Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Privacy Concerns

Posted by Zonk on Mon Feb 27, 2006 08:16 AM
from the who-needs-that-kind-of-pressure dept.
Google Privacy The Courts The Internet Politics
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."

Related Stories

[+] Google's Response to the DoJ Motion 315 comments
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."
[+] U.S. Government Wants Google Search Records 917 comments
JimBridgerBowl writes "According to the San Jose Mercury News, The Bush administration wants access to Google's huge database of search queries submitted by users to track how often pornography is returned in results. This information would be used for Bush's appeal of the 2004 COPA law, targeted to prevent access to pornography by children. The law was struck down because it would have restricted adults access to legal pornography. Google is promising to fight the release of this information." From the article: "The Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn. As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn."
Offsite: Justice Dept. rejects Google's concerns
[+] 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."
[+] Challenging the Child Online Protection Act 213 comments
narramissic writes, "Today in Philadelphia a federal trial got underway that will decide whether COPA is constitutional. The outcome will determine whether operators of Web sites can be held accountable for failing to block children's access to inappropriate materials. An article on ITworld outlines the arguments of the foes in the battle: the DOJ and the ACLU. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on the ACLU. Parents, schools, etc. have to take responsibility for the internet usage of children in their charge." Two courts have found COPA unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has upheld the ban on its enforcement, while asking a lower court to examine whether technological measures such as filtering could be as effective as the law in shielding children; thus this trial. The article does not mention that it was the DOJ's preparation for the trial that was behind its earlier request that search companies turn over their records — a request that only Google refused.
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.

Justice Dept. Rejects Google's Privacy Concerns 50 Comments More | Login /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Keybindings Beta
Q W E
A S D
Loading ... Please wait.

  • War on porn (Score:2, Insightful)

    by October_30th (531777)
    Is this a surprise? The Bush admin is waging a war on porn [huffingtonpost.com] and this is a logical step.

    • No surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Savage-Rabbit (308260)
      Is this a surprise? The Bush admin is waging a war on porn and this is a logical step.

      Logical yes.. but one gets the feeling that this has more to do with getting yet another controversial surveillance law enacted by attatching it to a campaign against chi

        • Re:No surprise... (Score:3, Funny)

          by Glock27 (446276)
          If you want to stop 70% of sexual abuse of children, lock up their fathers. To stop another 30%, lock up their other close relatives too. You can knock off the next 8% by stopping them going to school. The tiny handful actual elusive pedophiles are involve

    • Re:War on porn (Score:5, Funny)

      by elrous0 (869638) on Monday February 27 2006, @09:08AM (#14807818)
      The Bush admin is waging a war on porn

      Stopping porn movies altogether is the only way to keep his daughters from eventually starring in one.

      -Eric

      [ Parent ]

    • Re:War on porn (Score:4, Interesting)

      by typical (886006) on Monday February 27 2006, @10:03AM (#14808200) Journal
      I'm reminded by Ashcroft (Bush's last Attorney General -- remember him?) covering up the statue "The Spirit of Justice" with curtains so that its one bare breast would be hidden.

      I thought that that was rather nicely symbolic.

      I rather figured at that point that things were probably going to keep going downhill.

      I like to consider the implications of that.

      It means that the British (who have *toplessness* on their television) are all hopeless perverts. Cultured? Certainly not. At least, they certainly don't give a damn about their children. In the eyes of the Bush Administration, that is.

      The British *invented* Victorianism and decided that it was a bad idea long ago, and moved on. We still haven't figured it out. I'm reminded of the Imperial unit system.

      We invaded Afghanistan, and encouraged women to throw off their burkas afterwards. We freed them from their social norms and gave them ours, because ours are clearly best.
      [ Parent ]

      • Wedge Issue (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Valdrax (32670) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:58AM (#14807773)
        You're close but not quite on the money. This has wedge issue written all over it. Much like gay marriage in 2004 (and soon to be gay adoption in 2006), this is an issue to draw out the single-issue conservative voters to the polls. The point isn't necessarily to win this battle, though that'd be feather in the cap of the Republican Party, as it is to have the fight in the first place.

        The majority of American's wouldn't support a conservative agenda on the environment, healthcare, and corporate welfare, but they will support an agenda about terrorism and "protection of values." This is known as a "wedge issue." It's designed to drive a wedge between the conflicting loyalties of swing voters to force them to choose between two different positives and to draw out partisans from the woodwork who couldn't care enough to vote about economic policy issues.

        Bringing back up net filtering and monitoring gives the Republicans another chance to decry "liberal judicial activism" in a bid to install more pro-executive power, pro-business judges. As a bonus, they get to legislate morality and provide an in for more monitoring of citizens. In case you don't recall, sexual scandals are just about the only scandals that have any traction in the media any more, so the opportunity to catch a current or future politician looking at porn is a great tool for whoever's in power, and it's even better if your opposition consider using that power against your people to be wrong.

        This is just a win-win fight for the Republican Party no matter how it plays out.
        [ Parent ]

          • Government motives (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Valdrax (32670)
            Oh, Chinese are leftist, current US Government is viewed as Right Wing. Silly me!

            Hoo boy. A partisan. Guess what? Just because you take somebody's side on one issue (like Google and the DoJ) doesn't mean that you have to take their side on another issue

          • Re:Google Gives US The Finger, But Gives Head To P (Score:4, Insightful)

            by typical (886006) on Monday February 27 2006, @10:11AM (#14808260) Journal
            Or *maybe* it's because Chinese law and social norms state that the Chinese government gets to censor. US law and social norms state that the current administration doesn't get to demand data of random companies (without criminal investigation or other justification) to push their partisian issues.

            1) Much of Google's assets are their search data.

            2) Google has a reputation to protect. If they don't draw a line in handing over data, people cannot trust that their searches are private. If I can go use a search engine based on Sealand instead of Google because that one is private because it doesn't fall under US law, then obviously I'm going to use that. Google is protecting their customer.

            Man, you Google-haters *love* to try to use the "but teh chinks is evil!" argument.
            [ Parent ]

  • But... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by keyne9 (567528) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:20AM (#14807594)
    ...wait, I thought censorship was bad and UnAmerican(TM)?

    • Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Valdrax (32670) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:42AM (#14807700)
      ...wait, I thought censorship was bad and UnAmerican(TM)?

      Only if you're some sort of commie liberal! In this post-9/11 world, UnAmerican is anything that criticizes the government, and anything the government does in violation of the Constitution and its amendments is kosher as long as it's to protect Americans from Evil People.

      Really, though, who's surprised at this. Their stated agenda here was to invade privacy to bolster a case for overturning a Supreme Court decision that prevents them from invading privacy... for the children, of course. Considering how much this administration has stacked every single non-partisan agency with as many political operatives as possible, it's no real surprise that the DoJ would rule in its own favor.

      Hell, even without that, it's no surprise that the DoJ would rule in its own favor. They've never been the most objective of agencies.
      [ Parent ]

  • Today Search, tomorrow Desktop (Score:3, Interesting)

    by clevershark (130296) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:22AM (#14807602) Homepage
    All of you who use Google Desktop might want to uninstall it, just in case the "DoJ" starts going after that data next.

  • Great Moments in Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZombieRoboNinja (905329) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:26AM (#14807618)
    Can the government really go after Google for aiding Chinese censorship and for NOT aiding US censorship AT THE SAME TIME?
  • If the USA is not good for Google they're welcome to set up their business in our country.
  • If the supreme court struck down a law, and the government is using its resources to try and bring it back, isn't that illegal?

    So, if I get caught with a couple of sawed-off body parts dissolving in my bathtub, I can just tell the sheriff "No worries, m

    • Re:Huh? (Score:2)

      by acvh (120205)
      "If the supreme court struck down a law, and the government is using its resources to try and bring it back, isn't that illegal?"

      No. That's how things are supposed to work here. The SC is NOT the last word, they are one of three coequal branches. Their dec

      • Not really accurate (Score:3, Interesting)

        by brunes69 (86786)
        The SC *is* the last word when it comes to interpereting the constitution. If the SC rules a law is unconstitutional, the other branches have basically four options - re-write the law so that it is constitutional, give up, wait until the structure of the S

        • Re:Not really accurate (Score:3, Interesting)

          by acvh (120205)
          you left out an important option: remove the SC's jurisdiction from the matter at hand.

          The only reason the SC is treated as the last word is because they claimed that right in Marbury v Madison. There is nothing in the constitution about it.

  • So what if a child sees pr0n on the Internet? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phlegmofdiscontent (459470) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:37AM (#14807670)
    I saw plenty of nudie pics and porn as a child and I'm pretty well-adjusted as an adult. Yes, seriously. I'm getting pretty sick of government types thinking they can run our lives better than we can.

          • I mean rubbing the clitoris gently and firmly is not that hard a concept!

            Well, this is somewhat of an oversimplifaction - you obviously lack the experience of a true master :-) Things like the pressure, the rythm and and sensitivity can vary significan

  • Ok, so from what I can read all they want is a list of search words - nothing that can track back to any users. Well - I say give it to them. After all, the purpose seems allright "By showing the wide variety of Web sites that people find through search en
  • With all the other problems in the world, I am at a loss as to why this is a top concern for this Administration?

    How about addressing problems related to global warming, poverty, war, and pollution - first and foremost?

  • Asking for search data... (Score:3, Informative)

    by pubjames (468013) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:42AM (#14807697)
    Has the government really thought this through?

    They have to realise they're setting a precident here.

    Google works in many countries around the world. How is the US government going to react if, say, the EU requests the same data from Google? How about China? Or Iran?

    Are they restricting the data they gather to searches only made by US citizens? Because here in the EU there are pretty strong laws about how companies can use personal data they gather. If the US government forces them to hand over data that pertains to EU citizens, I believe Google will be breaking EU data laws and could be opening themselves up for legal action in the EU.

    Actually, there maybe something that EU citizens can do about this. Perhaps EFF Europe should start a campaign...
  • Maybe google should get the DOJ in touch with representative Tom Lantos [slashdot.org] and have a bit of a discussion on the moral implications of complying with legal orders. Just sayin'.

  • No suprise here. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot AT exit0 DOT us> on Monday February 27 2006, @08:44AM (#14807706) Homepage
    .. the Justice Department rejected Google's concerns over a Bush administration demand to examine millions of its users' Internet search requests on privacy grounds.

    This administration has no concept of the right to privacy, except when it come to them and their friends.

  • Why can't they just ask Google for a list of keywords that they think might fall in the border areas between obscene and non-obscene results, and then ask for permission to run a simulation on them from the DOJ headquarters? The answer? Power. The DOJ want

  • Since When? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheWorkz (866187) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:47AM (#14807721)
    Since when did the government start caring about our children. I have a simple solution, Don't leave your child on your computer with internet access alone. When they are old enough to browse and be responsible by themselves, they are old enough to look at porn.. BUSH ADMIN, quit wasting resources on BS and fix the real issues at hand.. Like our Deficit, the war, social security and countless other items. Leave the parenting up to us.

  • Data Usefullness (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _Sprocket_ (42527) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:48AM (#14807730)
    From the article:
    The Justice Department submitted a declaration by Philip B. Stark, a researcher who rejected the privacy concerns, noting that the government specifically requested that Google remove any identifying information from the search requests.

    "The study does not involve examining the queries in more than a cursory way. It involves running a random sample of the queries through the Google search engine and categorizing the results," Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said.

    So... exactly what information is these representatives of the US Government after? The fact that people search for porn? If they remove any identification of who, and thus what, the person is... what's going to tell them that any given search conducted by a wide-eyed innocent (queue Bush jokes) vs. a consenting adult?

    • Re:Data Usefullness (Score:3, Insightful)

      by An. (Coward) (258552)

      So... exactly what information is these representatives of the US Government after? The fact that people search for porn? If they remove any identification of who, and thus what, the person is... what's going to tell them that any given search conducted b
  • There's one thing I'm wondering. Is the US government about to access all of Google's logs? I so, isn't there a potential legal issue here? I mean, privacy laws could be different from one country to another. If it's illegal in a country (let's say, Privat

  • Parents! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lennart78 (515598) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:52AM (#14807745)
    Once more, a nice display of reverse logics! If I, as a parent, fail to keep track of what my child is doing and/or looking at, I find someone to blame. And the federal government is backing me up on this one.

    If you have a small child, you, as a parent, should be aware of what kind of content your child has access to. Preview television shows, whitelist certain webpages. If you leave smutty magazines lying around the house, do you blame the editor if a child finds them and looks through it?

    Besides, sex is a natural thing, use education to enable your child to discern right from wrong, instead of keeping the whole subject hidden from him/her until marriage.

    Google has nothing to do with this battle the right-wing christians wage against the porn industry. I'm not saying that pornsites should advertise all over the net, or judge porn altogether, but the federal government is taking a very one-sided approach in this matter. The net has always been free, and it should remain that way. I agree with Googles view on this matter.

  • So let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind (821714) on Monday February 27 2006, @08:59AM (#14807778)
    Children need protection from porn, because it would be too bad if they would discover their sexuality on a normal speed which coupled with a good sexual education program can significantly reduce the number of underage pregnancies, on the other hand the administration encourages and is fine with the military recruiting from schools, sharing schoolchildren's data in a huge opt-out database and sending these kids to Iraq or Afghanistan.

    Clearly, porn is the danger here. Think of the kids!
      • "Is "normal speed" age 6-8, and is the place for "good sexual program" the internet?"

        The real question is, should kids at the age of 6-8 use a COMPLEX electronic equipment at all without parental supervision?

        If you think they should, is it the governme
  • As if there's any branch of the government capable of checking executive power anymore.

  • The more I hear about this story, the less it makes sense.

    First of all, "rejects" seems a bit strong - if I'm reading the article correctly, this is just a counterargument, and the matter is still very much in the air - with a hearing on March 13. So far
  • Think of the Children!!! Think of my poor child!!!

    At the tender age of 15, my child was brutally and without warning assailed by Janet Jackson's breast during the superbowl. This callous and unjustified act of forcefull thrusting the wide world of filthy perverted sex upon my innocent offspring forever changed the way I looked at this issue.

    My child, while on the internet can be exposed to images of the naked breasts, and even obscene images of female genitalia. This is a shocking and tramatic expierience for any child, and I resent having to deal with the fallout from what some people like to call "excercising their rights". There is no excuse for ludity on the internet. None!

    I fully support the governments efforts to protect my child from the shocking plethora of scandel and depravity that exists on the world wide web.

    I support this for my child! She deserves better!

  • Fishing expedition????? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Monday February 27 2006, @11:02AM (#14808769) Homepage
    Isn't this really just a fishing expedition? The law they wanted to implement to protect children from porn was struck down by the Supreme Court.

    Now, in an effort to get evidence that what they wanted to do isn't really in violation of the constitution, they want the chance to go on a fishing expedition and get the information they've been told they can't have.

    So now the DOJ is saying they reject the right of Google to not furnish information to allow them to appeal the constitutional ruling which went against them?

    So the DOJ is, in effect, saying that they require the search engines to provide the information they need to appeal a court ruling? (Which if enacted, would be the search engine's responsibility to implement.)

    So, why is Google being forced to help make the government's case, when the SCOTUS has already told them they can't have it?

  • Why is the government priveliged in this case? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by snowwrestler (896305) on Monday February 27 2006, @12:09PM (#14809469)
    The Justice Dept. is not prosecuting a crime, they are appealing a ruling. And the data from Google would not prove the DOJ's case (it is not direct evidence), but would rather assist in building circumstantial support for the case.

    So why should Google be forced to comply? In such a proceeding it's not clear to me that the DOJ somehow has "greater" rights than any other appellate litigant. If I appeal some ruling someday, can I force Google to give up their trade secrets, on the basis that they might provide circumstantial support for my case?

    • Google should be forced to turn over evidence in response to a court's order, and by nothing less. The DoJ can shove it.


      Noone has, yet... this was just a filing by the DeptOfInjustice to the court. Of course they would reject the claim, if not, they wou
Check for more

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2008 SourceForge, Inc.