being used to drum up unrelated investigations, if you get my drift.

the truth is..

[dartarrow]

...they want to see how many ppl know about their miserable failure.

"Chilling effect" doctrine

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>>...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.

>Perhaps he should be more reluctant because it's against the US constitution.

Governments have so much power that they can limit people's rights by creating a "perception". The judge might have been talking about a real impact on web users arising from the fear of government monitoring. If the judge can identify a chilling effect then he can rule against the government without resorting to 4th Amendment precedents.

Re:Yeah

[IPA]

Google's PigeonRanking is going to be totally screwed when the bird flu gets here.

Data Dredging?

[Aspirator]

Well Put.

rather, they are trying to make a point regarding aspects of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the ACLU has successfully blocked in court. the government wants figures to support it's position in that case, but those figures don't exist, so they're demanding that google *give* them the raw data they need to make the argument they want to make

Given enough sources of random data it will always be possible to find one
which makes the case that you wish to make. So then present that one and
dispose of all the rest, and voila! you have evidence to support your
case.

Google queries are not safe for privacy

[Maljin Jolt]

Not only Google records all your search, but performs a context analysis on your history. Today, for their own purpose, i.e. business.

Here is my example: Recently, I did a search for pdf datasheet of chip HD44780, which is matrix LCD controller with character rom. Three days later, I did another search for another pdf datasheet of chip C1303G, which is an AM radio reciever. Completely unrelated hardware by its function. But with the results on C1303G I strangely got "Ads by Google" on HD44780 as well as more LCD display manufacturers ads. So now Google realises I am building strange electronics devices all the time.

It is just a matter of time for the U.S. Government to get the same information, either legally or illegally. How difficult is to break in Google database, with an agent insider?

Parking Garage

[tilrman]

Suppose Google owned a parking garage with valet service. It lets people park there for free, with the understanding that you'd receive advertisements on your windshield. The Justice Department steps up and says it that Google should hand over the keys to every car so that the government can check them out, just in case.

And the judge is "reluctant" to give them what they want because it might somehow give the appearance of Big Brother.

Thanks for sticking up for us, Your Honor.

Re:Parking Garage

[myth24601]

"Suppose Google owned a parking garage with valet service. It lets people park there for free, with the understanding that you'd receive advertisements on your windshield. The Justice Department steps up and says it that Google should hand over the keys to every car so that the government can check them out, just in case."

I think this is a really bad analogy. Googles records of our use of thier service is their records to do with as they please, not the property of the serchers or the searched. You don't own your search and if you don't want a record of your search to exist then don't make the search.

My argument would be that the government doesn't have the right to take GOOGLES records which don't have anything to do with children downloading porn. Perhaps they help children find the porn but would it be illegal to tell a child where to find porn (ex: "Hey 17 year old kid, you can find porn in that bookstore.")? I don't think so since the porn dealer is the one with the porn.

Re:Parking Garage

[fishbowl]

>I think this is a really bad analogy.

Generally, any attempt to map the "Car" idiom onto any legal question regarding Cyberspace, will make a poor fit. Nevertheless, someone always tries to do it.

Re:Parking Garage

[Burning1]

Generally, any attempt to map the "Car" idiom onto any legal question regarding Cyberspace, will make a poor fit.

Generally, any anology gives a person an opportunity to distort an argument.

Mod Parent Down - Incorrect

[Darkforge]

The Chinese people do have the right to privacy guaranteed under the Chinese Constitution. I direct your attention to Article 40. While you're there, you might check out articles 35, 36 and 41. (Most people aren't even aware that China has a Constitution.)

Re:Mod Parent Down - Incorrect

[bombadier_beetle]

And most people who are aware of China's constitution are aware of the notorious Article 51:

Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

Incidentally, if you think that the CCP abides by the constitution (for example, Article 36), then I've got some WMDs in Iraq to sell you.

Re:Mod Parent Down - Incorrect

[unitron]

Notice how Article 51 sounds like it was written at Area 51?

Kinky

[peterfa]

"Judge May Force Google to Submit to Feds" -- now this sounds kinky!

No Search Terms? Wasted!

[Erik Noren]

They're NOT going to see all my anti-NSA pr0n queries? All that effort wasted!

I would have done it on MSN or Yahoo but they'd already turned over their data.

Well, back to family-friendly pr0n searches I guess.

Re:Why is it... Lucky it isn't Iraq

[0x15]

My, what an 'insightful' comment. I'm glad the moderator was impressed.

I wonder what Google policies you would support for North Korea? The law there says that dissent is illegal. What should Google do with a search that turns up dissenting documents? Turn the searcher in, as required by law?

People like you end up having their rights taken away. You're meek.

While this is OT...

[nwbvt]

"What was Google supposed to do, not filter search results and get completely blocked by the Communist Party? "

YES!!!!

At least if they really cared about their "Do no evil" policy. Sure, you can argue that the Chinese people are not really missing anything as without this version of the search engine they would not be able to use Google at all, but by obeying the government's demands Google has, for all intents and purposes, given their stamp of approval to Chinese censorship. If they had instead made a big fuss about it, insisting that their service would not be censored, that would certainly raise some eyebrows in China. People would hear about this great search engine that their friends from other parts of the world use, and would want to know why it is that their government has this huge problem with it. This would end up pushing China to enact more democratic reforms. Which would be a good thing.

Re:While this is OT...

[unitron]

If you're in China and you try to use the regular Google site for a search whose results will include things which the Chinese government doesn't want you to see, you probably won't get any results at all.

If you do a Google search on the China version of their site and some of the results are censored by the Chinese government, Google doesn't show them to you, but it does let you know that censorship has happened. So if you're a Chinese citizen using the Chinese Google site at least you know when the government has interfered, whereas with other search engines and sites you wouldn't. And you may get some results rather than none, perhaps not learning about Athenian democracy but at least learning the origins of the marathon, and maybe it was for that which you were looking in the first place.

And at least Google isn't helping them put anybody in jail.

If the Internet helps bring about the fall of the current government of China, having Google there will make it happen sooner rather than later.

But don't anybody tell the Chinese government that. :-)

Re:While this is OT...

[nwbvt]

"If you're in China and you try to use the regular Google site for a search whose results will include things which the Chinese government doesn't want you to see, you probably won't get any results at all."

Actually, I belive China blocked access to the entire search engine, or at least they use to. It pissed off a lot of Chinese citizens. And even if they tried to do it on a page by page basis (only block out links to pages that might enlighten your citizens), the search results will remain the same. They just won't be able click on them. A couple of years ago, I volunteered teaching computer related skills at an elementary school, and of course the net was censored pretty heavily. Believe me, the kids noticed it. I can't imagine an entire country having to go through that without getting some resentment against those who were censoring them.

"If you do a Google search on the China version of their site and some of the results are censored by the Chinese government, Google doesn't show them to you, but it does let you know that censorship has happened."

Here is Google's translation of the Chinese search results, (compare them to the normal search results). The only mention of the censorship is at the bottom of the page, where it states "According to local laws, regulations, and policies, not part of the search results show." Not exactly a giant neon sign saying "You are being censored by a government that doesn't want you to know the truth about what its doing".

Re:While this is OT...

[Gulthek]

Google gets a list of search terms to block. Google blocks those terms and only those terms. Users use Google to get around the censorship (intentional mispellings).

Prior to this appeasement Google was completely blocked by the Chinese government.

Which do you think is better for open information in China? Beijing is Far Away and the Mountains are Very Tall and all that.

Now then. You say that China would be better with more democratic reforms. Explain. Seriously. Do you really, honestly think that democratic==good? What's your take on the Palestinian elections? What's your take on the U.S. treatment of Central America (United Fruit) and the Middle East (for starters)?

Re:While this is OT...

[LiLWiP]

When you do business internationally, you have to abide by the rules of the country in which you are doing business. Shipping companies that ship to China have to obey different regulations for those shipments than they do if the ship to France, which is different than the requirements to ship to Korea or Britain. Same goes for companies that make hardware or software. Same goes for GOOGLE. Google did no "EVIL" by obeying the laws of the country in which they are doing business. The only other option would be to not do business with China. Last I checked making money for your stockholders was not "doing evil". Like Punboy said, Google's presence in China is a good thing. Maybe there are restrictions on the searches, but at least they (Google) are there. In order to make positive changes you MUST have a presence. By not doing business with China, you effectively shut yourself out of a stream of revenue and completely obliterate your chances of making any change.

Re:While this is OT...

[BeanThere]

YES!!!! At least if they really cared about their "Do no evil" policy.

Yeah, that way a bunch of companies that are even more friendly to China can take off and be successful! How does that help the world stamp out evil? You can't fight evil if you're an insignificant nobody with no resources anyway, and having a system where "companies that care about rights withdraw from the market" while "evil companies that don't succeed in the market" is a surefire way to maximize the amount of "evil" going on - in Darwinian-speak, you're selecting for evil!

Re:While this is OT...

[nwbvt]

Ok, so you are modifying "Do no evil" to "Do no evil unless someone else is doing more evil"?

Re:While this is OT...

[nwbvt]

"Google gets a list of search terms to block. Google blocks those terms and only those terms. Users use Google to get around the censorship (intentional mispellings)."

Internet-savy users were able to find ways around the censorhip before as well. Its the other 99% of them I'm worried about.

And no, they are blocking results, not search terms. There is a pretty big difference between the two.

" Which do you think is better for open information in China? Beijing is Far Away and the Mountains are Very Tall and all that."

To have its citizens demand a free Internet. Not to have them settle for something their government says is 'almost as good'.

"Now then. You say that China would be better with more democratic reforms. Explain. Seriously. Do you really, honestly think that democratic==good?"

Well lets think about this for a second. If what I thought was that having a democracy automatically makes a government good, I would have probably worded my statement something like "This would end up pushing China to enact more democratic reforms. Which would make it a good government". Instead I said "This would end up pushing China to enact more democratic reforms. Which would be a good thing". Meaning a move to democracy is good, meaning more democracy is better than less democracy. Do you need help understanding the difference between "good" and "better"? Because most of us learned that in the 2nd grade...

And the simple reason for this fact is that a government that governs without the consent of its people is inherently unjust. Nothing can change that injustice other than democratic reforms.

Re:While this is OT...

[nwbvt]

Because Yahoo and MS never made their mission statement "Do no evil" and people claiming (in issues like the one in the article, assuming anyone actually remembers what it is about) that they are fighting the good fight for the rights of Internet users. MSN and Yahoo have taken a lot of heat as well, even if you were not paying attention at the time.

think about google's real reasons

[tehwebguy]

google is really just trying to drag this out until there will be enough google queries about the situation itself in the data. they want the feds to see what people really think about their privacy invasions.

lol maybe..

Go Google!

[nevernamed]

This moronic government of ours needs to stop infringing american civil rights. I say that they should give them as little as possible. It's obscene. "Those who would sacrifice liberty to purchase temporary saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey."

Couldn't the DOJ do this on their own

[wile_e_wonka]

It seems to me that the DOJ would have an easier time if they just did this on their own. Type in a search term(s), see what comes up. Rinse and repeat.

Now, I unserstand that might not give them an idea of what is really being searched for out there. But there are other things you could do--ask some people to play around on DOJ computers for a while. Set up a little webcafe with a sign that says "all search terms will be recorded and used in a research project." People might be reluctant to really let themselves go on their searches, knowing that the DOJ is recording their search terms, but it's better than nothing.

I assume the real problem is that the search terms could be connected with the person who typed them in. I think people are afraid of the DOJ saying, "we just want to know what comes up in searches with the real search terms people use" but then when the DOJ finds "15 year olds having sex" in a search box they'll go find who typed it in and prosecute. I think that really is a problem. But If Google was sure that all personally identifiable information was removed from the searches (i.e., the DOJ has the search terms and the results, but no way to figure out who typed in the search), then I find this acceptable. It's still problematic, though, because Google does store information on what we searched for (search history) which I guess would be open to subpoena.

In conclusio, the doomsday-sayers are correct--this is long and rambling but I've come to the conclusion that unless Google starts making it so searches aren't personally identifiable there very well may be some sort of constitutional violation. I don't know exactly what though. People say "the right to privacy, of course!" But no, that is really more of a right to personal autonomy. The "right to privacy" does not refer to a right to not have information about us revealed (though the name would make it sound like something along those lines). Freedom of speech? Perhaps the right to receive speech from willing speakers? Hmmm, I don't know. I think I'm almost changing my mind again--even if the information is personally identifiable, what's the constitutional violation? It sounds bad to me, but I don't see a legal problem... I guess that would explain why Google is using a "trade secret" argument.

Quit griping, it's FOR THE CHILDREN...

[BarnabyWilde]

...and that should be good enough!

No, wait... it's not. Nope, it's just another excuse.

my bad

[cosminn]

Is there a good reason Google doesn't just delete all the records and go OOPS ?

Re:my bad

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask me, we have become the very thing that people so many years ago tried to escape by getting on a boat in search of a freedom that didnt exist, yet was so desired. To leave behind an overbearing government and to start a new world....not a new world order mind you, but a new world. Oh how fast they would destroy the Mayflower today, and then spread disinformation to the public. Great Job!!!

Poor Google

[boxxa]

So Google was built on technology and creating a new way of indexing sites is not forced to turn over their information to the government? Thats pretty sad how a company invested so much to build a massive index of websites for better searching and now forced to give them to the government so they can chase people down. It seems like a false hope really, I mean how many serious groups are posting terror plans on the internet? Would having the Taliban's website helped prevent 9/11? The answer is no. In relaity the government should invest more of its time looking into its creditable resources and not hounding a monster search engine to give up its company data.

Data Hosting

[PPH]

So, if I was to create the Next Big Search Engine, which country should I choose to site my servers in order to avoid this sort of nonsense?

How long will it be before existing companies move their data offshore?

Re:Data Hosting

[DanTheLewis]

1) Read Cryptonomicon.
2) Make friends with a very rich person.
3) Create a data haven.

Just Step 1 will help.

Ordering of results too.

[The Cydonian]

There's a clear difference in ordering of results for certain keywords when I'm signed in to Gmail, and when I'm not. This even as I've switched off storing of my search history.

Neo-McCarthyism (off-topic?)

[MrNougat]

And I'm not talking about Jenny McCarthy, either.

For five years now, "terrorism" has been the excuse to trample on all sorts of privacy concerns in the US, even though there have not been any terrorist acts perpetrated in the US since WTC, and there's been no hard evidence that intrusion of privacy has prevented anything. One of the major differences, though, is that the rooting out of Communists in the early 1950's started in the State Dept; the rooting out of terrorists today completely skips that and goes right for the citizenry.

Re:Neo-McCarthyism (off-topic?)

[robertjw]

It's interesting to me how the Federal Government always has to have some big cause to use as an excuse to violate citizen's civil liberties. In the 40's it was nationality with Japanese internments and such. In the 50's it was communism. In the 70's, 80's and 90's it was the 'war on drugs'. Now it's terrorism.

Too bad that the American public can never seem to tie all of these 'issues' together...

Do a Google on the Judge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google for Judge James Ware, the judge running this case.

Find out neat things... like he claimed to have discovered his passion for justice and the law when his 13 year old brother died in his arms. He stated in newspaper interviews that his brother was shot off his bicycle by some racist white punk. He gave speeches. He was highly respected. Clinton nomintated him for a circuit court judge position.

Except it happened to some another man who was also black and also named James Ware, whom he had never met.

He abandoned his circuit court nomination when this was made public.

Political Paradox

[tubapro12]

Technology and the modern age seem to mean more rights in the former Soviet Republics, while in the U.S. it tends to mean less rights. The government of a democratic country is supposed to represent the wants and desires of the people, therefore, one should be able to conclude we Americans want to lose our rights. (This is something people should consider next election time btw.)

Re:Less than originally expected (slightly OT)

[TheSpoom]

And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution. (Perhaps there are other reasons for permittting it however.)

That's your opinion, but Bush wasn't trying to promote discussion about it, or make it a guaranteed freedom, he was trying to make it the first act by the general public actively forbidden by the Constitution. Amendments are not places to put laws (as evidenced by failures such as prohibition), they're for checks and balances to keep government working for the people.

No longer a privacy problem.

[babbling]

It is no longer a privacy problem, since all they would now be supplying is information about publicly available websites.

The only problem now is that the government expects to get this information for free from Google, whereas Google would now be providing a service to the government, and the government should have to pay for that service at whatever rate Google decides on.

Re:Why should the government get free data?

[Buran]

They can't afford it. They blew the money on the stupid war that no one wants.

Ninth District Whacko Judge

[fuzznutz]

Another idiotic decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Clowns. I just hope Google has the stones to take it to the SCOTUS. Hopefully it'll be yet another overturned Ninth Circuit appeal.

Hey liberals... Did you notice which justices voted for the Kelo v New Haven eminent domain nonsense? Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter and O'Connor. It's a shame our boys Roberts and Alito weren't there in time to stop that travesty. It's also a shame for what they'll do to Roe v Wade, but, hey, something had to give.

OT: Re:Missing the real issue

[pipingguy]

without entangling us in litigation going forward

What is this "going forward" nonsense? Is there some other direction to go, time-wise? I notice that some car manufacturer has adopted this buzzphrase. What is it supposed to mean?

Re:OT: Re:Missing the real issue

[fishbowl]

>>without entangling us in litigation going forward

>What is this "going forward" nonsense?

It's not nonsense, it's important to distinguish current litigation from hypothetical or planned future litigation.

Re:OT: Re:Missing the real issue

[pipingguy]

Is "going forward" actual legal terminology? If not, then it's just an invented buzzphrase that gets glommed-onto by those creating or looking for new catch phrases.

Creating new catch phrases is usually the work of marketers who wish to redefine or obfuscate a concept that already exists for their own purposes.

Re:OT: Re:Missing the real issue

[fishbowl]

>Is "going forward" actual legal terminology?

No, it's business jargon, yes, a buzzword. Whether you regard this language as nonsense, or necessary, depends on who you need to persuade.

Poison the data

[mrmeval]

Enter search or other terms that make the data meaningless. Get busy.

Re:To Arms Men!

[fishbowl]

If you set out to incite your armed rebellion, you will quickly discover that the time is *not* now, and that relatively few people have decided that it would be better to die in the opposition of tyranny than to endure it for another day. Most importantly, there is no such issue that is so divisive as to bring large parts of the military, whole chains of command together with the civilian industry, finance, and supply of raw materials, in line with your revolutionary cause. Things simply aren't that bad now. People will choose to live another day, rather than risk their lives in the hope that others may throw off shackles.

My understanding...

[phorm]

I hate to be devil's advocate here, but it's not that they'll be specifically trying to make it harder for gets to get to porn (as in, they won't be building the actual software changes needed), but they might be looking at introducing new regulations to make the pron sites do so.

Personally, even as an adult I get rather annoying with finding porn sites when I make non-porn related searches. Maybe if they were to throw some law that the sites can use unrelated keywords in white-on-white to troll for search engine hits, and thus have kids searching for 'girls horses' not run into some very bad things (this is example only).

Really, I'm still not sure what business the government has in this, and unfortunately it tends to be a slippery slope regardless. Perhaps a requirement that all pornsites have external links auto-redirect to the "do you want to enter" screen would satisfy them... but no matter what they do in the US, porn is international and plenty of non-US sites could happily ignore this. I'm really not sure what they hope to prove, but if they won't mind their own fucking business one hopes at least they'll do something useful that doesn't impact other legitimate users.

Bullshit! Google Was ALREADY in China

[Wrath0fb0b]

But, Google has to be ALLOWED in China first.

The already did when they introduced the internet. Remember, the internet interpets censorship as damage and routes around it. If Google really wanted to they would have no problem keeping all their operations outside the great firewall (but they would have to forego some profitability in the process).

It's not like Google is short of the technical expertise on the matter. Meanwhile, I'm no CS major but I can think of a few steps that would help:

(1) FreeGoogle desktop application that allows you use your home computer as a proxy to fetch google content from mainland China. Use very weak SSL to obfuscate the content (but not destroy people's home computers). Aggregate a list of all these IPs and distribute accordingly. This could be extended to other sites on a per-computer whitelist basis (eg: Wikipedia, NYTimes, CNN).

(2) "Unofficial Google Servers" that essentially perform (1) but on a higher-bandwidth scale. Don't bind them to any DNS entries, just distribute the IPs. When the firewall blocks them, move on to a different IP. Lather Rinse Repeat.

(3) Google-News-Packs: Download all the content from the front page of news.google.com, strip the pictures and zip the contents. Distribute freely. Especially the ones about China.

How hard can the Chinese government make life for Google if they refuse to set a single foot inside the country (or Hong Kong)? Technically, I'm sure that Google would win this arms race if they only had half of the balls necessary to fight it.

Props for Google

[thewhitefedora]

I'm proud of Google for holding out so long. They tried and are trying really hard to keep people from ruining this amazing company they've become.

Bill of Rights - A Tiered System?

[the_REAL_sam]

Well you make a good point, and I think there is a distinction to be made between

(1)
the data that the corporation has gathered about its customers and clients (for book keeping, marketing analysis, providing optimal service, etc.),

AND

(2)
the information about the corporation's own internal affairs.

Personally, I'd be much more sympathetic to protecting the data about the corporations' clients than the data about the corporations' internal affairs. I believe the bill or rights was written to protect the rights of individual people. Corporations didn't even exist when it was written.

Without all that much evidence to back it up, it is my belief & suspicion that corporations were not designed in a way to deserve full protection of the bill of rights.

A few reasons I have are the fact that (1) A corporation cannot be placed "under arrest", and doesn't fear it, (2) the fact that many fines are not prohibitive within the scope of corporate finance, and are therefore not prohibitive of the crimes which they were designed to penalize, (3) the fact that employees within the corporation can be held individually liable in order to spare the corporation from its full share of the liability, (4) the fact that corporations (some at least) have a reputation or history of influencing political campaigns, of purchasing laws and of pushing lawsuits with greater resources than the public interest would effectively muster in defense of the public preference, (5) the fact that a skilled accountant, attorney or bookkeeper can play "shell game" with facts and resources, and that corporations have armies of them (6) the fact that investors in the corporation need not fear "lifting the corporate veil" and can invest without criminal liability for potentially criminal gains, (7) the fact that a mere handful corporations have completely transformed huge sections of the American landscape from a nice country to a neon parking lot hell in just a few decades. To name just a FEW reasons.

Well, all that being said, I honestly DON'T know that much about it, but those are the reasons I believe corporations should have only partial representation under the bill of rights. I believe there needs to be a balance, and that limiting corporate protection under the bill of rights could be the right place to stem the corporate tide. But as I said, imo, the end-clients (the everyday U.S. citizens giving up their personal information away to corporate databases) still deserve bill of rights protection WITHIN the corporation.

That is because there are some corporations which have grown to an almost inevitable size, and if the government "grants itself" the right to pick through customer data without warrants then they've effectively bypassed an important part of the Bill of Rights; it is my belief that the Bill of Rights was written before that could have happened, or the Bill of Rights would have guarded against the intrusion. I believe that the majority of U.S. citizens WANT their privacy guarded, even if some of their private information is in the hands of an almost-inevitable corporate database.

Clear head, anyone??

[agentcdog]

OK... Let's get FACTS:
1. THIS IS NOT A WARRANT!!!!!!
It's a subpoena... there's a BIG difference. No one thinks Google committed a crime and the feds aren't feeding them a warrant.
So Why a subpoena..? cause the feds want to SPY on us?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: There is a case being heard (which the feds don't want and didn't initiate) about the legitimacy of their law. Their case is based on the idea that their law is necessary because less intrusive means do not work. In order to PROVE this, they need evidence, which the big search engines have; thus the subpoena.

2. As has been stated, this is about the availability of porn to minors. They say they are targeting people making pornography available.

3. There is no personal privacy being infringed upon here. There may be a "collective" privacy, i.e. what we as a whole are doing/searching for, but there is no information about YOU being requested. There may be concerns about Google's rights as a corporation, but this is a subpoena, and they DO have information that may be useful for the case.

I personally think this is a bad idea, but not because GW is some fascist freak. I think it is impractical. We have much more pressing battles in terms of liberties, and it's good to see people care... but for goodness sakes PLEASE don't get all irrational about it, or we will end up like the French revolution or McCarthyism, just doing people in by association.

p.s. I think the real legal question here is whether you can use a subpoena for this kind of situation. I think the answer is no, but I would like to see Google offer the information up. I know there's a possibility that the government will say "hey who searched for that," but there are clear protections for that (see 1st amendment). I am not a lawyer, maybe the goverment subpoenas businesses often for data mining... maybe not... anyone know whether this happens?

Re:I don't see the problem.

[Fire Dragon]

Couldn't they just hire a room full of monkeys to hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button

Most of the monkeys can't be hired, they need to be elected. Some monkeys can then hire other monkeys to do this bush button thing.

The OTHER SlashDot effect

[TheConfusedOne]

Hillarious. You respond to a comment rated +5 Insightful and get rated Off-Topic because you didn't toe the party line.

Hint: The people who call it the "domestic spieing" program haven't bothered to understand the issue.

You make good points though I'd recommend dropping the Clinton insult next time as people will just zero in on that and dismiss you.

UnREASONABLE search

[TheConfusedOne]

The 4th Ammendment protects against unreasonable search not all unwarranted searches.

The issue in this case is that the information request in question isn't really a search as it's not being used in a criminal case. Also it is not being used to prosecute anyone and the information, by itself, does not uniquely identify anyone. So this makes the whole issue a lot more complicated than simply slapping down the "4th Ammendment Trump Card(tm)" and walking away from the table.

Of course this great defender of freedom is also busy making sure Chinese people don't see tanks with their searches. Also, do you think that China allows Google to keep the logs from search request to google.cn private?

Re:UnREASONABLE search

[roystgnr]

The 4th Ammendment protects against unreasonable search not all unwarranted searches.

And what makes a search reasonable or unreasonable? Here's a hint: if a private citizen would be legally allowed to perform the same search, it is reasonable. If a private party would be charged with a felony, as you or I would be if we obtained Google search data by force or subterfuge, then the search is unreasonable.

The issue in this case is that the information request in question isn't really a search as it's not being used in a criminal case.

There is no dictionary, legal or otherwise, that says "search" doesn't mean to search unless it's to provide evidence for a criminal case. It is true that courts have refused to admit evidence obtained by illegal searches as a way of discouraging them, but that doesn't mean the search was legal until a prosecutor tried to use the evidence. That court rule also may not mean as much today as it used to, since an accused criminal's right to see a court and see the evidence against him is under attack as well from this same administration.

Re:UnREASONABLE search

[TheConfusedOne]

Well, considering that a private citizen filing suit against Google could request information of this nature as part of discovery in a trial.

Aside from that your just getting yourself all tied up in legal jargon and misinterpretations of the Constitution. The government made an information request of a coporation. The government is allowed to gather certain data from coroporations without warrants. The issue now is whether the current request is within the scope of the government's powers. Apparently a number of other search companies felt it was and provided similar information. Google is balking and thus it becomes the job of a judge to decide whether the government has exceeded the scope of it's powers. Since this request does not involve a criminal complaint or prosecution than the issue isn't warrant versus no warrant since no warrant can be obtained.

Re:UnREASONABLE search

[roystgnr]

Well, considering that a private citizen filing suit against Google could request information of this nature as part of discovery in a trial.

Who is on trial here? It's not Google. It's not any of Google's customers. I could certainly request information like this during discovery, but a judge wouldn't give it to me.

Aside from that your just getting yourself all tied up in legal jargon and misinterpretations of the Constitution.

I am? You're the one insisting "search" doesn't mean to search.

The government made an information request of a coporation.

Exactly. And the request was denied. That should be that.

Since this request does not involve a criminal complaint or prosecution than the issue isn't warrant versus no warrant since no warrant can be obtained.

Exactly: no warrant can be obtained. And when no warrant can be obtained, unreasonable searches (e.g. searches which would be illegal for private citizens to perform and which require judges and armed law enforcement officers for governments to perform) are prohibited by the fourth amendment.

Just listen to yourself: the government has less reason for performing this search than they would if they were investigating a criminal case, and you think that gives them more right to order the search? That's ridiculous!

Maybe Google shouldn't have the data?

[keraneuology]

Am I the only person who speculates that perhaps Google shouldn't keep the data in the first place? Yes, I understand the geek mentality that never deleting any files is a good thing, but does Google really need to log every search along with the IP address?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Gotta Maintain The Illusion

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah yeah, I know. It was a long day at work.

Re:Less than originally expected - not quite

[hedgie]

It is actually much more then originally afraid of: It is a 'squeeze' - and they G. cannot escape. ACLU will be the bad guy if they comply. They will be fined (x milllions a day) if they do not.: "If the Justice Department does win this case, Google is likely to face a second round of subpoenas from the American Civil Liberties Union (Aclu) for follow-up information. The Aclu is challenging the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which makes it a crime for a commercial website to post material that some jurors might find "harmful" to any minor who stumbles across it. ... Aclu attorney Aden Fine told Ware that his organisation would "certainly need to know" additional information about how Google's search engine works, in order to rebut the Justice Department study. That information, he said, would include topics such as the number of servers and the number of web pages indexed" http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39 157220,00.htm Surprizingly, stock went up.

Re:exactly, gov't doesn't want to do their OWN wor

[nahdude812]

It does represent a form of unreasonable search and siezure. It does violate reasonable expectation of privacy. Both of these things are constitutionally protected against.

I can have a conversation with my lawyer or my spouse in a park, and it is not legal for the police to sit 200 yards away with a parabolic microphone listening in. That reasonable expectation of privacy can only be breached with a search warrant, which first demonstrates to a judge that sufficient evidence is present that I committed a crime to supercede my constitutional rights. Even then there still exist privileges that cannot be breached by any means (such as attorney client privilege); so long as I have a resonable expectation of privacy with my attorney, my conversation with him is not fair game in any way.

The justice department is not even alleging a crime happened here, hence no search warrant can be issued, hence users' reasonable expectation of privacy re: their communications with Google cannot be violated.

The only saving grace is that they are not asking for personally identifiable information (they do not want to even be able to tell whether any two searches were made by the same individual, let alone any information to identify that individual). It is however one step down a slippery slope. There is no need for this information, and more importantly, the information itself could be collected by the justice department if they bothered to perform the searches in question themselves.

Search Filters and Other

[swordfish666]

It is the responsibility of the parents to monitor what their children are searching for on the internet. The govt stepping in and saying it's in the name of freedon and justic is a bunch of hooey.
The real problem that I have is with this Administration pushing our soceity to Orwell's 1984 all in the name of freedom.

Why doesn't Misrosoft buy out Net-Nanny (or whoever) and bundle it in with Windows? It's not like the gov't will stop them (damn IE & MediaPlayer).

The oter problem is the quality of search results in gereral.
Tell me when you search on Google how far pas page 5 of results do you go?
Once you get past there it's all down hill with spam sites, redirescts, porn, crack sites and other useless junk.

OTHER Search ENGINES?

[u16084]

Has MSN,YAHOO,ASK been asked top submit similar data? Or Is google running around with a target on its back?

Re:OTHER Search ENGINES?

[Flounder05]

they were asked, and all bent right over for the justice department without a fight.

Re:OTHER Search ENGINES?

[u16084]

Ahh, (heading to google) to catch up... should of RTFA...

The Inevitable

[towsonu2003]

In Russia, the government pwns Google. Ehm, oh -wait

A great turning point in the history of the U.S.

[$criptah]

This is a great example of how current politicians (Democrats and Republicans) are selling out the ideas of founding fathers and other patriots who fought for the freedom of this land. What ever happend to "give me liberty or give me death?"

If I were Sergey Brin, I would order all logs destroyed and tell the government to fuck off. People came to this country to seek freedom from governments and religions; look what we have here nowadays. I simply cannot believe that more people do not stand up for their rights. Today it is some query logs, tomorrow it is your journal. The land of the scared and home of the slaves.

Re:Not reluctance; verbatim compliance with law

[mfrank]

Well, they can just let a contract to a private firm to do the searches and collate the data. Your dad's parole office could have done the same thing.

Hmmm. Wonder if there are any companies like that, and if there are, are they hiring . . .

No listen to yourself

[TheConfusedOne]

The government current collects vast quantities of information from corporations without search warrants. This includes employment statistics, financial information, hiring policies, etc. They also collect a lot of information about you that doesn't requires a warrant either. This information includes voter registrations, automobile registrations, your social security information and census data. Some of it personally identifiable, some of it not.

The point is that in this case the government was requesting information from a corporation regarding non-personally identifiable data.

While retrieving this information may satisfy the dictionary definition of search it does not satisfy the legal definition of search and thus does not run afoul of the fourth ammendment.

Simply because you choose to say "it's search" doesn't make it so.

I've heard of that ruling, but enough is enough

[the_REAL_sam]

It would be an outrage if a corporation were allowed to cast a vote in elections, since a person could make a billion dummy corp's and steal the election.

Therefore, there must a clear distinction between corporate rights and human citizen's rights. The corporations should not have a full set of rights. Rather, they should have a more limited set of rights, suited to their roles as money making enterprises that are subject to LAW.

There is a domain of rights which the corporations DO NOT deserve, and human citizen's rights should not have to compete with sham corporate rights, as they have, for instance, in recent elections, vis-a-vis campaign finance from corporations, which has only "held" due to the corporations' so-called right to freedom of speech, which translates into "their right" to throw corporate money into public elections, effectively swaying an otherwise democratic government.

The framer's of the constitution would have blanched at such a thing.