I know this is all over the blogohedron right now, but come on, I had to post it.
From Mercury News: Feds after Google data
The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.
The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.
Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government’s effort “vigorously.”
“Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,” Wong said.
The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.
“This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,” said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. “The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.”
Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users’ privacy.
“The government can’t even claim that it’s for national security,” Everett-Church said. “They’re just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.”
I know my good buddy Toliverchap will argue that we should have never let any company so deep into our private lives in the first place, but clearly Google is providing a valuable service, and I am willing to sacrifice some aspects of my privacy for that service, under the terms of its privacy policy. But that definitely does not include turning over that information to the government or any other source; it is a sad thing that so many other ‘anonymous’ search engines have already folded to government pressure.
Fight the good fight for us, Google.
Google is Scientology for, not celebrities, but, Nerds! The only difference is that where Scientology cajoles you out of your money, Google cajoles you out of your personal information. Both provide “valuable services” if you are vain, on the one hand, or a porn lover, on the other. In short, you are like a Scientologist, except in that you are a nerd. A Googletologist would, perhaps, be the best term.
Boo-yah!
I’m not sure how this works? The wire tapping thing is clearly not annonymous and that is one of those trade offs of privacy for national security, this is nothing new. But is the information that Google is collecting and using as explicit a breach of privacy? Does the information in the data bases that the government wants to access simply statistics raw data and numbers OR does it point to specific IP adresses that can be tracked back to a specific computer/person? Oh and you can speak for me when you are my “useful tool” until then hold ye tounge.
First, the ‘trade offs for national security’ is something new, and reprehensible, when conducted outside the auspices of the law. This is a country of laws, and that you would be willing to give that up distresses me to no end.
Google’s information, however, is not illegal, it is part of the explicit contract it makes with its users and customers. I linked to their privacy policy, perhaps you should look at it. If you don’t want Google keeping track of your searches, it is quite easy to delete your cookies, to disable your email service, and so on. Google only takes information that it has stated in its contract that it would take. (We have no such contract with the government over spying priviledges- we have, in fact, the reverse).
Google’s information is both statsitical and non-personal, and targeted and personal. Its policy states that it can share the non-personal information, and that it can share the personal information with only those that likewise abide by its policy.
That personal information includes search history and your particular IP address, and the government, according to the article, have requested over 1 million such addresses, and the total search histories for one full week. Can you think of a full week in which you didn’t use Google once? I sure can’t.
I wasn’t speaking for you. I was repeating the point you have made several times with regard to Google (and other company’s) recording of personal information. Do you disagree with that position?
Do not paraphrase I’m sure you could link a quote to what I did say and not what you said I would say my dear.
What toliverchap is saying there is that your tendency to engage his ideas rather than his words really chaps his toliver.
No what I’m saying is that what I say is what I say until I have a press secretary to say it for me. But please discuss the real material of the blog, it was not my intention that this little joke would become anything let alone promote the making of further (worse) jokes.
Hey. You’ve got a Dickfor on your shoulder!
What’s a dic…
DOH! Ya’all most got me.
i wish i was funny too
also, death to seth and gregg-y-poo
they took all our monies
our precious precious monies