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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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.

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

[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!

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*.

[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*.

[bnenning]

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

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*.

[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*.

[Petrushka]

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

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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

[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.

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?

[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.

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?

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.

Re:Why is it...

[daemones]

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

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: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.

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.

You may be sadly deluded

[LunaticTippy]

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

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?

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.

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: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.

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:Why is it...

[hackstraw]

Why do oppressive regimes get special treatment?

Time will tell.

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

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.

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:Yeah

[IPA]

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.