Google Avoids Surrendering Search Info 226
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.
Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:5, Insightful)
If the government demanded that you pay an extra 1000 USD in taxes even though there's no legal reason for them to ask for that, and if a judge then decided that 1000 is too much but that 500 is OK, would you also say that's reasonable? Of course not. There's no middle ground here - you either stick to the law or you don't. Sadly, in this case, neither the government nor the judge did; the former's not surprising, of course, but the latter is.
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:4, Informative)
Plenty of legal basis (Score:3, Informative)
If he *really* had some common sense, he would've said, in essence, "there's no legal basis for requiring Google to hand out *any* data if there's not a criminal investigation going on, so go away, n00bs".
You forgot the obvious "but IANAL". There is lots of legal basis for requiring Google to hand out data when there's no criminal investigation going on. In fact, there's an entire section of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that deals with obtaining information during a civil suit from someone who
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:4, Informative)
From watching John Roberts a little, I would classify him as a strict constructionist, but not nearly like Scalia or Thomas. Alito, I just don't know.
The justices that are more likely to side against GOOG would be someone like Kennedy or Souter. But that's just my prediction.
The big secret is that Scalia and Thomas are the friends of liberals and conservatives alike. Of course they are an enemy to the Democrats, but a friend to anyone with libertarian leanings. Remember Kelo vs. New London where a local government tried to use Eminent Domain to take property from the individuals and transfer it to a private company? The justices that voted against it (minority) were: Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor. The justices that thought that a private company should be able to take away land from individuals for private benefit were: Souter, Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Kennedy.
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:2)
With Sam Alito, only time will tell. I think he'll be a good justice, but you could be right. After a few decisions we'll know whether he's putting his political viewpoints above the Constitution.
I don't know much about the Congressional laws surrounding Gitmo-like camps, but it doesn't seem to be unconstitutional. Just as the Constitution does not rule people outside our borders,
What's the difference between Google and the Gov't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe you weren't aware, but corps only have the power that the government lets them have. The government is vastly more powerful than any coporate entity and has essentially unlimited resources. If you make a list of organzations to be wary of the government is _always_ at the top of the list. The only thing that holds them back is accountability to the people (I won't debate how well that works
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:3, Insightful)
Since corporations can buy and sell senators at will they have all the power the govt has and more.
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:2)
Maybe you weren't aware, but corps only have the power that the government lets them have. The government is vastly more powerful than any coporate entity and has essentially unlimited resources. If you make a list of organzations to be wary of the government is _always_ at the top of the list.
You're kidding, right? A corporation generally has the same rights as a person (hence the term "corporation" - "embodiment"). And people (and corporations) have all the rights and powers except those explicitly d
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:5, Insightful)
The private sector, at worst, sends you some junk mail and tries to sell you something. If they've processed their data correctly, then you probably are interested. The worst that can happen is that they don't process their data correctly and you get offers on stuff you're not interested in.
The government, on the other hand, can do a lot worse than send you some poorly-targeted advertisements. Being targeted as a potential terrorist can do tremendous damage to your life. You could lose your job, be incarcerated (without trial, incedentally), and possibly get your face blasted across the news.
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:2)
they're not citizens!"
Geneva Conventions do not apply to nonsignatories (Score:2)
Only to other signatories of the Geneva Convention. None of our present military opponents actually signed it.
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:2)
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:2)
The whole point of having a trial is to determine whether a person is guilty or not. Locking people up without due process of law is unconstitutional and illegal. Period.
The act of siding with the enemy is a voluntary surrender of citizenship and the accompanying civil rights.
Can you point to the portion of the Constitution that spells that out? Or are you just making up rules that you wish were so?
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:2)
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:3, Insightful)
People who engage in warfare against the US (or other signatory countries) and are not in the uniform of a nation that has subscribed to the Geneva Convention are not entitled to any of the protections agreed under that convention. If found under arms with terrorists then they too are considered terrorists until such time as the Government determines what they wish to do with them. They are to be
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:2, Insightful)
No, don't be silly... they just took away their high thread-count sheets and artisan olive oils, and forced them to drink -- shudder! -- domestic beer.
That's all... it certainly wasn't the case that people at the top of the US Government knew exactly what was going on at prisons such as Abu Ghraib, and in fact ordered it, no matter what you may have heard from dozens of soldiers who were actually there.
Re:What American has been incarcerated without tri (Score:5, Interesting)
I also don't know where you got your impression that a military tribunal is better than a civil court. Why not then substitute all courts in the U.S. by military tribunals? What would you prefer: A court where you can choose your own defender, where you can appeal in case some mistake is made by the court, where the judges are independent from the government, and where the trial is public vs. an "enemy" officer as defendent, very limited and obscure ways to appeal if any, enemy officers as judges whose comrades you might have killed, and a secret trial in some military camp where nobody you know is allowed to attend? Do you really want to rely for justice on some TV-like bold gentlemen officers with balls of steel who have to act against the will of your warmongering commander-in-chief and compromise the former decisions of your comrades to displace and detain you for years? Good Luck.
I agree that the treatment by the U.S. military in general is not as bad how the terrorits treat U.S. soldiers or civilians, but that can not be used as an excuse to lower own standards. If you do lower the standards, you are not better than the terrorists.
You probably are not aware how Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have discredited the U.S. in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. You are no longer seen as The Good Guys (TM). For many Muslims you are now the bad guys, but for your friends you are now the Guys Who Don't Stick To Own Rules and give a fscking shit about the rules of the rest of the world.
You had the compassion and support of the world after 9/11, but you screwed up big time. Now the world looks at the U.S. troops in Iraq with a mixture of uneasiness and malicous joy, and even your best friends are investigating crimes the CIA committed in their countries or against some their citizen.
What a stupid waste of money and lifetime. The U.S. has the most talented people in politcial and social sciences, the greatest spin doctors, economical talent, the largest secret agencies, the greatest movie makers and military power that matches the power of the combined power of military in the rest of the world, but all this seems to be worthless and even counterproductive with an administration like the current one: The reputation in world ruined, terrorism in the world flourishing, the national deficit spiralling out of control, boosting national debt to historic dimensions, and an economy based on plundering and wasting irreplaceable natural resources of the world.
I hope the U.S. will manage to turn around 180 as soon as possible, but the whole world already will have to cope for decades with all the political, economical, environmental and social damage the U.S. have caused since the end of the cold war. The tragedy is that much of the damage done will turn out to be unrecoverable, but the sooner it starts, the better. Close Guantanamo today, and send the people there home. You will not be able to try them anyway, because all the evidence gained there will not be accepted in any court that respects the human rights.
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:2)
-CGP [colingregorypalmer.net]
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:4, Insightful)
Your version of mal-intent by coroporations is one thing - they want to brainwash me into buying their products so their wallets become fatter. That doesn't even hold a candle to the mal-intent a government could achieve by possessing the same info.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:4, Interesting)
The government, on the other hand, is not terrible resource-constrained, lacks the profit motive and instead generally is run by bureaucrats and their institutional imperative to maximize their own power and importance in the world, and politicians seeking to score populist brownie points. This means it can be reactionary, illogical and unprofitable, while seeking to maximize control and power for itself, and suppress those it sees as a threat.
As somebody pointed out, the only thing that constrains this beast is accountability through the electoral process for politicians, and the fear of losing their jobs for bureaucrats.
In short, I think I am right to be far more distrustful of the government having oodles of personal data to mine as it pleases than any corporation.
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:2)
(W aside, he's a (bad) figurehead, (think zaphod (in the sense of distracting attention(the bigger an ass he makes of himself, the more we should look at everyone else in the government))) [yes, I like lisp]
This is at both the state and national level.
It never fails to amaze me, that people who know that the most successful business people are not judged
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:2)
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:2)
When Google gets the power to arbitrairily lock people up, or 'disappear' them, or execute them. We'll talk.
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:3, Insightful)
The first case is that the DOJ is just too used to supeonaing records that they don't understand they don't have to supeona google, just plug in a PC and go to town. It could be typical Govt. power-mongering. Unless...
Unless they are after something specifically to use
Re:What's the difference between Google and the Go (Score:3, Informative)
No they don't. Look at your statements: the individual *items* purchased are not listed. Only the merchant name (and perhaps address) is, along with the transaction price, of course.
CC companies do not, in fact, know what specific items you are purchasing (at least not yet). Guesses can be made based on the merchant (e.g. "Big Al's Sex Toy Shop - Atlanta, GA" might tell the CC company a bit about your sex habits), but they won't know that you purchased
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:2)
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:2)
Hey, I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney than driving with Ted Kennedy.
Re:Can't Troll the E-Water (Score:2)
Well, I was thinking more along the lines of Chappaquiddick. At least the guy Cheney shot didn't die.
Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration's (Score:3, Insightful)
But they roll over when the ChiCom dictatorship orders them to censor democracy.
Color me not impressed.
Re:Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration' (Score:2)
Re:Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration' (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration' (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration' (Score:2, Insightful)
Censoring but tagging ups
Re:Google bravely refuses the Bush Administration' (Score:2)
good or bad it is none of their business (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good or bad it is none of their business (Score:5, Insightful)
The easy and obvious counterargument to the 'you have nothing to hide' line is to point out that it should not be required of a citizen to explain their daily actions on the basis that they look suspicious, as we each do a dozen things every day that could seem out of context to be nefarious or at least odd. The trick is to convince those who actually write this legislative crap.
Somebody ought to surveille every member of Congress for a week or so, and then e-mail them pointed questions about the footage (even if there is nothing untoward, innocuous actions can look suspicious, and of course that's the whole point), and then cc the footage and the questions to a local news outlet...that'd dampen the legislative hankering for citizen surveillance tout suite.
Re:good or bad it is none of their business (Score:2)
Re:good or bad it is none of their business (Score:2)
There's also the Cardinal Richelieu quote that makes sorta the same point you do: "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. "
Re:good or bad it is none of their business (Score:2)
A bit off topic, but this reminds me of a little joke from the Cold War era... a Russian and an American are debating who has the more open society. The American says "in the USA, we have freedom of speech. If I think Richard Nixon is a bastard, I won't be arrested for saying so." The Russian retorts, "it's just the same in Russia. We too can criticize Nixon whenever
Re:good or bad it is none of their business (Score:3, Insightful)
How can this be against the constitution if no ones rights are being violated? The government is not seizing data, they are subpoenaing it - a legal process clearly within the framework of our legal system . The real question is whether or not the government has a genuine need for the data in support of its case.
Our g
Study without having a reason? (Score:3, Interesting)
Tell me what you search for and I tell you who you are. Kind of obvious what they need this for. I wonder why they do not even come up with a fake reason to hide their true intentions. Are people already considered THAT dumb?
Why should they get anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should they get anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly a "study" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly a "study" (Score:2)
Re:Why should they get anything (Score:2)
DoJ Note to self. (Score:4, Funny)
heh!
Re:DoJ Note to self. (Score:5, Informative)
It would be great if that was anywhere even remotely close to true. As pointed out in another post and in an article I wrote in January, Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online all turned over the records asked for without question. Google was the only one who actually put up a fight... Think about it. Only one of all the corporations asked for records refused. The rest "bent over" immediately.
Re:DoJ Note to self. (Score:2)
Thank god for small favors. (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't wait. Talk about your no-win scenarios.
Re:Thank god ... (P2P search engines) (Score:3, Informative)
And developers would probably write their own P2P web search engines. Napster did the keyword search for mp3 files. It would be trivial to modify this for web page searches - each filename would be replaced by a keyword string, while spider searches would be implemented through distributed processing.
If the Feds really want to find a list of IP addresses look
What I don't understand is (Score:4, Insightful)
Plus this is from the Executive branch which doesn't even make the law.
Let Congress pursue this if it wants. It has the responsibilty of making the laws, not the president.
The Constitution gives the president authority over the military and cabinet; the power to grant pardons and make appointments. And thats about it. Not sure where the Executive is coming from with this crap.
Keep in mind, (Score:2)
Re:What I don't understand is how government works (Score:2)
The same way you or I do, by having one served on us.
President Bush doesn't obtain subpoenas. The "Justice" department issues subpoenas, not the President.
It's seems odd that a president can compel the private sector to divulge information in the pursuit of political policy.
It should appear odd. But remember it is not the President who does this but the "Justice Department". Then it won't seem so odd.
Plus this is from the Executive branch which doesn't
Awful just awful.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Awful just awful.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Awful just awful.. (Score:2)
Re:Awful just awful.. (Score:5, Funny)
That's not why we (the people) created the DOJ.
>> People this is one of the most morally destabilizing sins since attacking Americans
Child pornography has been around loooooooooong before that happened.
>> we should be adopting the approaches used in the Middle East particularly: Monitoring of all internet access by faith-based guides
Church and State separation prohibits that. In that other (ironically) faith based doctrine we call the Constitution. However that one is where we, the people put our faith in our government.
>> gouging of eyes, and strict dress codes
Jeb, is that you?
>> Google I hope you're happy for all the lives you've destroyed through facilitating this evil.
You have a (semi) valid point. Google does not facilitate it, humans do. Humans work at Google, and more of them (ought) to be seeing exactly what is in their index and what they make easy to find. So should every other SE on the Internet.
Our legal system permits the DOJ to subpoena *any* individual's records if they can show probable cause for use in any trial aiming to convict a sex offender, and Google has complied with such in the past. What the DOJ is doing is called "fishing" , and its illegal, unconstitutional and unethical.
>> Why does Google hate children?
Awww Jeb! It IS you!
If google was smart... (Score:3, Funny)
There is no reason to make this easy for the government.
Re:If google was smart... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If google was smart... (Score:2)
Note to DoJ (Score:4, Informative)
International concern? (Score:4, Insightful)
i.e. not just getting info on its own citizens but on those from abroad simply because they may have used Google.com as opposed to Google.fr
It would clearly mess up the stats for the research wouldn't it.
Re:International concern? (Score:2)
Also, I'd assume that their servers balance loads locally, so if you're in, say, France and use google.com, you're using a server within western europe, if not within France itself.
The Frustration of the New American Way (Score:5, Insightful)
When a party resists an overbroad subpoena, our legal process can be an effective check on such demands and be a protector of our users.
The checks and balances system has failed us completely. To resist an overbroad subpoena, one must have both incredible financial strength as well as incredible legal strength. Companies much smaller than Google don't have either -- and the courts seem to accept any growth in government strength as a new standard whenever a smaller company just gives in to government requests.
This country was founded on an idea that the Federal government was to be set up to promote the general welfare of the people -- not by making a police state nor a welfare state. The Federal government was here to protect the rights of the people by making sure that the individual states didn't trample on these rights. Beyond that, the Federal government was given a few BASIC powers over the people and the state -- very very basic powers.
National security was a power for the government in its ability to defend the borders and call up the militia to keep out intruders. National security was NOT about policing the citizens of the country, this was left to the individual states to decide what is criminal and what is acceptable.
I am very mad that the average citizen doesn't see what has happened. Instead of having a federal government with very limited powers -- which can't be controlled by any amount of money -- we have a federal government with unlimited powers controllable by the highest bidder. If the highest bidder has any reason to restrain government, they can do so with the right legal aid. Yet the common man (the minority of 1) -- the most important facet of a free system -- has no power to do anything but fall victim to the wants of the masses. If the masses are ignorant, the minority of 1 will find themselves without any rights because no one came to their aid.
This has nothing to do with money, mind you. This only has to do with a federal government that is no longer a servant but a master, and the belief of the citizens that they're still able to stop Leviathan through voting.
Re:The Frustration of the New American Way (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a gmail address. You use the services of these big companies. The consolidation of corporate America into a small OPEC-like coalition of PACs is what allowed the eradication of the Fairness Doctrine [bsalert.com] to go down in the 80s without even a whimper, the emasculation of journalists and political candidates, bringing about the scenario where the people don't feel they have much power to effect c
Re:The Frustration of the New American Way (Score:2, Interesting)
Corporations may be considered partially responsible for the excessive growth of government, but I believe the people to blame in the end are the vot
Re:The Frustration of the New American Way (Score:2)
Fuck Capitalism, its your fault it got this fucked up. If you can't fix it, its broken.
Re:The Frustration of the New American Way (Score:2)
Here's a a visit from your not-so-friendly semantics nazi. My dictionary has the following
Re:The Frustration of the New American Way (Score:2)
I know it's heresy to say that these days but that ought to tell you something. Unfortunately capitalism has become a cult these days. The fact of the matter is that capitalism is nothing but sin with lipstick on. It encourages the worst traits of mankind. What's worse it's a voratious destroyer of natural resources and is eating away on the only planet we have to live on.
This doesn't mean capitalism doesn't work for some people. It does. Those who are especially gree
Quibble on a side issue (Score:3, Informative)
The idea of the federal government protecting people from the states is a post-Civil War innovation. Reading the Federalist Papers is an eye opener. The Founders actually envisioned the exact opposite, that the central government couldn't trample the people's rights because the power of sovereign state governments would prevent them.
Just pasting without any comment (Score:2)
"We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services."
Re:Just pasting without any comment (Score:2)
Anyone own a printing company? (Score:3, Funny)
When 9/11 hit, we made Usama Bin Laden toilet paper.
Someone ought to make this document [google.com] into toilet paper, since its now officially useless otherwise
It's the American thing to do
Re:Anyone own a printing company? (Score:2, Interesting)
When 9/11 hit, we made Usama Bin Laden toilet paper.
Well then, why not a combo Constitution/Bill of Rights TP roll?
Marketing would be a breeze.
"Now everyone at home can find out just why the Bush Administration is so keen on using these historic documents the way they have been. You too can feel the softness of that centuries old parchment as it easily wipes away all that inconvenient crud. Watch as the paper flushes down the s-be
Re:Anyone own a printing company? (Score:2)
Re:Anyone own a printing company? (Score:2)
Saddam, osama, noriaga, zarqawi, arafat, milosewic etc. I suggest Bush for a face, his face should be on the toilet paper. One would have to be a brave man do that though. You can be sure Rush or one of his cohorts would decree a fatwah on you and you would be dead in no time.
Here's an idea. (Score:3, Funny)
Just a REMINDER! ..WAKE UP!! (Score:5, Insightful)
"While Google is reacting to the government request by refusing and resisting, other "leading search engines" seem less eager to protect their users right to privacy.
It should be pointed out that:
* Yahoo,
* Microsoft and
* America Online
have all turned records over to The Bush administration."
Be very aware of this. Google is the only search engine who put up a fight on this issue! The other "leading" search engines willingly, without question, handed over all information asked for. Google in their glory avoided giving out information, the rest didn't even put up a fight. Your Google searches may be protected - for now - but the rest of your searches are now "safe" in the hands of the US Justice Department.
Herring (Score:2)
Randomize src IP! (Score:2)
The usual solution to this is redacted data: the party gets just what it needs, but no more. In this case, the judge could order Google to randomize source IP addresses (or at least the low order 8 bits) and instruct the US govt that it may not use the data for any individual prosecutions (fruit of the poisoned vine). Und
Who is going to sue the other search engines? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be seriously upset if my search engine would give my personal data to just anybody who doesn't have the right to such data.
Guilty until proven innocent (Score:2)
Today we're illegally asking businesses for information that is freely available. Want to know what queries come up in a google search? Google it! But that's not what they want. They want any and every bi
I don't Get it. (Score:2)
Top Google Searches every hour or so.
Gah (Score:2)
(Have you ever seen a terrorist that your gov't wasn't supporting?)
Google for it! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Before you Sensationalists Get Riled Up (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't hold people without a trial.
It doesn't start a war without obvious cause.
It doesn't enrich the friends of the politicians.
Oooh.. Looky Looky! Look at that shiny thing over THERE.
MOD PARENT UP, please (Score:2)
Re:Before you Sensationalists Get Riled Up (Score:4, Insightful)
So because the information is anonymous, they have a right to mine corporate owned information to attempt to resurrect a series of laws that have been repeatedly found unconsitutional? You describe porn as if it were something illegal, a problem that they are reasonably working to eliminate. And the government shares your position I'm sure. But somehow the "they're just attacking pornography" argument doesn't sway me much. Pornography involves peoples' right to explore their sexuality as they see fit, including selling video or photographs of said sexuality for the means of making money and helping other people enjoy their sexuality. The government disagrees with this protected practice (shielded by case law), and is looking for a way to implement their standard wedge method to make it impractical since they can't make it illegal. They are doing so under the guise of protecting children. This demand for "random search data" whether it is anonymous or not, is entirely inappropriate and private corporations which have rights of their own, should not be at the disposal of the government to provide them with commercial information in order to further their attempts to override peoples' rights through misrepresented over-restrictive impracticality.
That would be like the government demanding that the credit card agencies turn over all of the charge records of a random sampling of 50,000 Americans so the government could better understand peoples' spending habits. What you've done by condoning such government abuses of power is essentially hand the government the right to "explore" all private information for the purpose of "research" so they can advance their legal agenda of chipping away at peoples' rights using the wedge method and by over-regulating businesses they don't like.
Re:Meanwhile, Google blocks searches for "freedom" (Score:2)
Correction: Google hasn't given out information to the Chinese, yet.
Give it time. If the Chinese government insists, Google will, otherwise they'd lose the profit of operating within China. And the poor Chinese citizens who dared to show curiosity about democracy, well that's a little bit of tough luck for them. An unfortunate casualty in Google seeking profits.
Re:Meanwhile, Google blocks searches for "freedom" (Score:2)
Re:Too many frivolous lawsuits (Score:2)
That's not close to rich in the country you are talking about.