backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 40 comment(s) - last by bky1701.. on Feb 28 at 5:36 AM
The DOJ denies Google's right to privacy and demands that it hands over search results

We recently reported that Google had been requested by the US Government to hand over search records for security purposes. Google then rejected to do so, and appealed, claiming that doing so would violate the privacy rights of its users.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has turned down Google's request for privacy. The DOJ says that with Google's search results, it can better identify the hazards of online websites that young users might be exposed to. In an effort to increase laws and regulations to protect children from inappropriate material, the DOJ believes that Google's search results can get the Supreme Court to re-examine the child protection law.

More here.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Wonderful Idea...
By brshoemak on 2/26/2006 10:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
Well at least we can be comforted in the notion that the scop of the investigation will be limited only to child pornography and they will not use any of the search results in any other way that would be on the political agenda.

/sarcasm




RE: Wonderful Idea...
By smokenjoe on 2/26/2006 11:19:13 AM , Rating: 2
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.
[info][add][mail]
Justice Anthony Kennedy


RE: Wonderful Idea...
By Perium on 2/26/2006 1:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completly with you!


RE: Wonderful Idea...
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 5:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty amusing, smokenjoe, that it was the very Justice Anthony Kennedy whom you quote in your post that asked the DOJ, in his opinion, to perform this study determining how effective web filters are at blocking porn found in normal, everyday searches for non-porn material.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZO.ht...

"Filters are less restrictive than COPA. ... Above all, promoting the use of filters does not condemn as criminal any category of speech, and so the potential chilling effect is eliminated, or at least much diminished. ... COPA does not prevent minors from having access to those foreign harmful materials. That alone makes it possible that filtering software might be more effective in serving Congress’ goals. ... It is not an answer to say that COPA reaches some amount of materials that are harmful to minors; the question is whether it would reach more of them than less restrictive alternatives. ... Finally, filters also may be more effective because they can be applied to all forms of Internet communication, including e-mail, not just communications available via the World Wide Web. ... In the absence of a showing as to the relative effectiveness of COPA and the alternatives proposed by respondents, it was not an abuse of discretion for the District Court to grant the preliminary injunction. The Government’s burden is not merely to show that a proposed less restrictive alternative has some flaws; its burden is to show that it is less effective.

One argument to the contrary is worth mentioning–the argument that filtering software is not an available alternative because Congress may not require it to be used. That argument carries little weight, because Congress undoubtedly may act to encourage the use of filters. We have held that Congress can give strong incentives to schools and libraries to use them. United States v. American Library Assn., Inc, 539 U. S 194 (2003). It could also take steps to promote their development by industry, and their use by parents. "

Justice Anthony Kennedy, majority opinion, Ashcroft v. ACLU, striking down COPA and encouraging web filters instead.


RE: Wonderful Idea...
By johnsaw on 2/26/2006 9:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
"of its obligation to tolerate speech."
Look, free speech is about being able to publicly discuss issues, the policies of the government etc. - it doesn't cover your right to publich showing of obscenity.


RE: Wonderful Idea...
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 7:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, child pornography has nothing to do with it. They aren't looking for porn, nor for people who search for porn. They're trying to demonstrate that web filters don't work, and specifically hard data on exactly how often one might accidentally come across a porn site which a web filter fails to block by, e.g., searching for something else that isn't porn.

Besides, if people are worried about private data being obtained by the government, they should be far more concerned about the data that you give to the IRS and the Census Bureau.


RE: Wonderful Idea...
By bky1701 on 2/28/2006 5:36:44 AM , Rating: 2
And what are other ways that filters work, other then keeping open out of the hands of some dirty 9 year old? Look at China, and you shall see....


Stupid Govt.
By goku on 2/26/2006 4:40:55 AM , Rating: 1
Personally, I think the govt. should SHOVEIT. "Child protection laws", what they're going to do is fsck up the internet so that you can't browse with out logging into a damned website with out your credit card in hand. Look there is porn on the internet, get over it. If you care THAT MUCH about your child seeing porn, don't let them on or teach them otherwise. I really hate the fact that government is getting so involved in our lives. FCC with the MPAA, WTF?




RE: Stupid Govt.
By Viditor on 2/26/2006 4:47:16 AM , Rating: 3
With Bush spying on American's e-mail and the DOJ claiming it has the right to know what people are looking for on the net, it's appearing that Orwell just got the dates wrong...
While it may indeed buy some temporary short-term safety, that safety can't last...and the cost is astronomical!
To quote Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"


RE: Stupid Govt.
By Duwelon on 2/26/2006 12:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
OMG, if the US Government starts tracking internet searches, it's going to invade my right to privacy! Some sweaty guy over at the FBI has no right to know i'm into "dog and pony show xxx" and i'll be damned if they ever find out! Not only that but I know my political party types all their ideas, plans and agenda's into the Google Search Engine 1 line at a time and now the BUSH will have them all! Arrggh!

I also confused as to why they didnt' use the logic of "terrorism and bombs" in their denial.. i mean that's what the governemnt does, scaremonger people with those two made up words! It's not like those things have ever occured or will occur!


RE: Stupid Govt.
By johnsaw on 2/26/2006 9:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
You don't know what you're talking about. Government just wants one week worth of search results - on onetime basis without the actual IP addresses.
And you call that spying???


RE: Stupid Govt.
By razorpit on 2/27/2006 1:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
Well people have already confused spying on Al-Qaeda with "listening in on American's". So yes people are dumb enough here to believe that. It's all Bush-bashing. No one cared or said anything when Clinton did it and he WAS listening in on American's.


RE: Stupid Govt.
By bky1701 on 2/28/2006 5:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
Why do you think we Bush-Bash? We din't like the color of his car? No... it's that he is a fucking Nazi wanna be.


Who gave the DoJ jurisdiction?
By bersl2 on 2/26/2006 7:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
The only way Google should have to turn over information like search results should be in response to a warrant issued by the courts. The DoJ and the Bush administration can shove it.




RE: Who gave the DoJ jurisdiction?
By TwistyKat on 2/26/2006 7:31:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The DoJ and the Bush administration can shove it.


Not only that, what's the big deal? Tell Bush all he needs is a PC and web browser and he can look for kiddie porn himself. If all they are interested in is websites and not personal information then it sounds like they just want Google to do the work for them.

Of course if the DOJ was really on the ball they'd skip Google all together, get a P2P client and let the evidence come rolling in.


RE: Who gave the DoJ jurisdiction?
By Nacho on 2/26/2006 9:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
You think they aren't already logging p2p?


By TwistyKat on 2/26/2006 5:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think they aren't already logging p2p?


You know something we don't?


You buying this??
By mindless1 on 2/26/2006 2:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The DOJ says that with Google's search results, it can better identify the hazards of online websites that young users might be exposed to


I call BS.

If all they needed was Googles search results, they can put their precious fingers to a keyboard and do a GOOGLE SEARCH!

I desperately wish that we as a nation could have a vote, and simple decide to do away with all the ridiculous things that have happened since Bush took office. These are the days of the US downward spiral. Everyone a sellout for their own agenda and citizens' rights be damned.




RE: You buying this??
By Christopher1 on 2/26/2006 3:29:09 PM , Rating: 1
I think that we should do away with all laws that try to limit what a person can do with someone else, or that try to restrict what someone can view.

Seeing a naked woman is not going to turn a child into a sex killer, just like seeing Saw 2 isn't going to turn them into a narcissistic serial killer.


RE: You buying this??
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 4:51:46 PM , Rating: 3
If all they needed was Googles search results, they can put their precious fingers to a keyboard and do a GOOGLE SEARCH!

Which wouldn't follow the Supreme Court's request of being an unbiased experiment. The Supreme Court refused to rule that the requirement was absolutely Constitutional or not, but rather ruled that these AdultCheck requirements were Constitutional if and only if web filters were "not effective enough." Not effective "enough" is a difficult thing to quantify, and requires an unbiased experiment.

The point is not that porn can be found on the Internet (duh), but that
1) When ordinary people use the Internet as they do ordinarily, when they search for things which they don't intend to find porn they get porn results, and quantifying how often that happens;
2) When they get porn results, the porn results are not always blocked by various filters, so people innocently click on a link and get porn, and quantifying how often that happens;

Just having the DoJ search would obviously not be random. You need at minimum some kind of large double-blind test monitoring people's search habits. The very fact that people knew that they were in some kind of experiment would affect the results, though. It is hard to get truly "normal" browsing behavior in an experiment. That's why Professor Stark at UC Berkeley wanted this data. I'm not convinced that it's the best way to do it, but your answer certainly shows that you don't understand the issues involved.

FWIW, it doesn't have much to do with Bush taking office. COPA itself was passed when Clinton was President (and signed by him) to replace a similar law which was struck down in Reno v. ACLU.


RE: You buying this??
By mindless1 on 2/27/2006 12:43:41 PM , Rating: 1
Of course it would be unbiased. There's nothing inherantly biased about other methods, on the contrary it has no relevance to justify this kind of demand being made.

The point SHOULD be, not to single out porn as problematic but rather, that any and everything is being deliberately introduced into search results where the topics shouldn't be.

In other words, while it is indeed a problem how porn is being pushed where it shouldn't be, likewise it is a problem to try and single out porn peddlers for using the same tactics as others- It should not be the topic we focus on but the means.

A DOJ search can most certainly be random. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise. Would be argue that a person speeding on the interstate cannot be pulled over by a police officer who pointed the radar at them because the officer chose to point it at them, instead of some seemingly more pseudo-random sampling of everyone by a third party?

No that is ridiculous. We need not pretend any of that matters because it does not. It is random to use search terms, rather than searching for specific 'sites, 'site owners, etc.

We do not need double-blind anything. You are deluded. We do not need to monitor anyone's habits. That is a far worse offense than push marketing of porn or anything else.

How could we possible care what Professor Stark or anyone else "wants"? Neither his, nor your, "wants" provide justification for basic offenses to others.

It is not at all hard to get "normal browsing behavior". You try very hard to make a point that does not exist. you have no argument. I understand the issues fine. you don't, and seek to just parrot someone else's misguided "random" BS excuse.


Supreme Court
By Anemone on 2/26/2006 3:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
The method of changing a supreme court ruling is to change Constitutional Law or to rewrite the law in question so that it conforms with Constitutional Law. However it seems to be the mission of this administration to perpetrate changing the court itself, which is a gross breach of the separation of power principle. Such a fundamental execution of legal strategy ought to be thrown out of the court and refuse to be reviewed. We'll see if it is.




RE: Supreme Court
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 4:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, you misunderstand. The majority opinion in Ashcroft vs. ACLU, which struck down COPA, specifically asked the DoJ to supply data showing that filters were ineffective at blocking porn in order for the Court to sustain COPA, which would require, rather than filters, sites to have "AdultCheck" type provisions. The DoJ is gathering the very data which the majority asked them to. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with changing the composition of the Court-- indeed, the two recently retired Justices were both in the dissent, having voted to uphold COPA even without this study. Both already believed that filters were ineffective.


RE: Supreme Court
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 5:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
From the majority opinion in the relevant case:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZO.ht...
"The parties, because of the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that the statute’s definitions rendered it unconstitutional, did not devote their attention to the question whether further evidence might be introduced on the relative restrictiveness and effectiveness of alternatives to the statute. On remand, however, the parties will be able to introduce further evidence on this point. This opinion does not foreclose the District Court from concluding, upon a proper showing by the Government that meets the Government’s constitutional burden as defined in this opinion, that COPA is the least restrictive alternative available to accomplish Congress’ goal."

The Supreme Court specifically instructed the DoJ to perform further studies showing that web filters were ineffective at preventing typical search behavior from resulting in porn. The DoJ is merely doing what Justice Kennedy asked for.

I might prefer that they just have struck down the law absolutely, without reference to "effectiveness." But that's not what the Court did.


ok
By Lifted on 2/26/2006 5:02:48 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, some very smart ones over there at the DOJ. Apparently they think they can make laws that will stop children from viewing porn. Tax dollars hard at work here folks. Once they're done with this perhaps they can focus on making a law against trolling on forums.




RE: ok
By shabby on 2/26/2006 9:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
NO WAI!!!


No fair!
By NullSubroutine on 2/26/2006 1:54:13 PM , Rating: 2
I dont want the government taking away my parental rights to allow my sons to look at my internet porn.




RE: No fair!
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 4:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Well, unfortunately it was the very Justice who struck down COPA who want the government, rather than use Adult Check type sites, to force publically available computers like at libraries and schools to use web filters instead. I happen to think that web filters suck more, but the ACLU and others apparently feel that they are the less restrictive option, since the ACLU argued such in their brief.


.
By stephenbrooks on 2/26/2006 4:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
From the article, the following was put in defense of the US government plan:
[QUOTE]"The study does not involve examining the queries in more than a cursory way. It involves running a random sample of the queries through the Google search engine and categorizing the results," Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said.[/QUOTE]
I guess he didn't know about this page then:
http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html




RE: .
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 4:39:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that Zeitgeist site proves exactly how transparently ridiculous Google's arguments are. Professor Stark is asking for information no more detailed and no more likely to hurt privacy than what Google posts on its Zeitgeist site. If the DoJ is violating users' privacy (which it could be, and I understand the argument), then so is Google by publishing Zeitgeist.

Google is perhaps more worried about competitors gleaning information about its own search algorithm by making the results public.


This isn't the Governments Job its...
By GhandiInstinct on 2/26/2006 11:59:33 AM , Rating: 1
The Parents Job.

Government should teach parents how to raise children correctly and not birth 20 kids when you're on welfare and feed them mcdonalds every morning. Then beat them on the subway and curse whenever there is the chance.

Teach parents not Google.




By Rock Hydra on 2/27/2006 1:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I hear ya. But that's the exact same reason why there's project KNOW in school. So they can teach about sexuality and that stuff because the parents can't/don't want to do it themselves.


By Rampage on 2/26/2006 2:04:10 PM , Rating: 1
forgot:

Google PWNED!


By mino on 2/26/2006 2:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
You j=kinda fogot internet is far more widespread than in the US. Recently however it seems like US gov. is determined to destroy internet's globality and force othe states to create their own "internets" free from US's intervention. Not only US citizens use Google.


Background information
By John Thacker on 2/26/2006 4:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
A great deal of the news reports I've seen on this are horribly confused, and much of the commenting seems uninformed. There's certainly room to disagree with this, but here's the accurate background:

There was a law passed called COPA, the Child Online Protection Act. COPA required "adult sites" (technically HTM- Harmful to Minors sites) to have some sort of child screening provision-- gateway sites requiring people to certify that they were 18 by clicking a link, or subscribe to the site to get a password. The idea was to prevent people, especially minors, from accidentally seeing such sites from a random search or click, by having a warning screen first.

This was challenged in by the ACLU and went to the Supreme Court in a case called Ashcroft v. ACLU:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-218.ZS.ht...

The five member majority (Kennedy, Thomas, Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter) held that COPA was unConstitutional because it required child screening, but in their view web filters were equally effective at preventing children from accidentally seeing such sites. This included saying that government-required web filters on publically provided machines (such at libraries) were okay, and saying that the government could encourage web filters. The reasoning is that filters are less restrictive since it requires action on the viewing end rather than the publishing end.

The dissenters (Breyer, O'Connor, Reinquist, and Scalia) argued that fiters were less effective at preventing access to such material, and that filters carried with them the possibility of blocking access to legitimate material.

The majority opinion specifically requested that the DoJ perform the sort of experiment that it is doing now in order to test how effective filters are. The experiment attempts to figure out how often when people (including minors) search for material on the web, they get HTM sites when they didn't want them, and, more importantly, how often are these sites NOT blocked by web filters. The DoJ gave the job to a Professor of Statistics at UC-Berkeley, Professor Stark. Professor Stark decided that the best data could be obtained via a controlled experiment which used actual search results in order to figure out how often porn showed up when ostensibly not searched for, and how often that porn was blocked by various net filters. There is absolutely no intention to spy on any individual's searches, and Professor Stark swore in an affidavit that Google could easily remove all information from the search results that would identify the searcher.

Interestingly, perhaps, I almost view the requirement for gateway pages or password protection by the porn sites as a better, looser requirement than filters. Filters almost always have false positives, blocking things which they shouldn't, and omnipresent filters on public machines (like in schools and libraries) would be really annoying. I hate filters much more than I hate porn sites having a "Click here if you're over 18." Yet the Supreme Court found filters, including mandatory filters on public machines, to be less restrictive, and the same judges who struck down COPA encouraged the goverment to require and encourage filters.




?
By ShadowD on 2/26/2006 5:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
They're asking for google's search results to protect children? Shouldn't it be the parents resposibility?

Not only that, but I doubt that this is purely to protect the children, it just doesn't sound like the US government. I would have expected something slightly more illogical filled with words such as 'terrorist' or 'bomb'.




But they did!
By bky1701 on 2/28/2006 5:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
Don't you read the news? It's illegal to anonymously harass someone online now.




Nothing to do with porn
By roiclicks on 2/26/2006 7:07:44 PM , Rating: 1
The Gov is probably just interested in patterns of searches that compromise national security. If a person or persons are doing searches about some weapon or something of that nature, then, they'll be knocking on their door to see if their search es had any educational merit or ulterior intentions.

For National Security, it sounds like the Gov can do whatever they deem necessary, whether it be spying on your emails or your searches. Google can't tell the gov what to do. Privacy is a thing of the past. Forget it.




By Ytsejamer1 on 2/27/2006 10:06:05 AM , Rating: 1
No wonder that China thinks that US Government is full of hypocrites. They complain that the Chinese government is doing more harm by censoring search results and then the they turn around and force Google to give up their company information so they can stop internet "evil-doers".

Will this do more harm than good? Tough to say...will it affect me? No...I don't think so. With the age of information we're in, a lot of people are aware of privacy issues (or lack thereof). I hope the US Govt treads carefully on this. It could open a LOT of issues.




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki