Google to feds: Back off

[arwalden]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6041113.html?tag=nl.e589

By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: February 17, 2006, 1:32 PM PT

Google lashed out at the U.S. Justice Department on Friday, saying that a high-profile request for a list of a week's worth of search terms must not be granted because it would disclose trade secrets and violate the privacy rights of its users. In a strongly worded legal brief filed with a federal judge in San Jose, Calif., the search company accused prosecutors of a "cavalier attitude," saying they were "uninformed" about how search engines work and the importance of protecting Google's confidential information from disclosure.

This response came after the Justice Department last month asked a judge to force Google to hand over a random sample of 1 million Web pages from its index, along with copies of a week's worth of search terms to aid in the Bush administration's defense of an Internet pornography law. That information is supposed to be used to highlight flaws in Web filtering technology during a trial this fall.

The Justice Department subpoena normally would have been a routine matter, and America Online, Microsoft and Yahoo voluntarily complied with similar requests. But Google's resistance sparked a furor over privacy, with Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, asking the Justice Department for details, and a bill appearing in the House of Representatives that would require Web sites to delete information about visitors.

....

Google's opposition raised eyebrows last month after it stood up to the U.S. government but capitulated to censorship demands from China's ruling Communist Party. At a hearing this week, politicians said they were "sickened" that Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo chose to censor their search results for Chinese users.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6041113.html?tag=nl.e589

[wordpix]

1. BS that Justice is concerned about porno records when we have Plamegate,

Congressional corruption, corporate malfeasance, Big Oil price gouging, illegal NSA spying, WH refusal to release records, etc. Does DOJ have nothing else to do than look into who's accessing porn?

I call BS.

[acmejack]

2. And rightly so.

Justice Department, a title particularly rich in irony, is it not?

[ConcernedCanuk]

10. As in the irony of calling the DoD the Department of Defense

.
.
.

Previously called the Department of WAR

It was correctly labeled the first time

Doncha think?

[henslee]

7. YOU SAID IT.

[Mitt Chovick]

3. Yet they kow tow to China, hmmmm

[fshrink]

4. Who doesn't?

[Mitt Chovick]

5. Good point

n/t

[HuckleB]

11. Advance agreement.

Very different issue.

[sendero]

15. Why shouldn't they?

Absent some sort of US law to make what they are doing illegal, why shouldn't they? Microsoft damn sure will. Gates will bend over and grease himself for China, so why should a company that is 10 light years ahead ethically just concede that market to China?

There should be a law, but there isn't. There's not a corporation in America who would roll over and give a huge market to its rivals over this sort of issue. Not even Google. Bank on it.

[Triana]

6. I don't think porn is what they're after...

...they WANT the technology secrets so they can use the technology to censor the internet - and they want to know how the filters work (and don't work) so they can filter and censor our searches. Google did this for China. The US gov't wants them to do the same here - OR they want to do it themselves.

I don't think porn has a damn thing to do with it - anymore than WMD had anything to do with why we invaded Iraq.

bullshit, indeed.

[madeline_con]

9. Absolutely agree. n/t

[soulcore]

27. you hit the nail right on it's fucking head. n/t

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberalPartisan]

12. From CNET.com: When Google is not your friend

It's only a matter of time before other attorneys realize that a person's entire search history is available for the asking, and the subpoenas begin to fly. This could happen in civil lawsuits or criminal prosecutions.

http://news.com.com/FAQ+When+Google+is+not+your+friend/2100-1025_3-6034666.html


Note: Google does not delete anything. Every search query you make is stored along with the IP address of the computer from which the search is executed on. Do you have GMail? Your deleted emails are retained by Google too.

This is probably the case with all the search providers but Google is the big fish and they have tried to cultivate the impression they benign. They are not. While they may fight the government on access to their data warehouse they sell that same data and the business intelligence gathered from analyzing that data to the highest bidder.

[sendero]

16. I agree with you...

... Google is collecting marketing data and they know what they are doing. The questions that follow would be:

1) who isn't

2) are they going to sell your name/personal info, or just profiles

3) which is more important to you, commercial privacy or governmental privacy - i.e. are you more worried about getting more ads or about Agent Mike knowing every time you take a piss?

[LiberalPartisan]

17. Consumer profiling is big business

http://www.epic.org/privacy/profiling/

[rman]

13. apples and oranges

Censorship is bad, but violating privacy rights is something else.
The Chinese govt will censor its citizens anyway, google can either comply or not do business in China. At least google will inform chinese internetters that the search results are censored.

[Toots]

14. Just because their stock has fallen over a hundred dollars a share since

Bush* and Cabal have demanded search records shouldn't mean they want the government to stop... :crazy:

[MetaTrope]

18. W00T! The "Diebold Defense"!

Heehee..."disclose trade secrets"...take THAT, ya fascists!

[twaddler01]

19. GO GOOGLE!

:thumbsup:

[WhiteTara]

20. Google rips Bush administration's search request

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13901327.htm
Google rips Bush administration's search request
By Elise Ackerman
Mercury News

Google called the Bush administration's request for data on Web searches as ``so uninformed as to be nonsensical'' in papers filed in San Jose federal court Friday, arguing that turning over the information would expose its trade secrets and violate the privacy of its users.

The 21-page brief filed by the Mountain View search giant angrily dissected the government's claim that the search results would produce useful evidence regarding child pornography.

The Justice Department asked a federal judge to force Google to turn over the data last month, after Google refused to comply with an earlier subpoena. Government lawyers said the searches would help it defend the Child Online Protection Act, which was struck down as unconstitutional. The law is designed to keep children from sexually explicit material on the Internet.

The Justice Department has a week to submit a written response. A hearing is scheduled for March 13 in U.S. District Court in San Jose.

[AzDar]

21. Good on Google! Stand up to the lying bastards.... n/t

[proud patriot]

22. Yay ! Google Way to go !

[ixion]

23. "so uninformed as to be nonsensical''

The * Cabal to a tee. :evilgrin:

[WhiteTara]

28. I liked that line too n/t

[khashka]

24. Good for Google

I'm glad to see they are willing to draw a line in the sand.

Khash.

[Peanutcat]

25. Oh Happy Day!

Wheeeeeeeeeeee!:woohoo:

[Cha]

26. Wonder what that

bush toadie dan senor is thinking about all this?

I just found this on Google..

"Dan Senor Not Joining Google"

http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/050616-084257

[Vidar]

29. They'll probably lose but God bless Google for fighting the bastards.

[dailykoff]

30. They'll probably get anthraxed, too. n/t