Slashdot Log In
DoJ search requests: Yahoo, AOL, MSN said "Yes"
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Jan 19, 2006 09:31 PM
from the skipping-the-wiretap dept.
from the skipping-the-wiretap dept.
d2viant writes "Elaborating on a previous article on Slashdot, it appears that the search engines which complied for Department of Justice requests for logs were apparently AOL, MSN, and Yahoo. According to the article, Justice is not requesting this data in the course of a criminal investigation, but in order to defend its argument that the Child Online Protection Act is constitutionally sound."
Related Stories
[+]
Backslash: More on Leopard, AOL, Reuters and the Universe 117 comments
Read on for some of the most interesting comments and exchanges on a handful of yesterday's Slashdot posts (on the age of the Universe, virtual desktops in OS X, trick photography on the Reuters wire, and AOL's latest privacy gaffe) in today's Backslash summary.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What did they find? (Score:5, Funny)
Giraffes. Who couldn't appreciate those long necks? So slender
Why confront me? It's obvious.
She's stalling until the police arrive.
"Nothing you saw was illegal - in the countries it was filmed. "
So appropriate [penny-arcade.com].
If not in size... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If not in size... (Score:5, Funny)
Amen
Parent
Re:If not in size... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I personally don't like what the US goverment has done in the name of "security" , this has nothing to do with this particular case.
Parent
Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless! There is no need for the government to monitor search logs. None. Whether they're aggregated, impersonal, or not.
It may be simple aggregation now
Maybe I'm overreacting
Parent
Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't speak for anyone else, but with a lot of the stuff the U.S. government is doing lately, I'm more scared of it than I am of any terrorists.
I would never support a lot of the stuff they're doing, but it would seem a bit more legitimate if they could show any of this stuff was actually having an effect. So far they've cut back our freedom quite a bit, but to my knowledge they haven't prevented a single attack. It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa tells Homer she has a rock that keeps tigers away.
Parent
Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, that's the scary part. Perceived legitimacy means that we'll be saddled with more and more BS like we've been getting.
I don't want to see effectiveness -- I want to see CLEAR and PRESENT DANGER.
Until then, get out and stay out, Uncle Sam.
Parent
Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not set up a method in Slasdhot whereby YRO and related articles have a link that allows a registered user to forward his forum comments to his/her appropriate representative(s) in their district? Non-profits are doing this now with great effect. Instead of preaching to the choir, shouldn't our +5 Insightful comments be forwarded to our representatives and news agencies. Can you just imagine the effect we could have by Slashdotting Congress!!!
A lot of people will say that nobody in Congress reads email, but that's not entirely true. Your opinions are put in For and Against piles and some are even read; I know this from personal experience. By hitting Congress and the news agencies we also generate awareness for many issues that go largely unreported like black box voting, DMCA, and so on.
So Slashdot editors, how about it?
X
Parent
Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:5, Funny)
One of citizens of your state, x_man, would like you to inform you about an important issue regarding "EU Sofware Patent Argument to Reopen"
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=174228&ci
Please note that we consider this post important becuase it was voted by at least 5 people who may or may not be American citizens, may or may not vote in your state and may or may not be some 12-year old kid who should really be studying for his test tomorrow.
Thank you for your attention.
Parent
Nope. (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, I feel less safe. WAY less safe. Now I have to worry about all the people in the world who are pissed at me for being an American, the new people in the world who hate me because W has pissed them off, and now I have to worry about my own government spying on me and throwing me in jail if I type something into a search engine that returns something naughty.
And that can happen without you doing anything wrong. Ever type in a search that returned a few surprises? How about your wireless access point. Are you SURE it can't be hacked? You BETTER be.
Parent
Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Why do they need to give that information? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean are the users of google search that much different than AOL / MSN / Yahoo???
Does the DoJ need a complete analysis? If so, let's hand this over to the US Census bureau.
Re:Why do they need to give that information? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, of course, entirely beside the point. Constitutional restrictions on the government, both state and federal, were put in place because government powers, no matter how seemingly innocuous they appear to the general public (such as, for example, demanding search logs from a private enterprise), are prone to abuse to the point that, in the long run, abuse is the rule rather than the exception. That is specifically why the federal government was so severely restricted when it was actually bound by the constitution (no government can be restricted to respecting civil liberties in the long run, as all forms of government are subject to corruption, but that is an entirely different discussion).
Parent
This isn't news! (Score:5, Interesting)
The ONLY way to protect against this sort of information being used by law enforcement is to never collect it in the first place. Only collect statistical obfuscated data and you won't have these problems - how valid and accurate your statistics based on aggregate data will be is another matter though.
Re:This isn't news! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Scariest part (Score:4, Insightful)
an example of "doing no evil"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:an example of "doing no evil"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:an example of "doing no evil"? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they came to me and told me that they needed my tape, but they didn't have a reason why, I wouldn't give it over.
If I didn't, is that not doing evil?
It is not. They aren't asking for the tape to solve a crime. They are asking for it to see if maybe a crime could have been committed. That is evil. Failing to turn over your tape, when it is known that they know of no crime committed, can not be an evil action. This isn't an issue of them investigating a crime. This is a case of them looking to find if there might be a crime. It is no different than them asking to mount a camera in your bedroom, and another in your bathroom to watch 24/7 just in case someone breaks in, but they'll keep all the tape of you anyway beacause they can. The government is not allowed to subpoena companies on fishing expeditions when they don't know of a crime. Google is the only one to recognize that and spend the money to fight the government to remind them.
Thats my only point.
I believe your point was understood and, well, presumed to be irrelevant because it isn't a close enough analogy. You presume they are investigating a crime. They are not. They are just apparently randomly collecting data they have no legal right to demand.
Parent
Useless information (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless they're planning on using this data to push anti-porn decency laws (which would be an abuse of power to say the least) the data doesn't suggest in the slightest the context in which the searches were made.
It's also unclear as to whether or not they were after information about percent of porn results in a non-porn search (for example: "breast cancer" as two unquoted words) or just the searches explicitly for porn or child pornography. What about people researching child pornography for a class? It's all so useless that this entire exercise is a waste of money and time at every level.
Re:Useless information (Score:5, Interesting)
From the Google has been sued [bloomberg.com] link in a previous comment [slashdot.org]:
The Feds are not after this data in the matter of a criminal case. They are not after the data because they want to know how many people are searching for porn. They're after the data because they want to use it to bolster their case for the Child Online Protection Act [wikipedia.org], an act which is a thinly veiled attempt to push anti-porn decency laws.
So, yeah, you might want to think of it as an abuse of power. Whether it's a legitimate abuse of power or not will probably become a matter for the courts very soon.
Parent
Big Brother (Score:5, Insightful)
And if we go back a few years, we can see all of this COINTELPRO data wasn't to stop foreigners, or even people doing illegal things, but to harrass people like Martin Luther King, or breakins to the Watergate hotel to bug the Democrats. Not like the Democrats have rolled this stuff back when they got into office, Clinton's staff was over-requesting FBI files of people during "filegate".
And we're told it's because of the "War on Terror", which is a war which they never say when it will end. It reminds me of Orwell's 1984, when the government is in a state of permanent war, or war preparation anyhow. I may be older than some Slashdotters, but when I grew up I was told the US only had foreign military bases because of the USSR, and if they weren't targets of attack by Moscow, we wouldn't have them there. A decade and a half after the fall of the Berlin wall, I'm now told we are in a new state of permanent war - the cold war has become the war on terror. American military bases still circle the globe - in fact they've expanded, especially in countries south of Russia and west of China. The Russians used to say America had bases all over the world not because of Russia, but because of American imperialism. I was always told this was false, the bases were there because of the possibility of Russian attack. A decade and a half later, what the Russians used to say rings truer than what the US used to say. In fact, the government has now changed its story, and wants us to forget they used to say that, and have us all concentrate on their new permanent war.
Re:Big Brother (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what I'm starting to think more and more?
Fuck this!
The Republic I grew up loving is on life support, at best.
Is this really worth sticking around for? I didn't create all of these problems. Why should I pick up the tab? Plenty of very nice countries would love to have me (and my skills) and my wife (and her skills) and our kids (they can write essays and do math.) I'm keeping my passport current. If a majority of the American people are crazy and stupid enough to keep these nutjobs in power in November, I may just take my marbles and move on.
Parent
AOL/Yahoo Misinformation... (Score:5, Informative)
AOL response...
AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein confirmed that the company received a subpoena from the DOJ but said the information from the ACLU was not accurate.
"We did not and would not comply with such a subpoena. We gave (the DOJ) a generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly one day period. There were absolutely no privacy implications," Weinstein said. "There was no way to tie those search terms to individuals or to search results." He declined to elaborate.
Yahoo response...
Yahoo acknowledged on Thursday that it complied with the Justice Department's request but said no personally identifiable information was handed over. "We are vigorous defenders of our users' privacy," said Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako. "We did not provide any personal information in response to the Justice Department's subpoena. In our opinion this is not a privacy issue."
MSN response.... ?????
Please don't let the details hit you in the ass in reguards to AOL/Yahoo.
Enjoy,
Re:AOL/Yahoo Misinformation... (Score:5, Informative)
A Microsoft representative said: "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested....It is our policy to respond to legal requests in a very responsive and timely manner, in full compliance with applicable law." The company would not confirm or deny whether it complied with the Justice Department's subpoena.
Parent
Your search strings never contain personal info? (Score:5, Insightful)
So now a block of searches associates the name Geekotourist with rockets and with one or two addresses. Does this affect my privacy if these searches are clumped together?
Did Yahoo/AOL include any white pages or yellow pages searches while doing the government's homework? Does the government expect Google to keep all Google Local searches out of the "1 week of searches"? The white page and local style searches leak personal info like mad.
Or what if a search was designed to check on one's personal privacy, for example:
And while Y/AHOOL didn't provide "the results of the searches" to the gov't, I assume the gov't will be re-running them. The searches 'Cameras near 742 Evergreen Terrace' combined with 'photographing children' may have just been me helping with photos at a birthday party or finding a portrait studio. But its going to be analyzed by people who think 15-degrees-of-separation is a reasonable search.
From the prescient (and unfortunately being used as an anti-guidebook) best essay this century on Why Privacy is a Fundamental Human Right [privcom.gc.ca] [just substitute 'Porn' for 'September 11' as the excuse the gov't gives, it comes out the same]:
"But though we tend to take it for granted, privacy - the right to control access to ourselves and to personal information about us - is at the very core of our lives. It is a fundamental human right precisely because it is an innate human need, an essential condition of our freedom, our dignity and our sense of well-being.
"If someone intrudes on our privacy - by peering into our home, going through the personal things in our office desk, reading over our shoulder on a bus or airplane, or eavesdropping on our conversation - we feel uncomfortable, even violated.
"Imagine, then, how we will feel if it becomes routine for bureaucrats, police officers and other agents of the state to paw through all the details of our lives: where and when we travel, and with whom; who are the friends and acquaintances with whom we have telephone conversations or e-mail correspondence; what we are interested in reading or researching; where we like to go and what we like to do.
"If we allow the state to sweep away the normal walls of privacy that protect the details of our lives, we will consign ourselves psychologically to living in a fishbowl. Even if we suffered no other specific harm as a result, that alone would profoundly change how we feel. Anyone who has lived in a totalitarian society can attest that what often felt most oppressive was precisely the lack of privacy.
But there also will be tangible, specific harm.
"The more information government compiles about us, the more of it will be wrong. That's simply a fact of life.
"...But if our privacy becomes ever more systematically invaded by the state for purposes of assessing our behavior and making judgments about us, wrong information and
Parent
Constitutionally sound? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Constitutionally sound? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the better Google is at filtering out porn from search results that didn't request porn, the more constitutional rights we have.
(That was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think it is essentially the argument that the DoJ wants to use: if they can show evidence that the Internet is more like, say, broadcast TV, in that anything broadcast goes to everyone, then they will have a better chance of being able to censor the Internet than if the Internet is shown to be more like a collection of bookstores, where the only people who see porn are those who actively look for porn. Personally, I don't think they have a case on those grounds, but you never know)
Parent
I hate children. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, I dont really hate children, but you can see my frustration with this and the arguement "its for the good of the children"
People dont even use the V-chip, and those same people will lobby our government with hopes of ridding the planet of porn.
Microsoft and Apple should just build in a complete censorship layer into their OS that can be attributed to a certain user level account.
That way if your child searches breast... and finds a sweet pair of titties... its your own dam fault and not googles.
Re:I hate children. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I hate children. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that humanity once, when we were sitting around nude in caves, had the maturity to see breasts, but no longer does?
Parent
Re:I hate children. (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the people panicking over sex aren't the kids. They could see it, snicker at how gross and icky it all is, and oh my god that's sure to give him cooties, eww - but at the end of the day they probably care a whole lot more about football. It's the adults who are going nuts here. Or at least, people who ought to be adults.
Parent
About time! (Score:5, Insightful)
After reading up about the other companies quietly folding under White House pressure, I am honestly relieved to see SOMEONE finally standing up for the rights of our citizens. Rights are NEVER erroded all at once. The day will never come when we wake up and the amendment about free speech is removed from the Consitution. The day WILL come, however, when we wake up and the free speech amendment means nothing because several iterations of the "Patriot Act" have erroded what it really means.
People in this country need to seriously wake the fuck up. We've been through several iterations of errosion of our rights under this white house. Allow me to sum up: 1) Plame's identity leaked (treason according to the law - I eagerly await the hangings), 2) The Patriot Act (need I say more?), 3) CIA spying on US citizens (notice how quickly W. moved on catching the traitors that leaked that), and 4) This request for search records. The day is rapidly approaching when we wake up and our rights will not mean anything ALL IN THE NAME OF PROTECTING US FROM [insert irrational fear here].
Today, I for one, take my hat off to Google. At the least, even if they are required to acquiese in the end, it garned media attention on the shifty White House request. It will be a long time before I doubt "Don't be evil." again.
Re:About time! (Score:5, Funny)
Rapidly approaching? I thought that day was a couple years ago.
Parent
I think Google should comply with the request... (Score:5, Funny)
-- Terry
Lets Google Bomb them! (Score:5, Insightful)
The following are quick links for each popular search engine to perform the search:
Google [google.com]
Yahoo [yahoo.com]
MSN [msn.com]
AOL [aol.com]
If a lot of people did it every day, it would eventually skew popular queries, and send a little message, should Google loose the fight.
It's on my blog already. If a ton of people do the same, and get a big campaign going, it could be interesting.
Re:Sore Thumb (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
not only that (Score:5, Interesting)
The thumbnails are stored at a google location.
Does that mean that Google itself is hosting illegal files?
Parent
Re:not only that (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, and so do you in your cache. Whats really fun is a 17 year old with a webcam that doesnt like you and knows you have {autoaccept | web based upload stuff | ftp | whatever}.
Kiddieporn laws badly need reformed. Why is legal to jerk it to movies of 18 year olds that are late bloomers+made up to look even younger, being simulated-kidnap and raped.. Yet its illegal for your beach vacation pictures to have a 16 year old topless in the background?
It makes about as much sense as chewbakka living on endor.
Parent
Re:not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, it's a lot easier than that. If you have an email account, anyone can make you a criminal by emailing you some kiddie porn and then calling the authorities to report its presence on your computer. Even if you delete it as soon as you realize what it is, you stilled viewed it, you still posessed it, and the incriminating evidence is still on your hard drive...
Parent
Re:not only that (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool eh?
Parent
Re:not only that (Score:5, Funny)
Oh please, your question is purely hypothetical, and has no real bearing on reality. I mean, if you or I had a chance in hell of doing either of those things, would we be posting on /.?
Parent
You're misrepresenting the Knox case (Score:5, Informative)
I think that speaks for itself. Child pornography laws are not just about exposed skin; they're around to prevent the exploitation of children in which Knox was very obviously (and self-admittedly) involved.
Parent
A related story (Score:5, Funny)
A friend of mine is a chef and found out the hard way...do NOT google for a "loose meat sandwich"!!!
Parent
Re:Sore Thumb -- Google Sued! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Good Morning America ! (Score:5, Funny)
Sesame Street is the first to react with the DVD (thought lost) title "Frogs'n Sow - Peggy Gets It !"
On other news, the pope died of a heart attack while watching what he thought were Sesame Streets Re-run, and GW Bush commited seppuku with a preztel on seeing the show.
Now the Dow-Jones, with the barrel @ 199$, the Emirates decided to buy the US of A..."
Do I really need to put a "/laugh, it's funny" marker ? 8p
Parent
Re:whats the usage (Score:5, Informative)
Google: 36.5%
Yahoo: 30.5%
MSN: 15.5%
AOL: 9.9%
Ask: 6.1%
InfoSpace: 0.9%
Others: 0.6%
Soure: http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/
Probably more recent numbers around, but I doubt anything's changed dramatically in the past 6 months.
Parent
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
So, in this case I would think Google has a good leg to stand on. They are being asked to hand over information with no probable cause.
But I guess it's up to the courts to decide.
Parent