abcdefz
01-20-2006, 09:29 AM
From CNN: (http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/19/google.recrods.ap/index.html)
Here's what I don't understand:
If what the government wants is search results... why didn't they just use Google and do the research themselves? I don't get it.
From our local newspaper (Google's headquarters are in this area):
Google sparks privacy fight
BUT YAHOO, MICROSOFT, AOL TURNED OVER RECORDS FEDS SOUGHT
By Michael Bazeley and Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online turned over records to the government that Google is refusing to relinquish, raising divisions within the nation's biggest search engines over what information should be private.
The legal dispute over whether the federal government can force Google to give up information from its search engine index is a reminder of the vast amount of personal information Internet companies collect on their users -- and the possibility it could reach third parties.
Some privacy experts said the Department of Justice's request is worrisome , particularly in an era when the government has stepped up surveillance in efforts to combat terrorism -- even admitting it has spied on Americans.
The Bush administration apparently never asked for any explicitly personal information. And Google is not refusing the order on privacy grounds. But it clearly was concerned about public reaction.
``Google's acceding to the request would suggest it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept,'' Google attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in an Oct. 10 letter to the Justice Department.
``We think companies should be pushing back,'' said Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. ``They're only going to be asked for more. These things are gradual. They see if they can get what they're asking for, and it gets bigger and bigger.''
AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo agreed to the requests, although one attorney involved in the case said Yahoo never turned over any personal information.
``We're rigorous defenders of our users' privacy,'' spokeswoman Mary Osako said. ``In our view, this is not a privacy issue.''
A Microsoft statement said, in part, ``We did comply with their request for data in regards to helping protect children in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers. We were able to share aggregated query data (not search results) that did not include any personally identifiable information.''
The case stems from the Bush administration's attempt to resurrect the Child Online Protection Act, struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make content accessible to minors.
The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
In its original subpoena, dated in August, the government asked the four companies for ``all URLs that are available to be located through a search query on your company's search engine as of July 31, 2005.'' Also requested were records of ``all queries'' entered between June 1 and July 31. The subpoena said authorities did not want any ``additional information . . . that would identify the person'' who typed in the query. .
The government later narrowed the scope of its request to a million URLs and search queries over a one-month period.
Government officials would not detail how they planned to use the information. But a source close to the case said it is interested in what types of Web pages appear when people type in various search terms.
``My understanding is, we were seeking what keywords are put in and URLs,'' said Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller. ``Nothing personal.''
Google called the request ``overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and intended to harass.''
Its October letter to the Justice Department said the government appeared to want to create ``a sample world-wide web'' so it could test the effectiveness of pornography filters.
``Google objects to Defendant's view of Google's highly proprietary search database -- the primary reason for the company's success -- as a free resource that Defendant can access and use, some levels removed, to formulate its own defense.''
Google also objected that the request would reveal ``privileged, confidential or trade-secret information.''
It suggested the government seek its information from the Internet Archive, a non-profit archive of Web pages that Google said more appropriately reflects the breadth of the Web.
Although he said the case was worrisome, privacy expert Alan Westin said it does not appear to raise direct privacy issues.
``If there are not responses that reveal personal information, you don't have a privacy issue,'' said Westin, founder of the Privacy and American Business think tank. ``If you say, `If you stick in this query and 67 pornographic responses come back,' that's not a privacy issue to me.''
Internet companies have been amassing large storehouses of personal information about their users. Amazon.com is the classic example; it collects credit card information and keeps track of what books, CDs and other items its customers buy so it can make shopping recommendations.
But search engines have been getting increasingly personal, too. Google and other search engines collect and store records of which search terms their users type in and what pages they visit. Google now offers to personalize its search results for people based on their previous searches. Companies such as Yahoo and Ask Jeeves encourage users to store bookmarks of Web pages they find on company servers.
``That's the constant trade-off between greater personalization and this one-stop for managing your life,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``You're making it easier to issue subpoenas or warrants for anything.''
Here's what I don't understand:
If what the government wants is search results... why didn't they just use Google and do the research themselves? I don't get it.
From our local newspaper (Google's headquarters are in this area):
Google sparks privacy fight
BUT YAHOO, MICROSOFT, AOL TURNED OVER RECORDS FEDS SOUGHT
By Michael Bazeley and Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Yahoo, Microsoft and America Online turned over records to the government that Google is refusing to relinquish, raising divisions within the nation's biggest search engines over what information should be private.
The legal dispute over whether the federal government can force Google to give up information from its search engine index is a reminder of the vast amount of personal information Internet companies collect on their users -- and the possibility it could reach third parties.
Some privacy experts said the Department of Justice's request is worrisome , particularly in an era when the government has stepped up surveillance in efforts to combat terrorism -- even admitting it has spied on Americans.
The Bush administration apparently never asked for any explicitly personal information. And Google is not refusing the order on privacy grounds. But it clearly was concerned about public reaction.
``Google's acceding to the request would suggest it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept,'' Google attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in an Oct. 10 letter to the Justice Department.
``We think companies should be pushing back,'' said Ari Schwartz, associate director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. ``They're only going to be asked for more. These things are gradual. They see if they can get what they're asking for, and it gets bigger and bigger.''
AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo agreed to the requests, although one attorney involved in the case said Yahoo never turned over any personal information.
``We're rigorous defenders of our users' privacy,'' spokeswoman Mary Osako said. ``In our view, this is not a privacy issue.''
A Microsoft statement said, in part, ``We did comply with their request for data in regards to helping protect children in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers. We were able to share aggregated query data (not search results) that did not include any personally identifiable information.''
The case stems from the Bush administration's attempt to resurrect the Child Online Protection Act, struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make content accessible to minors.
The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.
In its original subpoena, dated in August, the government asked the four companies for ``all URLs that are available to be located through a search query on your company's search engine as of July 31, 2005.'' Also requested were records of ``all queries'' entered between June 1 and July 31. The subpoena said authorities did not want any ``additional information . . . that would identify the person'' who typed in the query. .
The government later narrowed the scope of its request to a million URLs and search queries over a one-month period.
Government officials would not detail how they planned to use the information. But a source close to the case said it is interested in what types of Web pages appear when people type in various search terms.
``My understanding is, we were seeking what keywords are put in and URLs,'' said Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller. ``Nothing personal.''
Google called the request ``overbroad, unduly burdensome, vague and intended to harass.''
Its October letter to the Justice Department said the government appeared to want to create ``a sample world-wide web'' so it could test the effectiveness of pornography filters.
``Google objects to Defendant's view of Google's highly proprietary search database -- the primary reason for the company's success -- as a free resource that Defendant can access and use, some levels removed, to formulate its own defense.''
Google also objected that the request would reveal ``privileged, confidential or trade-secret information.''
It suggested the government seek its information from the Internet Archive, a non-profit archive of Web pages that Google said more appropriately reflects the breadth of the Web.
Although he said the case was worrisome, privacy expert Alan Westin said it does not appear to raise direct privacy issues.
``If there are not responses that reveal personal information, you don't have a privacy issue,'' said Westin, founder of the Privacy and American Business think tank. ``If you say, `If you stick in this query and 67 pornographic responses come back,' that's not a privacy issue to me.''
Internet companies have been amassing large storehouses of personal information about their users. Amazon.com is the classic example; it collects credit card information and keeps track of what books, CDs and other items its customers buy so it can make shopping recommendations.
But search engines have been getting increasingly personal, too. Google and other search engines collect and store records of which search terms their users type in and what pages they visit. Google now offers to personalize its search results for people based on their previous searches. Companies such as Yahoo and Ask Jeeves encourage users to store bookmarks of Web pages they find on company servers.
``That's the constant trade-off between greater personalization and this one-stop for managing your life,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``You're making it easier to issue subpoenas or warrants for anything.''