Big brother is watching for you! DOJ going to set up a total censorship in the Net.

[just a punk]

Google Scores Privacy Victory

Google, the lone search firm to protest a Department of Justice request for massive amounts of data, won a partial victory on Friday. U.S. District Judge James Ware in San Jose, CA, ruled that Google did not have to provide search queries to DOJ, which is attempting to defend the 1998 Child Online Protection Act [COPA].

DOJ had originally asked for as many as 1 million web addresses from Google's cache. Google will provide 50,000 addresses -- in a random selection -- and the DOJ will examine 20 percent. Google will provide no search queries; the government had asked for 5,000. Google's attorney said, "We believe that if the government was permitted to require Google to hand over search queries, that could have undermined confidence that our users have in our ability to keep their information private."

Ironically, last month members of Congress attacked Google and other technology companies for cooperating with foreign governments (specifically, China) in limiting citizen access to the Internet.

A small victory for consumer privacy.

Source: http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207648.htm

[just a punk]

Google is right to fight Justice Department

The Bush administration has gone on a fishing expedition into Google, trying to force the company to hand over a large amount of data that might help the government defend a law seeking to shield minors from Internet pornography.

It's troubling on several fronts. The U.S. District Court in San Jose should back Google's refusal to hand over the information.

The Justice Department wants the court to compel Google to hand over 1 million random Web addresses from its search index as well as all the terms users typed into its search engine over a one-week period.

The reason: The government is in a legal fight to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. Although the case, Gonzales vs. ACLU, does not involve Google, the government says it needs the information from the search firm to ``understand the behavior of current Web users, to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minor materials in the course of their searches and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software in screening that material.''

The request is not an appropriate use of subpoena power. The government wants Google's data not as evidence in a case, but rather to conduct an experiment which it hopes will show that Internet porn filters are ineffective. In short, the government wants Google to help it make its case, using the company as a research arm. Google is right to fight the subpoena, especially since the information at stake can be considered a trade secret.

The information sought by the government would not endanger the privacy of Google's users, since it would not include any data linking specific individuals to searches. Still, the request raises a dangerous precedent. Google and other search engines have heaps of data about what their users search and do online, and a future government subpoena may well seek such sensitive information. We hope Google will show the same resolve in resisting subpoenas that do put its users' privacy at risk.

The government is wrong not only about the Google subpoena. Its whole attempt to defend the Child Online Protection Act is misguided.

The 1998 law makes it illegal for commercial Web sites to post material that is ``harmful to minors,'' unless they ensure that only adults can access it. It's ineffective and overly broad: It could criminalize various forms of protected speech, including sex advice columns, Web sites dealing with reproductive health or gay issues, and even those of some art galleries and bookstores. The U.S. Supreme Court has already cast doubt on its constitutionality.

The only good thing about this spat between Google and the Justice Department is that it came to light. It's a reminder for users of Google, or any other online site, that the privacy of their search history, their e-mail correspondence, their online photos, their song lists and buddy lists and countless other details of their digital lives is always at risk.

If they want better protections, they're going to have to demand them from the online sites they do business with. And we should all demand these protections from the government.

Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/13669370.htm

[just a punk]

Feds after Google data
RECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAW
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort ``vigorously.''

``Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Wong said.

The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.

``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''

Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy.

``The government can't even claim that it's for national security,'' Everett-Church said. ``They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.''

The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.

However, the Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn.

As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is ``harmful to minors.''

The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.

``The production of those materials would be of significant assistance to the government's preparation of its defense of the constitutionality of this important statute,'' government lawyers wrote, noting that Google is the largest search engine.

Google has the largest share of U.S. Web searches with 46 percent, according to November 2005 figures from Nielsen//NetRatings. Yahoo is second with 23 percent, and MSN third with 11 percent.

Source: http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...y/13657386.htm