Slashdot Log In
Google's Response to the DoJ Motion
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Feb 18, 2006 09:41 AM
from the fancy-ways-to-say-no dept.
from the fancy-ways-to-say-no dept.
neoviky writes "Google Inc. on Friday formally rejected the U.S. Justice Department's subpoena of data from the Web search leader, arguing the demand violated the privacy of users' Web searches and its own trade secrets.
Responding to a motion by U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Google also said in a filing in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California the government demand to disclose Web search data was impractical."
Related Stories
[+]
Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Privacy Concerns 350 comments
Philip K Dickhead writes "The Associated Press is reporting that the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns over a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests on privacy grounds. The department claims this will help revive an online child protection law that the Supreme Court has blocked, by proving that Internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography online. A federal court hearing is scheduled in San Jose, California, March 13th."
[+]
Google Avoids Surrendering Search Info 226 comments
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.
[+]
Google to Give Data To Brazilian Court 182 comments
Edu writes to mention a Washington Post article about Google's olive branch to the Brazilian courts. Despite previously refusing to reveal search information to the U.S. government, the company has announced they'll be releasing information on hate groups to the Brazilian courts. The move is intended to allow the Brazilian government to identify users associated with homophobic and racist groups. From the article: "Orkut pulls objectionable words and pictures from user sites, but Google stores content it feels could be useful in a lawsuit. Orkut is especially popular in Brazil, which accounts for 75 percent of its 17 million users. Legal and privacy experts said that Google had no choice but to comply with the court order. 'From the law enforcement perspective, if the records are in the possession of the business, the business can be compelled to produce them,' said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center."
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.
Equal treatment? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Equal treatment? (Score:2)
Re:Equal treatment? (Score:4, Informative)
Now, if you put in identifying information on the web search, then that is your own folly. My startup page is on my own domain, which is comprised of my last name. You can be sure that I never pull up any pages from that startup page becase I don't want my domain -- and my last name as a result -- to pop up on various sites' Referrer field.
Completely different (Score:5, Insightful)
With the RIAA, a crime had been committed, and Yahoo was asking to not turn over information identifying the offenders (more or less, yes, this is simplified).
In this case, the government has *no* committed crime, and is not trying to track down any criminals. They are simply trying (or at least, this is their justification) to obtain Google's search data to support GOP initiatives to spread pornography filters based on the fact that N% of searches return pornography hits.
My take is that Google is completely in the right. The federal government has absolutely no right to that data, nor do I want them to be able to subpoena it.
As for not being identifiable, give me a break. You surf sites with ads served by people like Doubleclick and Google Ads. Google can match all past searches from your IP or from a machine with any cookies that they've set on your machine. This is not speculation -- they have specifically stated that they have this ability. It's a pretty good bet that a number of sites on the Web have your real name. Maybe it's not a drop-in "Google has a complete database", but it only takes Google + *one* other website you visit that has your personal name, and there's a damned comprehensive list of your thoughts, research, summary of what you're reading about and so forth available to the federal government.
I don't think that this is a very good thing.
Re:Completely different (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Completely different (Score:4, Insightful)
Damnitall, folks, start taking a stand now while we still have the freedom of speech and free press (at least free press not run by the Rupert Murdochs of the world). Copping out with the excuse "oh, well someone agreed to do it, everyone should follow" is just as bad as running blindly after the lemmings in their shiny metal boxes as they jump off a cliff.
Wait, can lemmings jump?
Regardless, it shouldn't just be the court deciding something that affects democracy, freedom and privacy. The legislative branch is part of the checks-and-balances system in the US, not the representative branch of government that is empowered to decide whether or not freedoms can be suspended when it suits the interest of political agenda or socio-political pandering. Granted, actions such as the Patriot Act hardly commend them as being stewards of said freedoms, but thankfully many in the representative branch seem to be coming to their senses.
You have to keep the pressure on so this process continues - people died for the freedoms we're taking for granted every day in the US, so don't squander them simply so you can sit back and chortle about winning and fanboy/flamebait war.
&laz;
Re:Equal treatment? (Score:2)
Re:Equal treatment? (Score:3, Informative)
Only way to get it ... Google to volunteer (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way they should get the data is if Google volunteers to give it.
What's the government thinking anyways? If they just tapped on Microsoft's shoulder I'm sure Bill would hand over all of MSNs search data.
Re:Only way to get it ... Google to volunteer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Only way to get it ... Google to volunteer (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, corporations do really bad things that are a detriment to the planet as a whole and then get a slap on the wrist. Meanwhile, someone smoking some weed goes to jail for the rest of his life.
If that's not "hand in hand skipping through the flowers", I don't know what is.
Re:Only way to get it ... Google to volunteer (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm...Bill DID just roll over and send the gov't MSN's search data...as did Yahoo and AOL.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/ebiz/177101984 [techweb.com]
Re:Only way to get it ... Google to volunteer (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't get the soccer mom and fundamentalist Christian votes.
Here's some more. (Score:5, Informative)
Expect more subpoenas-- (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse (Score:2)
In reality, they just want to believe that harm is somehow being d
In Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly, they (the government) could just come around and request more specific data which would be relevant.
Re:In Summary (Score:3, Interesting)
More interesting is Google's choice to fight this request for anonymous d
Re:In Summary (Score:3, Funny)
Would China object?
PR Stunt ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I am amazed that people do not see Google's action for what it is -- a huge and hugely inexpensive public relations stunt. From a legal standpoint, Google does not have much ground to stand on. Yahoo and Microsoft realized this and that is why they complied. However, from a public relations point of view, it costs Google a small handful of hours of legal time and in return, Google gets featured on Slashdot and the countries newspapers, television and radio outlets, in addition to all over the internet numerous times. In the vast majority of cases, Google will be featured as the do-gooder ("do no evil") standing up to the U.S. Government on the public's behalf meanwhile making its competitors (Yahoo and Microsoft) look bad in the public eye.
In the end, expect Google to comply with the DOJ's request but only after getting all the (almost) free publicity it can from this. I hope that there are some writers of marketing and public relations books paying attention to this stunt because this has got to be one of the best (and least expensive) public relations coups in recent history.
Re:PR Stunt ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then yeah, google should hand it over immediately, no questions asked
But for pr0n and other irrelevant junk? The government should be
focusing on more important stuff anyways
Re:PR Stunt ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the information the government wanted was a matter of national security
Then yeah, google should hand it over immediately, no questions asked
Yeah, according to the DHS, everything is a matter of national security. They use it as an excuse for just about everything they want to do, without being subject to scrutiny.
Re:PR Stunt ... (Score:2)
Compare this from the legal documents;
Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results,
and how they are censoring/omitting results on
Re:PR Stunt ... (Score:2)
And letting their slower-but-uncensored version remain accessible to the Chinese people if they'd rather use that instead.
If people could get past their k
Re:PR Stunt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PR Stunt? (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't align with their PR strategies... (Score:3, Insightful)
The other sites don't have that as a PR strategy at the moment. Therefore,
The irony is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back when I was in school several Google recruiters came and during the presentation were more than willing to demonstrate technology that allows you to see what others had been searching.
Warning! PDF behind article link! (Score:5, Informative)
Link to the blogger post [blogspot.com], that's the article, and THEN the pdf [blogspot.com]! Thank you!
(karmawhoring)
Here's a portion of the introduction:
Google users trust that when they enter a search query into a Google search box, not only will they receive back the most relevant results, but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason. The Government's demand for disclosure of untold millions of search queries submitted by Google users and for production of a million Web page addresses or "URLs" randomly selected from Google's proprietary index would undermine that trust, unnecessarily burden Google, and do nothing to further the Government's case in the underlying action.
Fortunately, the Court has multiple, independent bases to reject the Government's Motion. First, the Government's presentation falls woefully short of demonstrating that the requested information will lead to admissible evidence. This burden is unquestionably the Government's. Rather than meet it, the Government concedes that Google's search queries and URLs are not evidence to be used at trial at all. Instead, the Government says, the data will be "useful" to its purported expert in developing some theory to support the Government's notion that a law banning materials that are harmful to minors on the Internet will be more effective than a technology filter in eliminating it.
Good for them (Score:4, Interesting)
DMCA? (Score:3, Funny)
They just need to make it clear that it would be a violation of the DMCA for the DoJ to look at this stuff!
Laughable (Score:5, Insightful)
From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all.
Google claims to be fighting the good fight of protecting their users' data, but how different is the data that the government wants, from the data the Google itself uses to comprise the various lists of most popular searches, the 'popular topics' are in news.google.com, etc? I'm not sure that I'd like my search to be part of such a public display. Is Google's users' data being user improperly in that case, too?
The way I see it is that Google is simply grandstanding. There have been some voices recently that Google has been getting too powerfull and encompassing. They have your email, they know what you search for, and they search your entire hard drive and call back home with their toolbar.
From what I understand, the government asked them for similar search data, with no identifying information, for their own statystical analysis. Is this Google's chance to get back to the good graces of the Internet's geeks, stick to their missions to "do no evil" and retain their image of the anti-corporation, the underdog, and the rebel, while trying to get back to their $150 billion market cap?
Re:Laughable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Laughable (Score:4, Insightful)
How much disconnect is there between the DoJ finding search strings interpreted by them as criminal activity, and their demanding the IP addresses that made them? And why do so many people still trust the intentions of our government?
Re:Laughable (Score:3, Insightful)
What amazes me the most about this whol
Re:Laughable (Score:3, Informative)
Google is claiming it is a privacy issue (Score:2)
but that Google will keep private whatever information users communicate absent a compelling reason.
If Google is forced to compromise its privacy principles
The privacy and anonymity of the service are major factors in the
Re:Google is claiming it is a privacy issue (Score:2)
I am quoting the Feb 17, 2006 legal documents from Google's own lawyers and what they intend to argue in court. (Someone else already posted the link to the docu
Thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
"The Government, of course, has told the Court none of this. Instead, it relies on a
talismanic incantation that the standard of relevance is met 'so long as [the request] is reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.'"
Talismanic incantion! LOL!
Google's lawyers appear to be a good job refuting the Government's "expert":
"The court should view the Cutts Declaration as standing in strong contrast to the
Government's declarant, Professor Phillip Stark, a statistician who apparently has been hired to
produce a study to support the Government's contentions. The Stark Declaration is vague,
cursory, and uninformed about the operation of Google's search engine. In any event, Professor
Stark's opinion ought to be viewed with some scrutiny. Although positioned as the Government's
expert, he has not yet been qualified as a reliable expert by the Pennsylvania court trying the
underlying case pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms.,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The Pennsylvania court has thus not yet determined whether Professor
Stark's testimony is reliable and of any assistance to the trier of fact."
And I'd have to side with Google on this. I'd venture to guess that most of google's data is completely irrelevant when taken out of context, which Stark is trying to do. If Google does have to turn the data over, I wouldn't be suprised if Stark tried to strongarm his way into learning Google's methods, algorithms, etc.
Another good argument is the following:
"In addition, the Government will not be able to ascertain the content of a Web page from
its descriptive URL name. A Web site's name that suggests potential harmful material may be
benign. Conversely, a URL that seems innocent may actually return pornographic material. The
classic example is www.whitehouse.com, which was a pornography site. Here, the adage "you
can't judge a book by its cover" applies. A URL such as
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/prontline/shows/por
actually provides links to anti-pornography organizations."
US Govt being too direct... (Score:2)
I'll go take a walk now in the hopes of reducing my Google cynicism...
Selective Legality (Score:2)
Don't give up ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is everything evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyones complaining about googles hypocracy needs to get off their silly "they are a company now and like all companies have to be selfish and everything they do is public facing deception only".
I'm by no means claiming they are protectors of the smaller people but they have done NOTHING wrong or hypocritical at all. In fact they are holding up their end of the promise they made to the smaller people.
Why isn't the 4th amendment sufficient? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Article 4. 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."
Is this because Google, being a corporation, is not regarded as a Person? Certainly the "papers and effects" portion would apply to those citizens whose data Google houses.
Or is it being stipulated that the data in Google's keeping has no portion of ownership by the people? Or that "my" Gmail is not really mine, or that "my" search histories have no relation to me, that they would not constitute "my papers"?
Perhaps this is an area into which Google does not wish to venture.
IANAL, but this seems pretty cut & dried to me.
Will someone (who IS a lawyer, please) point out the error in my thinking?
What I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
is why the DoJ thinks they have a legal right to access Google's information/logs?
Do they have any credible evidence that Google broke the law? Or that a particular user broke the law? If so, they they should subpoena an individual users records.
It seems to me that the DoJ merely wants Google information because they want to go on a "fishing expedition". Google should have no obligation to assist the DoJ in a "fishing expedition".
The DOJ on "information and belief" have some theories apparently. Just because Google has information that may or may not disprove their theory, no one should compel Google to turn over that information. It's up the the DoJ to get their own information if they believe such. If they don't have their own independent source from which to obtain it, then too bad.
Every URL in the Google Database (Score:3, Insightful)
The response letter said the DOJ wanted a list of every URL that could be returned by a search query in the Google database. I can't even imagine how much data that is. I'd comply with that bit, print it all out, and send the DOJ the bill...
Is it just me or does it sound like the DOJ had no idea what they were actually asking for?
About face? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is getting confusing.
Re:About face? (Score:3, Insightful)
The US subpeona is to turn over data that users consider private.
I'd consider it a pretty large difference.
google.cn in perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Google *adds* a local search service (google.cn) to the people of China that complies with local laws and censors it results, this service is somewhat more transparent than other search engines offerings in China as it actually shows *what was censored*. Not a whisper is heard about Yahoo and MSN's local services. Now all of a sudden Google is the new poster boy of *Evil, will sell mum for a buck*, what gives??
Do people actually know that this is an *added service* and that the exact same google.com that was available to the Chinese people before, that was behind 'The Great Firewall', slow and unresponsive and not accessible 10% of the time - is still available?
Does anyone know what the people of China (who are the ones affected) actually think of the new service? who finally have access to a fast, resourceful search service that we take for granted?
God dammit people we are complaining about a *FREE* service, that people can choose to use on their own accord. If it actually gets used it's because that it provides better experience than the google.com offering.
Since then anything good they do that benefits us all - fighting for our privacy, hell they even told AT&T and Verizon to stick their cyber extortion plan (which if enforced would benefit them in the long run), is overshadowed by one of their *FREE* services.
I don't know about the rest of you but I haven't paid *a cent* to Google yet use their services daily. (google.com, maps.google/Google Earth, Google Talk, Gmail, Google Groups, Google Desktop). For me they are still the same *Do no evil* company that existed when they only had one *FREE* service.
Some people need a hobby.
Wrong again... (Score:2)