Bush Administration Demands Search Records

[Kal]

Good for Google I say! Andrew is spot on about the slippery slope. When a government can introduce civil liberty protection on one hand yet completely disregard it when it suits them, there is something seriously wrong with that government. I fear Australia is heading in the same direction.

Let them investigate individual cases where warranted, but to trawl through private records in the hope of finding a case to prosecute is scary indeed.

[AnthonyCea]

This is simply a scare tactic to get Google to give into the Bush administration's continued spying on Americans.

It is up to the American citizens to fight the continued violation of our rights by this administration, next they will be asking Google Video what videos you are watching on television!

http://www.alternet.org/story/31008/

Maybe they want to know who goes to the DNC websites also!

I am sure they would like to know if you have ever been to the following website and have read about how this administration seeks to take your right to privacy away from you!

http://www.alternet.org/rights/30905/

Read the above article that Al Gore wrote, he knows a little about the government in this nation and how this administration functions also!

More here from the NY Times, Danny is quoted in this article!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/te...rtner=homepage

[fulton savage]

The concern for children viewing objectional content is NOT valid.

Accessing the Internet isn't free, meaning someone has to subscribe to the service in order for it to be accessed. I doubt many children are granted subscriptions by ISPs, so that means someone else is permitting the child to use the service.

With computer passwords, browser controls, and software blockers there is no reason that a child should have free reign online if such actions aren't desired.

If the US government is worried for the children they should focus on the root of the problem--which is not the accessbility of content, but accessibility to the Internet as a result of poor responsibility.

[Nacho]

Good for Google! Companies have their rights and although I don't know the law perfectly to the letter, it sounds like the government is violating their rights to confidential information and freedom of speach.

First and foremost, the case doesn't originate with Google, so why should Google provide such data.

Secondly, handing over that data may reveal information that Google wants to remain as trade secrets.... Hey, it's their right to do what they want with their information and the law protects them from it.

Unfortunately, there will be some costs for Google to do this, but well worth the fight.

Be strong Google!

[vayapues]

The concern for children viewing objectional content is NOT valid.

Accessing the Internet isn't free, meaning someone has to subscribe to the service in order for it to be accessed. I doubt many children are granted subscriptions by ISPs, so that means someone else is permitting the child to use the service.

With computer passwords, browser controls, and software blockers there is no reason that a child should have free reign online if such actions aren't desired.

If the US government is worried for the children they should focus on the root of the problem--which is not the accessbility of content, but accessibility to the Internet as a result of poor responsibility.

Actually, it is free. Any public library, the entire downtown area of the city I live in has free wifi, the downtown area of the neighboring city has free wifi, or just walk into any neighborhood, and it won't take long to find an unsecured wifi connection.

Granted a wifi connection requires a device, but these devices are more and more common. I see kids walking around with palms all the time. As far as libraries go, well, at least in my city, there is no protection what-so-ever. They actually fight putting filters on their Internet access, saying that porn is an art-form(Give me a break), and protected under the first amendment.

Incidentally, the issue is much more complex then simply passing a law that punishes those who provide porn access to minors. What about search engines themselves, who provide porn, simply by virtue of the fact that they provide searchable indexed content, such as google images?

I wonder if this has anything to do with their refusal to comply, because of concern that they themselves might be in violation of the laws the administration is pursuing?

[vayapues]

it sounds like the government is violating their rights to confidential information and freedom of speach.

Difficult to argue a violation of law. is there a violation of law, or even ethics, to request something of someone else. A violation might be easier to argue if they forced G to hand it over, ie. via physical force. But to follow legal channels you think that is a violation?

I am sure that the Bush Admin fully expected Google to simply hand over the information, and was completly taken off guard when they didn't.

[vayapues]

Incidentally, the issue is much more complex then simply passing a law that punishes those who provide porn access to minors. What about search engines themselves, who provide porn, simply by virtue of the fact that they provide searchable indexed content, such as google images?

I wonder if this has anything to do with their refusal to comply, because of concern that they themselves might be in violation of the laws the administration is pursuing?

What about getty images, which many of us use to find images for our sites, and print media?

[bruhaha]

Originally Posted by Nacho

First and foremost, the case doesn't originate with Google, so why should Google provide such data

I'd actually put this argument last. At least as stated, this seems to be the weakest argument for Google's position. (They are much better off arguing their obligation to protect the privacy of their customers, for instance.)

It is hardly unusual in a legal case to subpoena someone who has evidence relevant to the case. In fact, I would think that most subpoenas are issued to people who have evidence but are not themselves a party in the case itself.

I'm not saying that the parties to a case have some unlimited right to compel testimony from others, much less who is right in this particular dipute. But the ability to present evidence from witnesses who are not parties to a dispute, and even to compel them at times, is critical to a fair legal system.

[dannysullivan]

Again, please keep all points directly tied to the topic of this thread.

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by vayapues

Actually, it is free. Any public library, the entire downtown area of the city I live in has free wifi, the downtown area of the neighboring city has free wifi, or just walk into any neighborhood, and it won't take long to find an unsecured wifi connection.

Incidentally, the issue is much more complex then simply passing a law that punishes those who provide porn access to minors. What about search engines themselves, who provide porn, simply by virtue of the fact that they provide searchable indexed content, such as google images?

Kids manage to get their hands on a lot of things they shouldnt have, and it's ALWAYS due to an irresponsible adult. If I enjoy smoking ciggarettes, drinking beer, and watching porn...damned if you're going to tell me I can't just because some lazy parent can't be bothered to watch their kids. Google is just another way for responsible adults to get things they want, and children's viewing should be supervised just as it should for television, video games and other media.

Originally Posted by vayapues

I wonder if this has anything to do with their refusal to comply, because of concern that they themselves might be in violation of the laws the administration is pursuing?

I can't imagine what laws those would be. Porn is not illegal. If someone has illegal content on their website, such as child porn, then the website owner would be punished, not Google. I think they did this to make their users feel more secure.

[Chris Boggs]

Thanks Danny for all the great postscripts to your initial blog post (in case others have not read that). Postscript #5 fits me as well, and I have returned to clarify my argument. Although I am more specific in regards to the Bill of Rights subtopic in that thread, the case being discussed here is one of Search Engine Content, not child porn in general. This mistake is an easy one to make, as Danny points out, but it is not altogether an error to assume this has something to do with the overall production of child porn. In my opinion, the ability to get such content presented for seemingly innocuous searches signals a need for greater production in that “industry.” The more space there is; the more children will eventually be hurt by these vile pedophiles, all adult porn aside.

Even though the arguments about filtering adult content if you are a parent or a school are valid, it is obviously hard to hide this content from all children all of the time. Kids will hear about certain searches or sites in school or from their friends, and will find a way to get to this adult-oriented content.

Yet to me this request signals something "not right" about the whole thing. If a government like ours wants something they usually try to get it while keeping the people "on their side." So as has been suggested, this may be a good way to have enough conservative-minded people (including fence-sitters like myself) back such a request. Once this is done though, the slippery slope begins and other data will be mined. It is not out of the question that extremists on either side of the political fence could be identified, along with people who may seek information that could be related to something judged illegal or immoral by society’s standards.

I have to repeat my argument from the other post that in this particular case, Google should be paid as a subcontractor and gather the information requested from a much larger sample than one million, forwarding only the specific data to the government. Or else, pay a current research subcontractor to do the work and move on, IMO.

I am very interested to see how this plays out.

[Chris Boggs]

In reference to the Postscript #11, how about this search which leads to 296 results before being cut off out of 18.5 Million. Looks like a lot of websites. If you search for "sample video" without "adult," then you get over 80M with the first adult site appearing on page 2.

Even politicians on the hill know these are the kinds of searches kids will probably be doing. Unless you can somehow block search terms it seems as if the government is trying to fight a wildfire with a glass of wine, because these sites aren't going anywhere any time soon unless this is China...

[DarkMatter]

Originally Posted by Chris Boggs

Even politicians on the hill know these are the kinds of searches kids will probably be doing. Unless you can somehow block search terms it seems as if the government is trying to fight a wildfire with a glass of wine, because these sites aren't going anywhere any time soon unless this is China...

This new "war on porn" is just pandering to the religious folks who are the power base of the administration. It will have as much practical effect as the war on drugs: none. It just makes some people feel better.

[AnthonyCea]

The government wanted all the searches, not just those on porn, porn is the excuse to open the door and we all know that this is a major rights violation and a breaking of constitutional laws that is a troubling pattern of privacy rights being taken away from all of us by the Bush White House!

[Webvisitor]

Danny makes a great point that the government are not search experts. The government employs few experts in newer technologies because as in the case of search what search expert would work for government pay?

MSFT, Yahoo and Time Warner complied but you have to believe this was with some degree of negotiation between their lawyers and the government lawyers.
You can bet none of the complying companies compromised their business plan.

Why not Google? No one can deny Schmidt is a Gore man and Google has an arrangement with Gore's TV project Current. Google Current is channel 366 on Directv.
I believe Google has taken more a political stand than a legal stand and I believe it will ultimately backfire on them. Wrongly in the end it will look like Google does not want to help the government track down pedophiles.

btw- Shorebreak, that was an amazing post. Made me proud to be a citizen of the U.S.A.


Meanwhile Google stock is tanking. Following the "trader" banter on Yahoo Finance some are hitting Google quite hard on this issue.

[fulton savage]

Originally Posted by vayapues

Actually, it is free.

False.

Any public library, the entire downtown area of the city I live in has free wifi

Libraries are funded by grants and taxpayers. Someone is paying for that service and allowing children to use it unrestricted.

just walk into any neighborhood, and it won't take long to find an unsecured wifi connection.

Again, security and software responsibility is lacking in this case.

What about search engines themselves, who provide porn, simply by virtue of the fact that they provide searchable indexed content, such as google images?

I wonder if this has anything to do with their refusal to comply, because of concern that they themselves might be in violation of the laws the administration is pursuing?

I can't agree. A gun provides you with the service of making a bullet travel fast, but isn't guilty of murder.

[ChrisP]

Danny:

Good article, and I guess there's no surprise it was the lead story at the top of Google News Tech! <smile>

I thought your proposed statement was particularly strong:

AOLMSGooHoo did provide a list of URLs and search terms in response to the subpoena. We reviewed the request and determined that we could cooperate without any harm to the privacy of our users. We would have preferred not to have been given a legal summons and have serious doubts if the information will help the US government determine what it seeks. However, we felt our time was not best spent fighting on this front. Rest assured that if personal information had been at stake, we would have vigorously fought to defend the privacy of our users, to the degree the law allows.

I'm worried for my job -- you should be in tech PR!

Chris Parente

[vayapues]

Kids manage to get their hands on a lot of things they shouldnt have, and it's ALWAYS due to an irresponsible adult. If I enjoy smoking ciggarettes, drinking beer, and watching porn...damned if you're going to tell me I can't just because some lazy parent can't be bothered to watch their kids. Google is just another way for responsible adults to get things they want, and children's viewing should be supervised just as it should for television, video games and other media.

That is a nice attitude, but the fact is, that as a society, we do in fact tell each other what we can and can't do. If you enjoy smoking weed, are you going to be damned if society tells you that you can't.

All of which, is beside the point. No one is saying you can't do any of the things you mentioned.

[vayapues]

I said:

I wonder if this has anything to do with their refusal to comply, because of concern that they themselves might be in violation of the laws the administration is pursuing?

Darkmatter responded:

Porn is not illegal. If someone has illegal content on their website, such as child porn, then the website owner would be punished, not Google. I think they did this to make their users feel more secure.

Porn is not illegal, but showing it to children is. I wonder if in the back of their minds they are worried about google images. Anyone can search google images and find endless porn. I agree that it is probably not the main reason they said no, but I do wonder if they are thinking about it.

[mcanerin]

A few thoughts:

1) I'd like to point out that this thread will probably show up shortly for "child porn" and that due to this controversy there will be people doing searches for things related to this discussion, making the searches in this area highly skewed. The fact that I'm looking for this thread does not mean I'm looking for kiddy porn. This is a fundamental flaw in the data collection method and assumptions, and anyone with any brains should know that.

2) on a related note, there is a good chance that a significant portion of people searching for a particular topic are actually law enforcement officials, journalists and concerned parents. This reason for the collection of this data is to attempt to identify pedos, but it's method captures the very people doing the looking.

3) on another related note, in general people are already familiar with themselves and therefore do searches on things they are less familiar with. That being the case, if the norm was (to use an earlier example) democrats, then you would expect that they would do more searches, and write more often, about republicans. Look at any democrat-oriented page, and you will see that the word "republican" comes up far more often than democrat, and vice versa.

The fact that I discuss and look for spam and spammers more often than I do white hats does not mean I'm a spammer. I don't get this thinking. Does the fact that cops are obsessed with looking for crime mean they are criminals?

4) there is no indication that I can see of the limits of this search. If it's aggregate, non-personally identifiable data then I don't see what the issue is - it's little different from someone doing a Wordtracker search. If we are talking about the searches combined with the time date and IP, etc, that's more of an issue.

5) to reiterate, you can't draw a conclusion based on searches, other than interest. Someone looking for "terrorist" isn't necessarily a terrorist. Maybe they are doing research on 9/11, maybe they are military or police doing their jobs, maybe they are a friend or family member of someone captured, maybe they are planning a trip.

6) At what point is, for example, a teenage boy who is interested in a teenage girl a pedo? Frankly, that's more likely to be age-appropriate behaviour than a 50-year old man looking for a 20 year old, no? This method of date collection assumes there are no teens on the net, or that if there are, they don't search for things that interest them. I question that assumption...

No one ever takes away the freedoms of others by telling people they are doing it just for fun, or because they like being evil.

They do it with some sort of justification, and the justification is always noble and wonderful, like protecting kids, protecting society, hunting terrorists, fighting crime, hunting down undesirables like democrats or communists, etc.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
— Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844-1900)

I don't accept the fact that because I think this method of data collection is flawed that I support child abuse or whatever. These are totally different issues. I can oppose the Spanish Inquisition without it meaning I oppose religion, for example. It's a straw man argument.

If you want to get rid of people doing this, then set up a sting or something - that way you know who is really interested child porn, and who is just trying to protect their kids.

As a final thought, this issue is a really clear reason why I think the age of all the major search engines being based in the US is likely to come to a close sooner than later.

Regardless of the reality, if the public perception is that US search engines are now data collection tools for the CIA and FBI, then that perception, real or not, will destroy them, IMO.

My opinion,

Ian