Government Subpoenas Google Data

[AGBF]

Well, we are some of the people who use the Internet a lot, and we are the target of the latest government attempt to watch our every step. Think Big Brother. The government has subpoenaed Google to obtain all its data, showing what everyone using it has searched for. What else would anyone expect after Bush told the NSA it could eavesdrop on our phonecalls and read our e-mails without a subpoena?

Google, unlike the NSA, has a lot to lose if it knuckles under to Bush and his cronies. Who will want to use Google if it gives up all its information on who searched for what?

Maureen Dowd in, "The New York Times" tries to inject some humor into the debate.

Maureen Dowd on Google

Here is an excerpt.

"I don't like the thought of Dick Cheney ogling my Googling.

Because what I'm Googling, of course, is Dick Cheney. I have to constantly monitor how Vice Voyeur is pushing the federal government to constantly monitor millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls, e-mail notes and Internet searches.

If you want to know why the Grim Peeper is willing to turn this country into a police state to take his version of democracy to other countries, just do a Google search under "antiterrorism," "government snooping," "overreaching" and "fruitcake."

It was hard to know which story yesterday was scarier: Osama bin Laden, still alive and taunting the U.S., or the Justice Department's trying to force Google to turn over a suspiciously broad array of information on millions of users' searches and Web addresses, supposedly to investigate online crime involving pornography."

 

[fire&ice]

You know my position on spying w/ intercepts from phone calls between indiv. & KNOWN AlQ - don''t have a prob.

But, this is ridiculous. Pornography? Not that I''m interested in **** - but last time I looked it was legal. I understand "they" state it''s to find child **** - they are doing that with the chat rooms, etc. All I can say is GO GOOGLE! Don''t oogle my google!

 

[strmrdr]

whats even more scary is the ones that gave up the data no questions asked.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/21/2006 11:55:30 AM
Author: strmrdr
whats even more scary is the ones that gave up the data no questions asked.

Yup. Yahoo did.

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

I want to add that it''s not just the government that spys. It''s so prevelant these days that I really feel like everywhere I turn is big brother. Same thing with websites- you must enable cookies & *they* could know everything about you. How about the cell phones #''s being sold? Those little cards at the grocery store that you must have to get the specials?

 

[FireGoddess]

I can''t formulate a coherent response because my blood is boiling.

What''s next - communist trials all over again? Or maybe witch hunts. Yeah, that''s it. Can''t say the Lord''s prayer w/o stumbling? You''re A WITCH! BURN!

I wish there was a b!!tchslap smiley.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Some of you are like Chicken Littles, running around yelling about the falling sky.

The government wants info to promote its anti-pornography agenda. To do this it needs data, and Google has it. Lots of it. And it keeps it, evidently for a long time. What it does or is going to do with it is not clear. It is resisting the subpoena NOT on the grounds of privacy but on the grounds of protection of its trade secrets.

The government asked Mountain View, Calif.-based Google, which operates the world's most popular search engine, to turn over every query typed into its search engine over the course of one week without providing identifying information about the people who conducted the searches. It also asked for a random sample of 1 million Web pages that can be searched in the vast databases maintained by Google, whose stated corporate mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Yahoo and AOL don't seem to share Chicken Little's concerns either:

"We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary M. Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue." "We did provide the DOJ with some information that we thought would be of use to them, but it was not the information requested in the subpoena and there were no privacy implications for our users," AOL spokesman Andrew S. Weinstein said.

 

[Rank Amateur]

I also find it curious that there is so little outrage when Google rolls over for a foreign government - a possibly dangerous one at that. You don''t think Google is providing the Communist Chinese with whatever info they want on the searches made from China? They already are doing China''s dirty work and censoring whatever that gov''t tells them to. With a chance to echo Reagan''s "tear down this wall" Google is choosing $$ over higher principle every time.

Maybe we should be more worried (yes, outraged!) about Google than about our federal government.

 

[mightyred]

Date: 1/21/2006 11:00:46 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
I also find it curious that there is so little outrage when Google rolls over for a foreign government - a possibly dangerous one at that. You don''t think Google is providing the Communist Chinese with whatever info they want on the searches made from China? They already are doing China''s dirty work and censoring whatever that gov''t tells them to. With a chance to echo Reagan''s ''tear down this wall'' Google is choosing $$ over higher principle every time.

Maybe we should be more worried (yes, outraged!) about Google than about our federal government.

I do agree that google , yahoo (and microsoft) often choose money over principle in China. By 2009, Chinese e-commerce is expected to be a $390.9 billion market so its a very seductive market.

As far as I am aware its just yahoo that has been shown to have given the Chinese Govt info ( but feel free to link to your source to google givng them info if I missed something). Certainly they all filter information thanks to US company Cisco selling China much of the equipment it uses to block access to sites. I think you may be a little ''chicken little'' yourslef jumping on being outraged at google alone. There are many other players here.

 

[fire&ice]

Since this is specifically about **** - do you propose that blockbuster release information to the Gov''t about what movies one watches - specifically ****? Is that no an intrusion?

I simply can not understand your casual attitude about invasion of privacy. At least I take the TRUE conservative stance.

 

[tanuki]

There is no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution.

That IS the "true" conservative stance.

Be careful what you wish for - for you shall surely get it.

The Republican party controls the Presidency, the Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

What they say, goes.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 1/22/2006 10:59:05 PM
Author: mightyred


I think you may be a little 'chicken little' yourslef jumping on being outraged at google alone. There are many other players here.

You are right about me improperly singling out Google. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2006/tc20060112_434051.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech

Microsoft is just as bad: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/06/china.blog.shutdown.ap/

If it were my business would I have the guts to tell the ChiComs to shove it? I don't know. I do know that Bil Gates and the guys who own(ed) Google sure don't need the Chinese money.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/21/2006 11:00:46 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
Maybe we should be more worried (yes, outraged!) about Google than about our federal government.

I think not. Google is a business. It does not belong to me. The U.S. government does. I do not feel it behooves me to watch every business and see if it is being ethical. I doubt 1 out of 1,000 businesses would meet the standard for ethics that I hold. In fact I doubt 1 out of 100,000 would.

I was not happy when ITT and the US government killed Salvador Allende, but I made my protests to the U.S. government.

Deborah

 

[Rank Amateur]

While your point is well taken Google is a publicly held company and may weild more power than our government.

Just today, GOOGLE AGREES TO CENSORSHIP IN CHINA: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/24/D8FBCF686.html

 

[AGBF]

People have been shaken by the subpoena of Google's data. Here are some excerpts from an article on the reaction to the news that Google's data has been subpoenaed.


"Kathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a "rent boy."

It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy - a young male prostitute?

Ms. Hanson, 45, immediately told her boyfriend what she had done. 'I told him I'd Googled "rent boy," just in case I got whisked off to some Navy prison in the dead of night,' she said."

...

"The government has been more aggressive recently in its efforts to obtain data on Internet activity, invoking the fight against terrorism and the prosecution of online crime. A surveillance program in which the National Security Agency intercepted certain international phone calls and e-mail in the United States without court-approved warrants prompted an outcry among civil libertarians. And under the antiterrorism USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has demanded records on library patrons' Internet use.

Those actions have put some Internet users on edge, as they confront the complications and contradictions of online life.

Jim Kowats, 34, a television producer who lives in Washington, has been growing increasingly concerned about the government's data collection efforts. 'I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I just feel like it's one step away from ... what's the next step?' Mr. Kowats said. 'The government's going to start looking into all this other stuff.'

Until last year, Mr. Kowats worked at the Discovery Channel, and a few years ago, in the course of putting together a documentary on circumcision, he and his colleagues were doing much of the research online. 'When you're researching something like that and you look up the word "circumcision," you're going to end up with all kinds of pictures of naked children,' he said. 'And that can be misconstrued.'

'There're so many things you can accidentally fall into when you're surfing on the Internet,' he said. 'I mean, you can type in almost anything and you're going to end up with something you didn't expect.'

Privacy is an elusive concept, and when it comes to what is considered acceptable, people tend to draw the line at different points on the privacy spectrum.

Ming-Wai Farrell, 25, who works for a legal industry trade association in Washington, is one of those who draw the line somewhere in the middle. They are willing to part with personal information as long as they get something in return - the convenience of online banking, for example, or useful information from a search engine - and as long as they know what is to be done with the information.

Yet these same people are sometimes appalled when they learn of wholesale data gathering. Ms. Farrell said she would not be able to live without online banking, electronic bill paying or Google, but she would consider revising her Web activity if she had to question every search term, online donation or purchase.

'It's scary to think that it may just be a matter of time before Googling will invite an F.B.I. agent to tap your phone or interrogate you,' Ms. Farrell said.

Mike Winkleman, 27, a law student who lives in Miami and, like Ms. Farrell, belongs to the generation of people who came of age with the Internet, said he would like to think that the erosion of his privacy was for 'a good cause, like national security or preventing child ****,' he said. 'But I can't help but feel that for each inch I give, a mile will be taken.'"


Subpoenas Give Internet Users Pause

 

[Rank Amateur]

While humorous, these what-if anecdotes aren''t exactly news suitable for the paper "of record". Did these people know that the gov''t did not ask for data which could be tracked to an an individual? It sure doesn''t seem like it. I reads like the NYT is grasping for readers among the Jerry Springer crowd.

So far (at least in the **** case) they are interested in what is being searched not who is searching. Other than the "slippery slope" tack, whats the argument against providing the data? Google doesn''t seem to think it''s a privacy issue.