Feds After Google Data For Porn Searches

[Clay Fink]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...y/13657303.htm

This raises some issues apart from content:

Can the goverment be trusted to only use the data for the stated purpose of determining how often porn comes up in random searches? (I'd wager that its a rare case where a XXX site would show up in the top-ten rankings for a search and that the data would show little of interest - so the goverment is wasting our money, again.) Can't they just mine the data for the IPs associated with the searches to see who is doing the searching.

Does the goverment have the right to know who is searching for what on the internet? Can people be monitored due to a 'particularized suspicion' that is based on their search activity?

Should anyone have any presumption of privacy on the internet? My answer: No. You should presume that the goverment needs a court order to watch you, though.

Why are we in a position where a private company (Google) is the last line of defense against intrusive goverment?

[clinthopson]

How do you know the Feds aren't watching us with all the filth that goes on here.

[rollhead]

Just dig it man. I am on first-name basis with all the agents following me.

Rollie sez: Be nice, but don't go out without your tin-foil hat.

[Doc Martin]

Instead of just, you know, doing research, the Justice Department is trying to subpoena from Google records "which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period" to use as evidence in defense of the Child Online Protection Act.

Story here http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...y/13657386.htm

[Tanager]

I'm gonna be doing my part to make sure Google's got enough data to protect (or hand over, whatever the case may be) by searching for all the porn I can find.

[Clay Fink]

Originally Posted by Doc Martin

Instead of just, you know, doing research, the Justice Department is trying to subpoena from Google records "which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period" to use as evidence in defense of the Child Online Protection Act.

Story here http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...y/13657386.htm

Lazy and stupid - Google seems to employ pretty good search algorithms. Kids stumbling over dirty pictures should be pretty rare. More than likely they are looking for it by more direct means, say "hot asian nympho sluts" rather than "heat orient young women greek mythology".

Maybe this is just calculated to intimidate people and make them paranoid.

Just a thought: the Bush Justice dept. was more concerned with porn pre-9/11 than terrorism.

[Tanager]

images.google.com:

Your search - heat orient young women greek mythology - did not match any documents.

www.google.com:

All relevant links, nothing pornographic at all that I saw, at least not on the first page of links. Although I'm willing to bet that leaving off "greek mythology" would change what you got pretty drastically.

[Scott Dolan]

Make sure that "safe search" is turned off.

[Clay Fink]

http://www.google.com/search?hs=7CL&...gy&btnG=Search

No filtering, nothing nasty.

Drop the "mythology" and see what happens...

[Ron Thorne]

How ludicrous! I've found more porno in my e-mailbox than I've ever found doing a Google search. If the gubmint really wants to try to reduce the number of provocative sexual images and words reaching our children, tackle the spam issue, instead.

[Sergio Zamora]

How hard is it for these idiots to write some programs that could get them the information they need.

Does anyone know if these kinds of subpoenas are common? I mean where there is no trial at stake, but where the purpose of the subpoena is 'for research'.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

How ludicrous! I've found more porno in my e-mailbox than I've ever found doing a Google search. If the gubmint really wants to try to reduce the number of provocative sexual images and words reaching our children, tackle the spam issue, instead.

Well, I find more doing Google...but then I'm looking for porno in the first place.

[Doc Martin]

Google Rebuffs Feds on Search Requests
By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business WriterFri Jan 20, 5:47 AM ET


Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), which runs the Internet's second-most used search engine behind Google, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.

Although the government says it isn't seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoena still raises serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.

"Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother," said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.

"Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too."

The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.

For instance, it's not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.

"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this."

Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to court documents. The cooperating search engines weren't identified.

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said Thursday. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."

Microsoft Corp. MSN, the No. 3 search engine, declined to say whether it even received a similar subpoena. "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested," the company said in a statement.

As the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that "makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.

In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don't do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.

Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, (and) to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday

Google — whose motto when it went public in 2004 was "do no evil" — contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.

"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept," company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government's filing.

Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.
"This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Ramani wrote.
Dixon is hoping Google's battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines. "When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said.

[clinthopson]

Thank you Google.

I suree don't want to have those snoops finding out about my al queda connections or the penguin porn searches.

[Sergio Zamora]

Considering the other big engines complied, Google's rebuff is some great marketing for them. Just get a few more well placed articles that emphasize the fact that MSN and Yahoo complied like little sheep, and whether or not the Feds ultimately win Google will be remembered as the one who made an effort to protect your privacy

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

Considering the other big engines complied, Google's rebuff is some great marketing for them. Just get a few more well placed articles that emphasize the fact that MSN and Yahoo complied like little sheep, and whether or not the Feds ultimately win Google will be remembered as the one who made an effort to protect your privacy

Google's stock has not performed very well since the news came out.

Yahoo hasn't done well either.


I hope Google sticks to its guns.

[Ron Thorne]

Give 'em hell, Google! And don't give in.

[Doc Martin]

Google is saying no to the porn cops' fishing expedition. Yahoo has said yes. MSN is keeping quiet.

Update: Or rather, MSN kept quiet when the Associated Press inquired. They were somewhat more loquacious here.

Can I just say, the oddest part about this idiotic ordeal is that DOJ is trying to prove to the Supreme Court that it can uphold COPA without violating the 4th amendment. And they think the best way to prove this case is to...violate the 4th amendment? What a bunch of asshats.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Speaking of porn. Did y'all see the outfit Barbara Bush wore at the Liberian Presidential Inaguration?

Damn!

[Root Doctor]

The Feds will find a treasure trove of Jeff Gannon pics on Scott McClelland's machine.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Speaking of porn. Did y'all see the outfit Barbara Bush wore at the Liberian Presidential Inaguration?

Damn!

Hopefully you're talking about the daughter.

Didn't see the dress, but she has one smoking little body!

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Hopefully you're talking about the daughter.

Still looking for a better pic. This is in Ghana, not Liberia.

[Tanager]

More from Ghana. Well, GhanaWeb claims this is in Ghana, the Washington Post subtitles this pic as being taken in Liberia. Not sure it matters, but I think it's actually in Liberia.

[Scott Dolan]

*slurp slurp*

[Monte Smith]

Give 'em hell, Google! And don't give in.

Google Agrees to Censor Results in China
Jan 24 7:34 PM US/Eastern

By MICHAEL LIEDTKE
AP Business Writer

Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market.

The Mountain View, Calif.-based company planned to roll out a new version of its search engine bearing China's Web suffix ".cn," on Wednesday. A Chinese-language version of Google's search engine has previously been available through the company's dot-com address in the United States.

By creating a unique address for China, Google hopes to make its search engine more widely available and easier to use in the world's most populous country.

Because of government barriers set up to suppress information, Google's China users previously have been blocked from using the search engine or encountered lengthy delays in response time.

The service troubles have frustrated many Chinese users, hobbling Google's efforts to expand its market share in a country that expected to emerge as an Internet gold mine over the next decade.

China already has more than 100 million Web surfers and the audience is expected to swell substantially _ an alluring prospect for Google as it tries to boost its already rapidly rising profits.

Baidu.com Inc., a Beijing-based company in which Google owns a 2.6 percent stake, currently runs China's most popular search engine. But a recent Keynote Systems survey of China's Internet preferences concluded that Baidu remains vulnerable to challenges from Google and Yahoo Inc.

To obtain the Chinese license, Google agreed to omit Web content that the country's government finds objectionable. Google will base its censorship decisons on guidance provided by Chinese government officials.

Although China has loosened some of its controls in recent years, some topics, such as Taiwan's independence and 1989's Tiananmen Square massacre, remain forbidden subjects.

Google officials characterized the censorship concessions in China as an excruciating decision for a company that adopted "don't be evil" as a motto. But management believes it's a worthwhile sacrifice.

"We firmly believe, with our culture of innovation, Google can make meaningful and positive contributions to the already impressive pace of development in China," said Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel.

Google's decision rankled Reporters Without Borders, a media watchdog group that has sharply criticized Internet companies including Yahoo and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.com for submitting to China's censorship regime.

"This is a real shame," said Julien Pain, head of Reporters Without Borders' Internet desk. "When a search engine collaborates with the government like this, it makes it much easier for the Chinese government to control what is being said on the Internet."

When Google censors results in China, it intends to post notifications alerting users that some content has been removed _ to comply with local laws. The company provides similar alerts in Germany and France when, to comply with national laws, it censors results to remove references to Nazi paraphernalia.

Google is cooperating with China's government at the same time it is battling the U.S. government over a subpoena seeking a breakdown of one week's worth of search requests _ a list that would cover millions of terms.

Reflecting its uneasy alliance with the Chinese government, Google isn't releasing all its services.

Neither Google's e-mail nor blogging services will be offered in China because the company doesn't want to risk being ordered by the government to turn over anyone's personal information. The e-mail service, called Gmail, creates a huge database of users' messages and makes them instantly searchable. The blogging services contain a wide range of personal background.

Yahoo came under fire last year after it provided the government with the e-mail account information of a Chinese journalist who was later convicted for violating state secrecy laws.

Initially, Google's Chinese service will be limited to searching Web pages and images. The company also will provide local search results and a special edition of its news service that will be confined to government-sanctioned media.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

[Gordon B]

Originally Posted by Clay Fink

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...y/13657303.htm

This raises some issues apart from content:

Can the goverment be trusted to only use the data for the stated purpose of determining how often porn comes up in random searches? (I'd wager that its a rare case where a XXX site would show up in the top-ten rankings for a search and that the data would show little of interest - so the goverment is wasting our money, again.) Can't they just mine the data for the IPs associated with the searches to see who is doing the searching.

Does the goverment have the right to know who is searching for what on the internet? Can people be monitored due to a 'particularized suspicion' that is based on their search activity?

Should anyone have any presumption of privacy on the internet? My answer: No. You should presume that the goverment needs a court order to watch you, though.

Why are we in a position where a private company (Google) is the last line of defense against intrusive goverment?

The government doesn't need Google's cooperation to answer its own query. All it has to do is make its own random searches with Google's search engine and tally up the porn vs non-porn outcomes. Duh!

[Gordon B]

Google is doubly smart.
1. US
People who are paranoid that the government will access their MSN and Yahoo searching will use Google and not the other two.
2. China
Google wants to dominate the China market so they acceded to censorship by the Chinese government.

A lot of people apparently are fooled into thinking that Google's decisions are based on ethics rather than maximizing profits.

MSN and Yahoo complied with the government's subpoena.
The government doesn't need Google's data to answer their questions because Google's search engine is not very different from MSN's or Yahoo's.