Google Avoids Surrendering Search Info

Mercury News has details of a San Francisco judge's decision that Google should give the DoJ some details on its search engine, but is not required to turn over records to the government. From the article: "McElvain emphasized the study would be more meaningful if it included search requests processed by Google, which by some estimates fields nearly half of all online queries in the United States. Ware concurred with the Justice Department on that point, writing in his order that 'the government's study may be significantly hampered if it did not have access to some information from the most often used search engine.' But Ware said the government didn't clearly explain why it needed a list of search requests to conduct its study, prompting him to conclude the Web site addresses would be adequate." Reaction to the news is available on the Google Blog.

Comments

Can't Troll the E-Water

[fatduck]

So the government isn't allowed to troll the personal information of every American without the slightest probability of cause? What happened to the "If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to hide" doctrine?

good or bad it is none of their business

[Drache Kubisuro]

Now we just have to fight "if you're not doing anything bad, you've nothing to hide" -- in a country such as ours, that is heresy against our constitution and the people who live under it. Our general need of having privacy and not being exposed to the world is a natural one and must be protected at all costs. Those who seek to undermine this principal are very treacherous indeed.

Study without having a reason?

[Jump]

But Ware said the government didn't clearly explain why it needed a list of search requests

Tell me what you search for and I tell you who you are. Kind of obvious what they need this for. I wonder why they do not even come up with a fake reason to hide their true intentions. Are people already considered THAT dumb?

Re:Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration'

[Fanboy Troy]

Well, yes. Google denied giving over information that would be considered a breach of privacy for citizens all around the world to a government that is considered bad all over the world. And I'm not talking about China here. And it is censoring searches in China but at the same time not limiting the people's ability to 'out-smart' google and eventually find what they want about 'tiennamenn square'. So, the coloring part is right to the point. ;)

Re:Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration'

[fatduck]

First of all, lame research project is a rather mild way to describe allowing the government to legally data mine America's online usage. If you think anonymous data is "useless" or "lame" you may want to take a look at google's business model and an even harder look at their current market capitalization. Not to mention that once a judge allows the government access to an unlimited amount of anonymous data it becomes a precedent for future hearings on subpeonas for say two or three people's full search/URL history.

Thank god for small favors.

[Matilda the Hun]

Could you imagine the implications if they had to turn this data over? Every minor study in the country would be trolling Google for user information. It would all be to "protect the children", of course. Nice to see a judge with a brain stem for the first time in awhile. Of course, no doubt soccer moms and politicians angling for reelection'll be complaining about this for awhile. "Google hates kids and supports child pornography!"

I can't wait. Talk about your no-win scenarios.

China is extremely belligerent

[Anonymous Coward]

"China isn't acting belligerant or saying belligerant things"

It certainly is. It has been engaging in on ongoing brutal (rape, massacre, loot) occupation of Tibet. It is "saying" that it wants to cross an international boundary and destroy Taiwan. Both of these are belligerent actions against harmless sovereign nations. China is definitely imperalist. Whether or not the US wants a "big menace", the butchers of Beijing have made themselves into one. This is the same government that killed more than 40,000,000 people. They are sickos that actually still proudly display portraits of Mao everywhere.

Before you go saying "Look at what the US did to Iraq!!!", remember your ""Shiny! Shiny! Looky there! Shiny!" statement.

Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go

[Fnkmaster]

As much as I dislike the amount of information that many companies collect on me, at least I can sleep comfortably at night knowing that companies are quite predictable in how they act and what they do - they generally act to maximize profits and accrued value to shareholders. So companies will probably abuse my information in predictable ways, trying to spam me and sell me crap. Additionally, companies are still restricted to some degree by laws set by the government, and by excessively bad PR, which prevent them from some of the most egregious abuses of my privacy imagineable.

The government, on the other hand, is not terrible resource-constrained, lacks the profit motive and instead generally is run by bureaucrats and their institutional imperative to maximize their own power and importance in the world, and politicians seeking to score populist brownie points. This means it can be reactionary, illogical and unprofitable, while seeking to maximize control and power for itself, and suppress those it sees as a threat.

As somebody pointed out, the only thing that constrains this beast is accountability through the electoral process for politicians, and the fear of losing their jobs for bureaucrats.

In short, I think I am right to be far more distrustful of the government having oodles of personal data to mine as it pleases than any corporation.

Re:Anyone own a printing company?

[draco664]

When Desert Storm hit, Americans rallied and made Saddam toilet paper.

When 9/11 hit, we made Usama Bin Laden toilet paper.

Well then, why not a combo Constitution/Bill of Rights TP roll?

Marketing would be a breeze.

"Now everyone at home can find out just why the Bush Administration is so keen on using these historic documents the way they have been. You too can feel the softness of that centuries old parchment as it easily wipes away all that inconvenient crud. Watch as the paper flushes down the s-bend, just like all those rights you thought you had! Buy Constitution TP today! It may just be your last chance to see it in use!"

Child Pornography is the symptom

[Francisco_G]

Attack the disease.

Re:The Frustration of the New American Way

[dada21]

I appreciate your reply to my original diatribe, but I don't feel the same way. I'm a pure capitalist, and I believe in the idea of pure capitalism: voluntary cooperation between two individuals with both mutually profiting. My idea of a corporation in a anarcho-capitalist "utopia" would basically just be individuals grouping together under a mutual contract.

Corporations may be considered partially responsible for the excessive growth of government, but I believe the people to blame in the end are the voters: current and past. Everyone says that their vote counts, but no one is held responsible for their voting record. This is the problem with democracy: past choices have a terrible effect on future citizens who never had a say in the law. I am no fan of democracy as I can see in history how often democracy has led to fascism.

For me, the only solution to restraining government would be a single-law+sunset clause or a zero-sum voting structure. I would prefer to see a sunset clause on every law combined with a requirement to limit that law to one subject. This would limit government to having to resurrect every law sunsetting by debating each unique law. Bureaucracy for the bureaucrats. For the second idea (zero-sum voting structure), I'd love to see past representative votes canceled upon the removal or retirement of that representative. If someone votes for the Income Tax to become law and then retires or is voted out, their previous +1 vote is subtracted. This would require the next representative replacing them to step up and accept the old law as their own, or the vote is removed. Imagine the hell a new representative would have to go through to re-vote for every past law that all previous representatives had voted for. Again, more bureaucracy for the bureaucrats on top of making the new representative responsible for every law on the books.

I'd still prefer a tiny federal government with most of the power of the law focused on the community rather than on the entire nation.

Not exactly a "study"

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The government is defending the Child Online Protection Act against constitutional challenges. If you're in a court case you can compel people to come and testify, or simply force them to produce documents with relevant evidence, which is what the government claimed to be doing. If you overreach the judge can slap you down, which is what happened here.

Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri

[parabyte]

You are wrong, the Geneva convention protects everybody, it was specifically amendended to include every soldier and civilian in every kind of armed conflict, except mercenaries. In a conflict, you are either soldier or civilian, there is no such thing as an "unlawful combattant". A terrorist is a civilian committing crimes if he does not wear a uniform and hides his weapons. However, if you wear a uniform and carry your gun over the shoulder, you are a soldier and may not be punished for killing enemies. And if you happen to live in some place that is invaded by foreign soldiers, you do not even need a uniform to be granted soldier statuts: if you form a spontanous militia and fight the invaders, you are also protected by the convention as a soldier, even without a uniform.

I also don't know where you got your impression that a military tribunal is better than a civil court. Why not then substitute all courts in the U.S. by military tribunals? What would you prefer: A court where you can choose your own defender, where you can appeal in case some mistake is made by the court, where the judges are independent from the government, and where the trial is public vs. an "enemy" officer as defendent, very limited and obscure ways to appeal if any, enemy officers as judges whose comrades you might have killed, and a secret trial in some military camp where nobody you know is allowed to attend? Do you really want to rely for justice on some TV-like bold gentlemen officers with balls of steel who have to act against the will of your warmongering commander-in-chief and compromise the former decisions of your comrades to displace and detain you for years? Good Luck.

I agree that the treatment by the U.S. military in general is not as bad how the terrorits treat U.S. soldiers or civilians, but that can not be used as an excuse to lower own standards. If you do lower the standards, you are not better than the terrorists.

You probably are not aware how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have discredited the U.S. in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. You are no longer seen as The Good Guys (TM). For many Muslims you are now the bad guys, but for your friends you are now the Guys Who Don't Stick To Own Rules and give a fscking shit about the rules of the rest of the world.

You had the compassion and support of the world after 9/11, but you screwed up big time. Now the world looks at the U.S. troops in Iraq with a mixture of uneasiness and malicous joy, and even your best friends are investigating crimes the CIA committed in their countries or against some their citizen.

What a stupid waste of money and lifetime. The U.S. has the most talented people in politcial and social sciences, the greatest spin doctors, economical talent, the largest secret agencies, the greatest movie makers and military power that matches the power of the combined power of military in the rest of the world, but all this seems to be worthless and even counterproductive with an administration like the current one: The reputation in world ruined, terrorism in the world flourishing, the national deficit spiralling out of control, boosting national debt to historic dimensions, and an economy based on plundering and wasting irreplaceable natural resources of the world.

I hope the U.S. will manage to turn around 180 as soon as possible, but the whole world already will have to cope for decades with all the political, economical, environmental and social damage the U.S. have caused since the end of the cold war. The tragedy is that much of the damage done will turn out to be unrecoverable, but the sooner it starts, the better. Close Guantanamo today, and send the people there home. You will not be able to try them anyway, because all the evidence gained there will not be accepted in any court that respects the human rights.