Privacy

Google Rebuffs Feds on Search Requests

AP Business

Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) and Microsoft Corp., which operate the next most-used search engines behind Google, confirmed that they had complied with similar government subpoenas. America Online said it didn't fully comply with the subpoena but did provide a list of search requests already publicly available from other sources.

Combined, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and AOL handle nearly 90 percent of all U.S. search requests, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.

Although the government says it isn't seeking any data that ties personal information to search requests, the subpoenas still raise serious privacy concerns, experts said. Those worries have been magnified by recent revelations that the White House authorized eavesdropping on civilian communications after the Sept. 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.

"Search engines now play such an important part in our daily lives that many people probably contact Google more often than they do their own mother," said Thomas Burke, a San Francisco attorney who has handled several prominent cases involving privacy issues.

"Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too."

The content of search request sometimes contain information about the person making the query.

For instance, it's not unusual for search requests to include names, medical profiles or Social Security information, said Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum.

"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time," Dixon said. "Google should be commended for fighting this."

Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo stressed that it didn't reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."

MSN said it complied with the government's request "in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers."

As the Internet's dominant search engine, Google has built up a valuable storehouse of information that "makes it a very attractive target for law enforcement," said Chris Hoofnagle, senior counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

The Department of Justice argues that Google's cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the Web.

In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush administration is trying to prove that Internet filters don't do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.

Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google "would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current Web users, (and) to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches," the Justice Department wrote in a brief filed Wednesday

Google — whose motto when it went public in 2004 was "do no evil" — contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government.

"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept," company attorney Ashok Ramani wrote in a letter included in the government's filing.

Complying with the subpoena also wound threaten to expose some of Google's "crown-jewel trade secrets," Ramani wrote. Google is particularly concerned that the information could be used to deduce the size of its index and how many computers it uses to crunch the requests.
"This information would be highly valuable to competitors or miscreants seeking to harm Google's business," Ramani wrote.

Dixon is hoping Google's battle with the government reminds people to be careful how they interact with search engines.

"When you are looking at that blank search box, you should remember that what you fill can come back to haunt you unless you take precautions," she said.


aC. Sidebar

I'm a big proponent for privacy, because heck, don't we all want privacy. It's not written in the Constitution, but privacy can be inferred as a liberty, a right, or a destination from the pursuit of happiness. So where do you draw the line on privacy? How can we as people and upright vocalists for freedom demand privacy when we're so consumed with the daily tabloids, reality television, and restraining murders, sex offenders, and proliferators of child pornography.

So my question is, where do you draw the draw the line of conservatism and libertarianism, but much more of common sense? We know what we want and we will make decision for ourselves and erroneously for others as well. We err in understand proper judgment and decision process. So in another words, don't be offended to be called a hypocrite when you're trying to live the Walden life but your civil disobedience tunes you into Big Brother 25 or if your younger, Laguna Beach. Everyone should be allowed a proper amount of privacy and if one chooses to compromise their privacy for their 15 minutes of fame or a felonies or two, then they shouldn't be surprised to lose their privacy.

I know a lot of us aren't felonies and belong to good wholesome families and upbringings, so I can understand the fear and the need to be able to live privately, but as a species, we aren't wholesome. We want ADT security and cameras to protect the boogie-man. So why compromise 100% privacy. This is what I don't understand and want to know why we say one thing, but sort of mean something else.

Now back to Google. They are the world's largest search engine. I know when I type in a person's name; I can find a lot of information. In fact, I can find sources that will find your social security card information and address for a nominal fee. If you're graphic bound, you can even find nude pictures of Nicole Kidman, but wait. Don't you have to be 18 or so of age to view adult pictures? So why do adult sites force an additional age verification page while search on Google by-passes this page. The Google technology if you aren't aware is not just searching keywords of the billions of websites, but caching the image and text from these sites so that Google will have a fast and accurate library to search from. This is very effective.

So if your running a child pornography ring between El Paso, Texas and Amarillo, Texas, no one in Alaska may be looking for it, but they may run into it. Now, there are security systems in place with Google, so there such far-end results are mitigated, but Google is a tremendous tool for everyone (user) that any electronic investigation or need to police would have included the help of Google. In my opinion, Google has to release these records. In other words, this library will have to transfer evidence of users that has checkout or read materials that are deemed in appropriate, for the better good of the community.

I know, you're like what? Are you still a 9/11 fanatic with a sheriff mentality to police with complete disregard? No. I'm not that phobic, but this is an example of a situation that would lend itself as something that is for the better good of society. Don't you want the sex offenders in jail? Don't you want criminals in jail?

Even if the police would look though your records or files, if your clean, your clean. If you're wearing grandma's gown and your teeth are sharp, with oh so big eyes, then you're screwed and the authorities have done their job. Protection, minus privacy. So how much can you take from this tradeoff??

Comic of the Week

aC. Sidebar

Our grandparents and even our parents are screwed...but not as bad as us when we're 50. Sorry to be a pessimist.

Happy New Year!!!

To the National Champs! Texas Longhorns!!!

This will be a great year, because not only did Texas pull off an upset, but so did my home-team West Virginia Mountaineers, and JoePa's Penn State. This week, is truely the best week of college sports, next to March Madness.