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?

Re:Can't Troll the E-Water

[DavidHOzAu]

That also means that the judge is either human or must've had a bit of common sense. In other news, this unfortunate oversight on the part of the judicial system will no doubt soon be corrected.

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.

Re:good or bad it is none of their business

[Elemenope]

The easy and obvious counterargument to the 'you have nothing to hide' line is to point out that it should not be required of a citizen to explain their daily actions on the basis that they look suspicious, as we each do a dozen things every day that could seem out of context to be nefarious or at least odd. The trick is to convince those who actually write this legislative crap.

Somebody ought to surveille every member of Congress for a week or so, and then e-mail them pointed questions about the footage (even if there is nothing untoward, innocuous actions can look suspicious, and of course that's the whole point), and then cc the footage and the questions to a local news outlet...that'd dampen the legislative hankering for citizen surveillance tout suite.

Why should they get anything

[aussie_a]

I'm a little confused why Google should legally be required to give the government anything. The government wants to do a study. Great. They can ask (or perhaps even offer to pay) for information they need, but why should they be able to get whatever they want, for nothing? Has Google commited a crime? Are they searching for evidence for a specific crime? Will the data they get from Google be used in any ongoing investigations? If no to all of the above, why should they get some information? They want to do a study, so what? Why should that mean Google has to give them anything it doesn't want to?

Re:Why should they get anything

[Datamonstar]

Tell me about it. I want to do a study on how currency is made, so the US treasury should allow me private access to official printing plates, inks and paper used in the process of printing money. My tax dollars helped to purchase the printing facilities and equipment and I'm certain to own some of the money printed in such facilities in the near future, so why shouldn't they aid my research by allowing me access to the materials I need?

Re:Before you Sensationalists Get Riled Up

[magores]

The government doesn't do wiretaps.

It doesn't hold people without a trial.

It doesn't start a war without obvious cause.

It doesn't enrich the friends of the politicians.

Oooh.. Looky Looky! Look at that shiny thing over THERE.

What's the difference between Google and the Gov't

[tjstork]

People have no problem forking over all of their personal information to the private sector. Credit card companies know what you buy and where. Amazon has statistical models that identify (often correctly), books you might like when you buy another book. Even power companies have models that can generally predict your power usage patterns by demographic and weather forecasts. But, oh, no, if the "government" gets all this stuff, its the end of the world. Ironically, denying the government access to information already freely shared in the corporate world only stacks the deck towards giving corporations the upper hand over government.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The private sector, at worst, sends you some junk mail and tries to sell you something. If they've processed their data correctly, then you probably are interested. The worst that can happen is that they don't process their data correctly and you get offers on stuff you're not interested in.

The government, on the other hand, can do a lot worse than send you some poorly-targeted advertisements. Being targeted as a potential terrorist can do tremendous damage to your life. You could lose your job, be incarcerated (without trial, incedentally), and possibly get your face blasted across the news.