DoJ search requests: Yahoo, AOL, MSN said "Yes"

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."

What did they find?

[Quaoar (614366)]

The giraffe video?

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...

[Suhas (232056)]

....then at least in balls to stand up against , google wins by a tremendously big margin.

Re:If not in size...

[2674 (661934)]

Hear, Hear. In my book google just went from [Do No Evil] to [Do Good] and [Kick the motherfuckers who want to deprive me of my constitutionally given rights in the teeth].Long Live Google.

Amen

This isn't news!

[syousef (465911)]

People. Get a grip. Most companies will comply with government subponeas. Don't get your hopes too high that Google will hold it's ground either. In fact I think they're playing with fire.

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!

[LurkerXXX (667952)]

No one knows, because apparently MSN, Yahoo, etc, just gave away all our info without a fight. Maybe a judge would never give the order on such weak grounds.

an example of "doing no evil"?

[Bananatree3 (872975)]

It is interesting how many of the other search engines outside of google bowed down to this. The reason for the search engine logs seems quite shady to me, and seems like a ruse just to get access for some other purpose. I have a feeling Google probaby detected this and has decided that the intent of the log request is much deeper and shadier than it looks.

Big Brother

[br00tus (528477)]

First we hear about how the NSA is tapping into Americans talking with people overseas, and now the government wants to see what we're searching for on Google. I see so many articles on Slashdot about what the Chinese government is doing (which of course they shouldn't be doing), but how about what the US government is doing?

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.

AOL/Yahoo Misinformation...

[NullProg (70833)]

Quotes from the article here: http://news.com.com/Feds+take+porn+fight+to+Google /2100-1030_3-6028701.html?tag=nefd.lede [com.com]

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...

[afree87 (102803)]

MSN response (from the same article):

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.

Constitutionally sound?

[Feanturi (99866)]

I'm not getting it. How do random anonymous search results of any kind assist in determining whether something is constitutionally sound? I take it that they want to make sure the Act is not trampling on anybody's constitutional rights, correct? I'm trying to imagine what you could possibly learn with regards to that, from search results. You can see percentages of people searching for particular things and what they wind up getting as a result. Ok, so you know roughly what random people of unknown ages are searching for, and you have a rough idea of where they might choose to land. I can't find the link to constitutional issues here, so I just have to say: wtf?

I hate children.

[Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745)]

I really hate children. The war against adulthood has forced me to make a choice, and that is... I hate children. More importantly... I hate the parents of children who think they have any more right than the rest of us.

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.

[MP3Chuck (652277)]

OR ... they could not build a complete censorship layer into their OS. And if your child searches 'breast" ... and finds a sweet pair of titties ... it's your own damn fault for not monitoring their internet usage, not Google's. ;)

About time!

[gentlemen_loser (817960)]

To be honest - I've been skeptical about Google for some time. I was not sure how I felt about a company who's sole purpose in life was to perform the same services as Yahoo! but market it as "not evil". Sucessfully so, I might add. I honestly doubted their "Don't be evil" mission.

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.

not only that

[JeanBaptiste (537955)]

I accidentally found out one day that its possible for not-so-legal images to show up on a google image search. (i was searching for something unrelated which happened to be close to the name of a magazine which isn't so nice. a european publication.) I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut that you could find worse stuff through GIS (images.google.com)

The thumbnails are stored at a google location.

Does that mean that Google itself is hosting illegal files?

Re:not only that

[irc.goatse.cx troll (593289)]

"Does that mean that Google itself is hosting illegal files?"

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.

Re:Sore Thumb -- Google Sued!

[skaet (841938)]

Google has been sued [bloomberg.com] for not releasing the requested information.

Good Morning America !

[da5idnetlimit.com (410908)]

"Following the incredible reversal in the "Google vs DoJ" case, the Supreme court confirmed that kids watching porn is all right as long as it is kids porn.

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

Re:whats the usage

[StikyPad (445176)]

As of July, 2005:

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/2 156431 [searchenginewatch.com]

Probably more recent numbers around, but I doubt anything's changed dramatically in the past 6 months.

Re:IANAL, but...

[plantman-the-womb-st (776722)]

I work for an attorney, though I myself am not a lawyer, and our firm handles what are know as section 1983 cases. Section 1983 deals with police misconduct. One of our current endeavors (pardon the the lack of details, too much info would reveal the client) involves a person who had an arrest warrant issued on them as part of a civil case. Such an issuing is illegal. There was a case pending but, given that it was civil and not criminal an arrest warrant being issued became grounds for liability on the part of the county the warrant was issued from. That being known, I would think (this is in no way to be taken as legal advise) that issuing a subpoena when no case is pending would be a gross violation of the 4th Amendment which states:

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.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[starwed (735423)]

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.

1. The request wasn't for any personal information. None. There's no association with IP address or individual profiles or anything like that.
2. Google didn't necessarily turn it down out of privacy concerns (as there really aren't any.) Rather, they just didn't think they should have to worry about gathering the logs...

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[MP3Chuck (652277)]

"There's no association with IP address or individual profiles or anything like that."

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 ... but what happens when suddenly search engines need to submit weekly reports? What happens when suddenly the gov't starts saying "Well ... we're going to need the IP's of whoever searched for _____ and ____"??

Maybe I'm overreacting ... maybe it's just slippery slope hyperbole. But it all seems very unnecessary. Especially when the goal is to revive a law that was alredy struck down as unconstitutional.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[jlarocco (851450)]

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.

Re:Do any Americans actually feel safer?

[x_man (63452)]

A few weeks ago I submitted an Ask Slashdot question to the editors about creating a Slashdot Political Action Network. My question still shows pending, but maybe this latest outrage is a good time for me to post my idea to the public forum. Here's my idea:

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

Re:Why do they need to give that information?

[dark_requiem (806308)]

You miss the point entirely. First of all, the US Census bureau is constitutionally entitled to collect statistical information regarding the number of people in each state. It has no authority to collect any other data, and regardless of what any court might rule, without an ammendment, the constitution does not authorize it to collect any other data. For those unfamiliar, the constitution actually states that the federal government may not perform any functions not specifically granted to it by the constitution, not that any government agency actually obeys the constitution. A perfect example of how the political state naturally devolves to restrictive tyranny, regardless of it's founders' intent.

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).

Re:Useless information

[Cattywampus (19657)]

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)...

From the Google has been sued [bloomberg.com] link in a previous comment [slashdot.org]:

"A motion to compel compliance with a subpoena, filed yesterday in federal court in San Jose, California, said the government seeks the data to enforce the Child Online Protection Act, designed to protect minors from pornography."

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.