Google rebuffs U.S. gov't demand for search data

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ben W, Jan 21, 2006.

  1. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Google rebuffs U.S. gov't demand for search data
    Updated Fri. Jan. 20 2006 11:27 PM ET

    Google Inc. says it will "vigorously" fight the Bush administration's demand that it turn over information about what searches users have been asking it to perform.

    The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified week. With an average of 70 million searches per day, that could mean tens of millions of search requests.

    The White House also wants one million randomly selected Web addresses from various databases of the world's leading search engine.

    The request was first made last summer. Google refused to comply, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a judge for a court order to force a handover of the requested records.

    In an official statement, Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel, said: "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches.

    "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

    The Bush administration says it needs the information in order to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds it violated the First Amendment.

    What Google is most opposed to is the breadth of the government's request. The California-based company also says the information could reveal trade secrets.

    The subpoena has also raised serious privacy concerns.

    Continued - http://snipurl.com/lsca
     
  2. kiwimac

    kiwimac
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good on em, at least they're not rolling over like MSN did.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hooray for Google!!!! [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about adding some suspicious words to everyone's signature line to overload the system? Something like

    ammonium nitrate whitehouse easter eggroll

    billwald
     
  5. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    Now you've done it, billwald. The BB is sure to be picked up on the "radar." Good thing my aluminum foil hat is on.
     
  6. The Galatian

    The Galatian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2001
    Messages:
    9,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want everyone who thinks this kind of power over us is a good thing to repeat after me...

    "President Hillary Clinton....
    President Hillary Clinton....
    President Hillary Clinton..."
     
  7. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ken said-Hooray for Google!!!!

    Ken, you amaze me. First you got all over Bush about not having a subpoena. Now you are supporting Google not obeying a subpoena. That is a court order to hand over information. So much for your Bush should get a subpoena stance.

    My understanding is they are looking for evidence on child porn. They have the subpoena which means they have probable cause.

    So you would protect the terrorist from non-subpoena searches and you would protect the child pornographers from court orders.

    I thought you were all about the law and obeying it even if it is done in the name of National defense. But now you are applauding Google for disobeying the law by ignoring a court issued subpoena.

    That just makes now sense at all.
     
  8. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bunyon,

    The article in the link states that the Bush administration just went to court last week.

    The article does not state that a subpoena has been issued.

    Google simply refused a request by the Bush administration.

    This looks like a good case to take to the U.S. Supreme Court.
     
  9. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    If that is true, KenH. I stand corrected. But I read they were refusing a subpoena in several mediums. But there is nothing wrong with asking, is there?
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nope. Nothing wrong with telling the Bush administration to go jump in the lake, either.
     
  11. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unless there is a subpoena involved. But why such strong feelings? Do you think this is just a trick, and they are not really investigating child pornography (which is a real problem on the internet, I understand).
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Since COPA was unconstitutional on what basis is the Bush administration making this request?
     
  13. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    They don't need legal grouds for a simple request. But apparently they have them since a suboena was granted. The article suggest they need it to revive the act or make it constituional. It is not uncommon for an administration to rework something that has been declared unconstituional so they can take it back and have it pass muster.
     
  14. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    COPA has been ruled unconstitutional.

    The linked article did not state that a subpoena has been issued.

    No one, not even you or me, has to comply with a mere request by the Bush administration.
     
  15. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    It is not uncommon for an administration to rework something that has been declared unconstituional so they can take it back and have it pass muster.

    the SC struck COPA down on 1st amendment violations. I fail to see how the Bush admin can rework it without encountering the same violations. Google is correct in denying the request and legally fighting the subpoena.

    Do you think this is just a trick, and they are not really investigating child pornography

    They are not directly seeking out child pornographers, or those who use child porn. They are using the info for purely "subject matter information", according to AG Gonzalez.
     
  16. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The subpoena has also raised serious privacy concerns."----------------------------------------

    "Subpoena" From the first post.

    Why would Goggle want to resist a subpoena that is intended to get an act online that is intended to protect children? Why would anyone have a problem with it at face value?
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now you're sounding like the Democrats during the Clinton administration. They tended to couch things in the phrase "for the children".

    I think I remember this being discussed on this board when it was struck down. If so, I don't recall the details.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The subpoena was what was asked for just last week. Has the court acted on it yet?
     
  19. Bunyon

    Bunyon
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ha Ha, maybe I am. But three other online services all complyed without already. This just appears to be a smart marketing move by Google "we are the defenders of your privacy". Funny, because when you sign on with google, they inform you that they monitor every thing you do and use the information to figure out everything about you so as to target you for marketing better. If you are worried about your privacy, the search engines are your number one concern.
     
  20. Filmproducer

    Filmproducer
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Why would Goggle want to resist a subpoena that is intended to get an act online that is intended to protect children? Why would anyone have a problem with it at face value?

    COPA is not intended to protect children from predators. It is intended to protect children from themselves.

    Do you not see a problem with how the DOJ is seeking to gather information on searches? It is not the governments right to see what American citizens are searching for on the net, in order to find methods on how to prevent children from accessing certain sites. I'm sorry, but that IS a PARENT'S job.
     

Share This Page

Loading...