The Justice Department is trying to data-mine Google.
As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is “harmful to minors.”
“The government can’t even claim that it’s for national security,” Everett-Church said. “They’re just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.”
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh, hell, why don’t we just white-out that pesky Bills of Rights thing. Fuck knows it ain’t been used for a bit.
The issue here is they could do this without datamining google. Simply by searching with safesearch on, and seeing how much porn they get back.
Either A) They’re lazy, or B) they really want google’s database.
Depressingly, SOX probably requires them to maintain this database. I’m not employed in a SOX regulated industry (they joys of working for the government: who needs to obey your own laws.), but it does have some pretty draconian rules on what you need to keep, and for how long.
But I can’t see a single legitimate reason to want access to the searches unless you simply don’t want to create your own data pool. Moreover, creating your own would let you slant the results heavily, which you’d think the lawyers would be all over.
Despite my strong difference of opinion when it comes to politics with most that post here, I agree that Google should not have to hand it over. It is their data, and they can do with it as they please. I strongly beleive in personal responsibility, and the right to your opinion and to not be harrased for it by the goverment. I hope the Supreme Court continues to block their request for this information. I like Bush for the most part but occassionaly he does crap like this and needs to be smacked back into line.
I like that there is a sort of implied guilt in all this. If you do a search and it returns material that is deemed “harmful to minors” then you are most likely…flagged in some way. Is anyone going to believe that you search was overly broad, or you used poor search terms or that the sites positioned themselves to turn up on searches on topics other than “harmful to minors” ones. Not only is the concept lazy, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the internet.
Yeah, down with the government tracking our search patterns! I mean, it not like Google is going around putting cookies on their users’ machines that expires in 2038 to track everything you’ve ever searched…
Welcome to the information age. I still don’t see why people are so up in arms about the government subpeonaing Google or library records. If you want something to be paranoid about I’d start with database companies that have so much info about you (ie your SSN, your work and credit history, what you bought at the store last week) that they could put most stalkers to shame. And if they happen to make an oops (like, hey, criminals just bought your entire credit history) there’s no law (unless you live in CA) to make them tell you. Heck, if you really want to know what is like there are plenty of people willing to sell you it for around $100.
I’d say government asking Google for pattern info is the least of our problems.
Hmm, Wordpress is a fickle mistress on comments.
The sentence that got cut off
Heck, if you really want to know what Scott Jenning’s cell phone bill is like there are plenty of people willing to sell you it for around $100.
http://redtape.msnbc.com/2006/01/there_is_finall.html#posts
The reason we’re irate about the government wanting it:
They don’t need it (for the purposes they have requested the data for, the data requested is actually less useful than performing tests manually.)
They don’t have a right to it. While a company can sell my records if they can obtain them legally (in most cases, the sites trying to sell your cell records are doing so illegally. Mostly via Fraud.) The most common method of getting your cel information? Joe User doesn’t go to verizonwireless.com and setup their web account, so they just go and put in the phone number and the default password, and create the account. Verizon recently changed it so you can’t use the phone number to create the accounts, you need a username. Second most common way? Calling the number, and faking being a phone company rep, and asking for personal information. Then calling the company and presenting that personal information when asked for all that “verify that you are you” Q&A. Both are illegal, but you need to prove the company did it to bust them, and they need to be based in a country where it’s illegal to commit said fraud. Welcome to the information age.
But the problem really is that the government has no rational reason under the defense of COPA to need these records from search agencies. I don’t care about my privacy, because nothing I search on google is illegal. But I do protest on the grounds that there’s no legal reason for wanting said records. They’re effectively useless in tracking how easily children can obtain porn via search engines, as it doesn’t take into account the age of the searcher, or if any cybernanny software is installed on the workstation doing the surfing (which is what the lawsuit is on, they need to prove that COPA is more effective than parental software). A bulk “what do people google for” listing doesn’t actually address either aspect in whole or in part.
As such, it’s a quasi legal request (it would be legal if it was for an applicable court case. In this case, it’s legally referred to as “fishing”. Asking for completely unrelated blanket information in the odd hope of maybe finding something you can usefor the case, or more commonly for something non case related.) Corperate lawsuits often try this type of stuff to get access to another company’s internal memos, R&D documentation, and other such things that would usually be considered a trade secret.
IF google was a defendant, they’d need to give up the data. If google’s data would provide a valuable service in proving the case, they may be required to give up the data. If it adds nothing to the case that individual effort wouldn’t provide, and they’re directly involved in the case, they don’t need to give anyone anything. This is the digitial equivalent of them demanding a court order to be able to demand answers from children for a week about if they’ve ever seen anything that may have been related to a boobie. Not needed, not legal, and unrelated to the case at all.
Well the GOP has been in power for 4 years now, give or take. When exactly is that small government revolution gonna take place? I seemed to have lost the time table.
“While a company can sell my records if they can obtain them legally “
Actually, I don’t think they should be allowed to do that either. Why is it that people are always so hyper-vigilant about government surveilance but quite non-chalant about corporate surveilance?
It must be just me…
I’ve always been a firm believer in gridlock. Turn the entire government over to a single party and you will get corruption, totalitarian laws and totalitarian law enforcement.
Hurray! Single party government! Our side won! “No *you* didn’t.”
Intrusive government surveillance: it\’e2\’80\’99s not just for criminals anymore.
Myself, I never google porn. That is what bookmarks are for.
On the one hand, the information they’re asking for from Google doesn’t actually compromise any individual’s privacy – there are no IP addresses or names attached. (This time.) On the other hand, since they’re not asking for that information with regard to any case presently in court or any specific investigation, I’m puzzled as to why they think a court will order Google to cough up. I’ll be interested to see just what justification they come up with, since they appear to have had no legal basis for a subpoena. “We want your proprietary records for a PR study we’re doing” isn’t a government power under any act I can think of.
The particularly interesting bit of this is that Yahoo and MSN appear to have caved in to these requests already, without any argument.
If it’s any consolation, an awful lot of conservative bloggers aren’t impressed either. I know /I’m/ not.
While I thought the wiretapping fiasco was a lot of bitching and not much else (they were wiretapping international communications with probable terrorists; unless you were talking to someone in Syria about explosives, I think you’re okay), this has a really bad stench about it.
–TR
“While I thought the wiretapping fiasco was a lot of bitching and not much else (they were wiretapping international communications with probable terrorists; unless you were talking to someone in Syria about explosives, I think you\’e2\’80\’99re okay), this has a really bad stench about it.”
The problem is not who was being wire tapped. It is that there are laws in place to allow the government to legally do this kind of wire tapping without tipping their hand (unless al-quada has infiltrated our federal court system) and Bush appears to have decided he was above those laws. No one should be allowed to act above the law, not even the President in times of war.
There’s a fair amount of arguing over whether FISA grants Bush the authority or not. If it /does/ grant him the authority (and I’m searching for data that’s not bloody well slanted left or right), well… the ‘above the law’ bit doesn’t apply. I have a suspicion that no matter what Al Gore says, an impeachment charge is going to fly like a lead balloon.
Now, whether it should’ve been granted to him in the first place? Good question. And considering the questionable uses that the Clintons put wiretapping to, in the long run it’d be better if that authority wasn’t there. Something to write your Congressman about, but not, unfortunately, something you could impeach Dubya for.
Sorry, I can’t get too worked up about listening in on the conversations of people whose dearest dream is to fly a plane into a skyscraper. How many people remember how the forums of LtM lit up that day?
–TR
Seriously… go type a female name into Google with safesearch on. I guarantee you will get a porn link within the first page. Even better type half a dozen other simple search terms into Google and see what you get. It IMHO is no different than going to the library and having the librarian find your child a book on sex. There needs to be accountability.
Not that I like Uncle Sam in my business, but there is going to come a point and time when the Internet is reshaped into something much more friendly than what it is currently. It will start with the seperation of Adult material and everything else. And part of that is going to be using engines like Google and breaking it down.
.XXX was a good idea shot down. Even though .XXX wouldn’t have forced any porn sites to move over there would of been a shift and the groundwork would have been laid for future legislation. The XXX industry is actually very compliant when it comes to regulations and they are part of one of the mosty heavily regulated industries around.
Doesn’t say much when you type Tina into Google and find out she has 34DDs that you can see for the low low price of $14.95 a month.
First, you move porn sites into .xxx. Then sites that mention porn sites. Then sites that are off-color. Then you have to get vetted to be in the non .xxx internet. Then you have to pay for it.
Anyone that honestly believes that this issue is about protecting children from porn, as opposed to taking steps to completely eliminate a US citizens access to porn, is an idiot.
It’s that simple.
My google is broken.
I tried searching “tina” as suggested. I found no 34DD links. Instead, I get 3 different software products and the homepages of Tina McClelland, Tina Fey, Tina Arena, Tina Turner, and Tina Dico. The Church of Tina Chopp might offend many, but lacks porn from what I could find.
Please test keywords before causing further dissappointment. I did try Jenny and Mary to no effect as well. You did say *any* female name, so I think this suffices as a counter example.
imweasel gets it in one. The reason I oppose any legislation about family values is precisely because family values are so important to me.
*chuckle*
Toastrider – One point I think is largely overlooked in the whole warrentless wiretap mess is that, by the nature of the agencies involved, we really have to take Bush’s word that he is only listening in on terrorists. I see little reason to trust that sort of declaration from a government in general (even as a self-described big government liberal), and most particularly from this government in particular, whose duplicitousness is to extensive to bother wasting Lum’s bandwidth on. The same comcern abviously follows here.
I have no illusions about dubya’s impeachment, I simply maintain that he is lying through his teeth and can’t be trusted to tell you whether it is raining or he is just taking a leak.
In fairness to the other search engines, they did negotiate this for an extended period, as did Google. Not that said negotiations make me feel any better about trusting them with my data. But I didn’t trust them to begin with, so I am more pleasantly surprised by Google than I am disappointed in the others, who merely lived down to my expectations.
Hah. Well put, Evangolis.
Brask Mumei – Make sure your safe search option in google is off.
I had no problem pulling up nude photos within the first page or two of results using the simple names of Jenny and Tina.
Thanks for the advice, imaweasel. I was obviously confused by the original posters command to: “go type a female name into Google with safesearch *on*” (emphasis mine)
The internet is once again the pit of cess that I’ve grown to love.
You guys do realize that turning SafeSearch “off” (which is not the default, it’s something you have to do yourself) is the equivalent of telling Google “Yes, I’d like porn results from almost everything I type in please”, right?
“You guys do realize that turning SafeSearch \’e2\’80\’9coff\’e2\’80\’9d (which is not the default, it\’e2\’80\’99s something you have to do yourself) is the equivalent of telling Google \’e2\’80\’9cYes, I\’e2\’80\’99d like porn results from almost everything I type in please\’e2\’80\’9d, right? “
Don’t we have truth in advertising laws? Shouldn’t SafeSearch really be labeled “PornSearch”?
That’s okay, Evangolis. I didn’t trust Bill Clinton either
–TR
Bush is a liar and hypocrite. He has this made-up war going on, which has actually HELPED the terrorists more than hurt them while Osama is still at large, that has the blood of countless thousands of innocents on his hands. He has broken the law with the illegal wire-tapping. Made government bigger and more intrusive rather than smaller. He and his “administration” (read: anyone who is too scared to disagree with little king bush) have lied about so many things it’s a wonder anyone can believe a word they say any more.
But hell, Clinton had sex with some chick in the oval office, so he’s far worse.
I’m Ch&ra, really nice blog, lots of great info, Thanks a lot!
{ 1 trackback }