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.