Google, the world’s largest Internet search machine, is right to resist Justice Department demands for broad access to its vast database of search requests, which many users (naively?) thought were private.
Justice officials, who want the information as part of efforts to salvage an online anti-porn filter law, claim they aren’t asking for individual identities, but isn’t that the next step on this slippery slope?
Google’s track record doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, though: It has cooperated with the Chinese government to censor certain words such as “democracy.”
Perhaps the best solution, say some Internet privacy experts, is for Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo to voluntarily end their practice of indefinitely keeping data on customer use history.
Putting a time limitation on recordkeeping would remove much of the temptation for government to go snooping.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
26 Comments
claim they aren’t asking for individual identities HUH?
If this is true, then their entire request is without merit.How can you enforce a law without an offender?
Also remember that GOOGLE is in the game for one reason only-profit.It’s quite profitable to do what China’s gov’t wants, just as it would curb profits if they did what the U.S. gov’t wants. China would ban them completely, while here we (still) have laws for privacy. At least for now.
In response to TRACY’s comment:
No one is trying to enforce a law, yet. The motion that was filed actually states that individual identities would not be collected:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/google/gonzgoog11806m.html
The Department of Justice is trying to collect evidence to support the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which is not currently being enforced.
However, I agree that this could lead to government agencies asking for personal information in the future. I also feel that COPA is not being enforced for good reason.
If the government gets the information they’re looking for, they’ll find some way to abues it sooner or later.
That said, if you think you’re anonymous on the internet, you’re kidding yourself. Where ever you go, you leave your mark. (Unless you’re a pretty good hacker)
I don’t understand…the government will abuse the information? In what way?
I am not trying to be a smart a## here…but I just don’t get it. If the government finds out that I looked at Lowe’s website this week, how are they going to abuse that information?
Or, if the government learns that I looked at cnn.com, how is that an abuse or harm? Please…I am honestly looking for an answer.
The feds already know where I work, what I make, my marital status, my financial position (savings, portfolio, etc) as well as my hobbies/interests and where I go on vacation–due to taxes.
Is that an abuse of something? I am really missing something here..
The government is responsible for needing this information. Had the Fed’s required InterNIC,InterNIC is a registered service mark of the US Department of Commerce, to establish a dotxxx (.xxx) url and forced all adult content to .xxx, tehn there would be no need to surveil private citizens. A request supported by millions in Internet users for a .xxx was put forward many years ago. Up to this moment, InterNIC has refused to even consider that proposal.
The Fed’s, who license and control InterNIC, have only themselves to blame. Here’s a hot tip Fed’s – Establish a .xxx and force all porno to use that URL. Your troubles and requiremnts for sprivate information will be over.
Mr. Thomas overlooks something. Ultimately, it isn’t “government” that is looking at google searches and international phone and Internet transactions, it’s PEOPLE. A peculiaro kind of people who enjoy spending their entire days snooping on other people. In Europe, businessmen have complained of Echelon’s being used for corporate spying–i.e. that information is being picked off by some federal employees who sell the information to enrich the businessmen’s competitors. If anyone thinks that government employees don’t exploit their positions to enrich themselves, he or she doesn’t know anything about government, federal, state or local. Knowledge is power.
Heart–
I am not overlooking anything, but am honestly curious. How do government employees enrich themselves by learning that I went to cnn.com?
Where is the “power” in knowing that I looked at garden tools at lowes.com? I am not trying to be difficult here, I honestly do not understand the inherent harm that is caused here.
Before anyone dumps on me, understand I am not endorsing warrantless searches, I am not condoning anything, but I am asking an honest question.
I agree Bill. It would be nice to be able to do a keyword search and filter out anything from a .xxx and get what I am looking for (NOT porn). Also, that would provide a good filter for other purposes.
Ray, let’s turn the question around. What does the government need all that information for? Stopping porn isn’t really the government’s business and we’re talking about “broad access”, not just targeted. And the government’s track record on these kinds of issues suks! TSA demanded flight records from the airlines, then turned the records over to “private contractors”.
Ray, I believe that what I do or don’t do isn’t any of the government’s business unless I commit a crime. For the government to spy on me presupposes I might intend to commit a crime. Otherwise, what’s the point? And that gets us on a REAL slippery slope.
X–
No argument from me on that, the websites we visit is none of any government employees’ business.
Other than that generalized statement, however, where is the measurable harm? What is the quantified problem? Your comment about presupposing a crime is interesting, and I agree there as well. Do we have any proof at all of any spying on law abiding people? Any shred of evidence anywhere of harm caused?
Now, if ‘the feds’ start rounding up everyone that visits homedepot.com and putting them away in gulags, yes, there is a definite harm.
But, simple knowledge of web searches? I am not trying to be argumentative nor am I trying to be stupid. I just do not understand.
Ok Ray, let’s get away from this “I am not trying to be argumentative nor am I trying to be stupid” gig. It’s making me uncomfortable. This is a discussion, not a fistfight.
“Other than that generalized statement, however, where is the measurable harm?”
Ray, If I walked into your house and started looking through your closets and cabinets, and personal posessions, what would you do? If I don’t take anything or damage anything, what’s the harm? What would be your justification for bouncing me out of your house on my kiester?
“What is the quantified problem?”
See the statement above. What indeed is the problem?
“Do we have any proof at all of any spying on law abiding people?”
Do we have any proof that they’re not spying on law abiding people? Absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence is lacking. As an example, the administration claimed that NSA spying ONLY involved calls where one of the parties was AQ. Evidence is surfacing that suggests there may be hundreds, maybe thousands of cases where that isn’t true. I don’t offer this to start an argument…Just to point out that there is some justification for questioning government statements and motives.
“Any shred of evidence anywhere of harm caused?”
Google hasn’t given in yet (bless their hearts), so probably not.
Ray, let’s look at how it works. Sure, maybe a visit to homedepot.com may seem harmless on the face of it. But we’re talking about machine programs here. They’re very good at building profiles using a lot of seemingly disconnected data. Maybe that one piece of data, a visit to homedepot.com ties in with something else? What if terrorists buy nails for roadside bombs at HomeDepot? If so, you’ve just met one criteria for being a terrorist. Are you a terrorist, Ray? (probably not). But what if you also went to Radioshack.com? Terrorists have been known to use devices purchased at Radio Shack to detonate bombs. Now you’ve met 2 criteria for being a terrorist. Ray, are you sure you’re not a terrorist? I know that’s an extreme example, but that is indeed how profiling programs work. Profile and data mining programs only consider facts and numbers. There’s nothing that tells the Program that Ray is really the kindly church-going moderate conservative that lives down the block.
I see your point, Ray. Do you see mine?
If the government under bush usurpts any more freedom from Americans – next they will check your underwear to measure your fruit-of-the-loom! catalog your size and launch a federal study to try to better understand why you are the way you are? Some things are better as they are – freedom is one of them!
How can the government abuse your personal information? They’re the government, they already have all your personal information.
It has been proposed that two things have been happening. One, NSA employees have snooped and intercepted information that has enabled them to seek and obtain “probable cause” FISA court warrants to then further tap suspects’ communications, legally and justifiably. The initial “fishing expeditions” are the problem: NSA employees aren’t going to the court for authorization to do these, because they cannot get it. One FISA court judged resigned in protest to the Bush administration’s manipulation of the court. The NY Times reported this because some NSA employees were upset about this being done. Everyone agrees that it violates the FISA statute.
The second matter is that the NSA has been alleged to have examined suspects’ emails, then the emails of their contacts, then the emails of their contacts’ contacts, and so forth, so that the emails of people who are not terrorists, and who have no real connection to terrorists, are being subject to government employees’ perusing their communications.
According to constitutional experts, the only “out” Bush has is to argue that Article I of the Constitution grants the President executive powers that trump the FISA statute. However, these experts point out that this thesis is dangerous because it is tantamount to asserting that the President does not have to obey laws passed by Congress, and can do anything he wants until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. But even if one grants this proposition to a degree, under the Separation of Powers doctrine, the spying is being done on American citizens. The FISA statute is not designed to annoy presidents, it is designed to protect millions of American citizens’ right of privacy.
Some of them don’t care if their communications are intercepted. But others do. It is not within the purview of those who don’t care to decide that the communications of those who do care should be freely examinable by government employees. You can surrender your own privacy right, but this does not empower you to surrender OTHER PEOPLE’s privacy right. If you are a developer, you may strongly endorse the emerging practice of little people’s homes being taken via eminent domain to enable developers to further enrich by obtaining other people’s private property without their consent. But if you are a little homeowner, you might have a different perspective, no?
If the ACLU would get out of the “God” business, this would be the perfect case for it.
X–
Rational, reasonable statements. The only one I don’t get is the one about ‘absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence is lacking”. I guess since I was born in the ’show me’ state, I need proof. Where is the evidence of harm?
But, X, I gotta admit, your logic does make sense, about the linking of websites. Your analogy of walking into my house does not–since you must break the law (breaking and entering as well as trespass) to look at my pots and pans.
Complex topic…not one to be easily resolved, nor resolved on a blog. I do not like the idea of GW thinking he can violate the law, and at the same time, I am deeply concerned about terrorists in this country using our rights to hide their activities.
thanks for the rational response.. it is refreshing to read logic, well thought out comments.
Ray, you just made the point.
Skirting the FISA law is how they “break the law first by entering your house.” That is how they get into the door, without probable cause, to snoop around in your house. THAT is why people are upset about spying without a warrent. WITH a warrant, they enter your house legally, with probably cause. Without it, they are indeed breaking and entering and trespassing to conduct an unreasonable search.
If bushco wanted to skirt FISA, they should have changed the law, not just thumbed their noses at a law they just didnt like.
Good posts, all, well thought out.
On a side note, the effect of this is scare off folks who might otherwise view or purchase internet porn.
Since they now know gov’t is taking names, it has the same effect as somebody taking down license plate numbers at a strip club . . .
Interesting thought, Lib, but with over 4.2 million porn websites, over 372 million pages, growing at a rate of over 200 new websites a day, I don’t think the threat of writing down names will slow down that business.
Unbelievable demand for that garbage.
(source, LA Times, 12/29/05, quoting Internet Filter Review)
Ray,”Absence of evidence doesn’t mean evidence is lacking.”I mean that maybe we just haven’t found the evidence yet. I worry about terrorists too, but I’m not going to hide under the bed. As has been said before, I prefer to die on my feet rather than live on my knees. Ray, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the terrorists whole point to destroy our way of life? Haven’t they suceeded if we give up our liberties? Isn’t our sense of liberty what makes America unique?
Ksfarmgrrl, thanks for the leg up. You saved me some typing.
No argument, X. I just cannot get paranoid without a proven harm. Breaking the law to eavesdrop is abominable, but beyond that, the true harm is not quantified.
Anyway…complex subject. Will be interesting to see what does develop out of this…if anything.
Ray, I’m not sure it will go anywhere. It will if the Democrats regain a majority in the Senate this year. Otherwise, not.
One thing to consider is, in the sheer volume of inquiries, they will certainly find some searches that might be regarded as “questionable,” yet could be entirely innocuous (or at legal :-). Since this administration has shown particular contempt for little things like evidence and due process, it isn’t to imagine the NEXT subpoena following up on the fishing expedition. . . .
Since the government is determined to violate our privacy, it may be time to consider counter measures. I found something interesting this morning. It might be worth your time to read if you’re interested in maintaining your privacy on the web.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/technology/techspecial2/25privacy.html?_r=1
Good post, XXX.
I’m going to check into that.