WTF? Google being told to hand over...

[Vette73]

UPDATE2

"Federal investigators have obtained potentially billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising concerns about how the massive data trove will be used."

UPDATE

As some saw the article says there were other search engines that gave up this information without a fight. Being the 2 biggest are Google and yahoo I wanted to know if yahoo was given a subpoena and if so are they fighting it or juts gave information out. Well Mary Osako of yahoo wrote me and basically said they, yahoo, do NOT believe it was a privacy issue and did not fight it. She also said yahoo was ?rigorous defenders of our users' privacy?.This is very disconcerting as if they give this information up so easily will they do so the next time this administration asks for more info? I will ask some more questions and also try to get a copy of what they gave to the Department of Justice.

We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy. We did not provide any
personal information in response to the Department of Justice's
subpoena. In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue.

U.S. Government Wants Google Search Records

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.

OK this is getting out of hand. I guess I read the US home of the free wrong.


Another story

Feds seek Google records in porn probe

 

[1EZduzit]

Too late now. The only thing we can do to stop the madness is invetigate/impeach Bush and that will have to wait until after the elections to even have a chance of happening.

 

[PottedMeat]

heh I wonder if the government paid for the data would google give it up?

sounds like the gov is too lazy/stupid to do its own work

 

[dahunan]

wow.. just wow

A wee bit TYRANNICAL..

 

[Genx87]

Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

 

[minus1972]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Nothing is too extreme for War Pigs ... they don't care at all .. zero.. for individual freedoms..

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

Who cares?

I don't care if it Marilyn Manson's baby. It seems that whenever the right does something despicable, their justification is: "well, they did something like this before... we're just taking it further". The fact that it's Clinton's baby doesn't mean that they're allowed to keep going forward with this.

Also, the law is not in question here (although I don't doubt I'd want to see it remain invalid). The question is whether the government is now literally trying to secure the right to know every last detail about any (and every) citizen and national.

 

[minus1972]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

I don't care. It could have been George Washington acting from beyond the grave and it would still be bullsh!t.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

Oh boy. :disgust:

so Clinton is still around pulling the strings? Didn't know that.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Dude, you should ask the mods to move your thread from OT to PN! Creating the same thread in two forums is a no-no!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

Who cares?

I don't care if it Marilyn Manson's baby. It seems that whenever the right does something despicable, their justification is: "well, they did something like this before... we're just taking it further". The fact that it's Clinton's baby doesn't mean that they're allowed to keep going forward with this.

Also, the law is not in question here (although I don't doubt I'd want to see it remain invalid). The question is whether the government is now literally trying to secure the right to know every last detail about any (and every) citizen and national.

I even question whether or not gathering web search statistics is a violation of anything. If people arent being named by their searches what privacy rights are being violated?

I also think the point about it being Clintons law is valid as this spans two administrations. If Clinton was president today, the result would probably be the same.

I am also willing to bet if paid, Google would be offering it up in a minute.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: minus1972

Originally posted by: Genx87
Trying to revive a law passed in 1998.

which was struck down because it was too overreaching. and instead of re-writing it as the Supreme Court suggested, they're pulling this crap.

Yeah but the point is this is Clintons baby.

Who cares?

I don't care if it Marilyn Manson's baby. It seems that whenever the right does something despicable, their justification is: "well, they did something like this before... we're just taking it further". The fact that it's Clinton's baby doesn't mean that they're allowed to keep going forward with this.

Also, the law is not in question here (although I don't doubt I'd want to see it remain invalid). The question is whether the government is now literally trying to secure the right to know every last detail about any (and every) citizen and national.

I even question whether or not gathering web search statistics is a violation of anything. If people arent being named by their searches what privacy rights are being violated?

Let's see:
Step 1: Gather search data by IP from Google
Step 2: Gather IP/user log data from ISPs
Step 3: Combine the 2

Originally posted by: Genx87
I also think the point about it being Clintons law is valid as this spans two administrations. If Clinton was president today, the result would probably be the same.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whose idea this is... although I suspect that Clinton wouldn't have the government gathering so much personal data.

Originally posted by: Genx87
I am also willing to bet if paid, Google would be offering it up in a minute.

They are not offering it commercially now, what makes you think they would? Their profits depend on the confidence consumers have in their product. If they sell the data, they lose that confidence, and thus they lose those consumers.

On the other hand, I am sure MSN was the first one to offer the data to the government.

 

[Vette73]

But I can see this back firing on Bush. He has enough BS he has done to allow this. That and all google has to do is put a little note at the top of their search "Bush has got the courts permission to see what you search..." all of a suddent just about every person using google would be ticked off at the republicans.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
But I can see this back firing on Bush. He has enough BS he has done to allow this. That and all google has to do is put a little note at the top of their search "Bush has got the courts permission to see what you search..." all of a suddent just about every person using google would be ticked off at the republicans.

Do you think it would affect the power the republicans hold at this point? The entire world is pissed at Bush... but does he care? When you're this close to absolute power, criticism is no longer as harmful. After all, you can almost smell the day it will become illegal.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I even question whether or not gathering web search statistics is a violation of anything. If people arent being named by their searches what privacy rights are being violated?

I also think the point about it being Clintons law is valid as this spans two administrations. If Clinton was president today, the result would probably be the same.

I am also willing to bet if paid, Google would be offering it up in a minute.

1) This law was passed with the "R"'s in the house and the senate... Why did not they strike it down???

2) The 1998 decesions was struck down in 2004 by a federal court in Pennsylvania.

3) Clinton did not ask google or any other search engine to turn over detailed logs.

Please check your but Clinton comments at the door...

 

[Aimster]

Bush is the worst President in history.

He makes some M.E countries look great.

 

[Genx87]

Let's see:
Step 1: Gather search data by IP from Google
Step 2: Gather IP/user log data from ISPs
Step 3: Combine the 2

Is that what they are asking?
Sounds to me like they are looking for search results that are not tied to any one user so they can see if their position holds any water.

 

[dahunan]

They aren't asking for STATISTICS AND YOO GOD DAMN WELL KNOW THAT .. fvck.. man I cannot understand the Rovians..

If you are using DSL or Cable.. then your IP is easily used to document searches from YOUR PHYSICAL ADDRESS... yes.. your HOME!!!

Why do you people always do this crap..

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Let's see:
Step 1: Gather search data by IP from Google
Step 2: Gather IP/user log data from ISPs
Step 3: Combine the 2

Is that what they are asking?
Sounds to me like they are looking for search results that are not tied to any one user so they can see if their position holds any water.

If it's not personally identifiable, it cannot help their case which has to do with minors' access to porn.

Either way, I don't even care for them having the statistics. It's one of those things where it's best to err on the side of cation.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87

Let's see:
Step 1: Gather search data by IP from Google
Step 2: Gather IP/user log data from ISPs
Step 3: Combine the 2

Is that what they are asking?
Sounds to me like they are looking for search results that are not tied to any one user so they can see if their position holds any water.

If it's not personally identifiable, it cannot help their case which has to do with minors' access to porn.

Either way, I don't even care for them having the statistics. It's one of those things where it's best to err on the side of cation.

Sure it can, they are looking to see how much pr0n gets delivered from search results.
You do realize your scenario above would require more court orders to determine who had what IP at a given time? I doubt the govt has the time nor energy to bother with something as mundane as what you are suggesting.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87

Let's see:
Step 1: Gather search data by IP from Google
Step 2: Gather IP/user log data from ISPs
Step 3: Combine the 2

Is that what they are asking?
Sounds to me like they are looking for search results that are not tied to any one user so they can see if their position holds any water.

If it's not personally identifiable, it cannot help their case which has to do with minors' access to porn.

Either way, I don't even care for them having the statistics. It's one of those things where it's best to err on the side of cation.

Sure it can, they are looking to see how much pr0n gets delivered from search results.
You do realize your scenario above would require more court orders to determine who had what IP at a given time? I doubt the govt has the time nor energy to bother with something as mundane as what you are suggesting.

Nope, ISPs are already being told that to investigate "terrorism", their records must be accessible by the FBI w/o a warrant. It's been discussed here only a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I even question whether or not gathering web search statistics is a violation of anything. If people arent being named by their searches what privacy rights are being violated?

Mine, yours and everyone else's. They're trying to go on a blanked fishing expedition with no named targets to see who gets caught in their net. That's never been allowed, and that's why the courts held such actions were over-reaching in the past.

I also think the point about it being Clintons law is valid as this spans two administrations. If Clinton was president today, the result would probably be the same.

Did you miss the fact that this law was already struck down, or are you just conveniently trying to excuse it, now, by hanging Clinton's name on it?

I am also willing to bet if paid, Google would be offering it up in a minute.

Did you even bother to read the article? :roll:

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.

 

[dahunan]

http://www.whatismyip.com/






http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdpcm/is_200302/ai_ziff37603#continue
Google collects a good deal of information about your query. It records not only what you searched for (when you activate the advanced Toolbar features), but several other pieces of information as well, including the time of day, the type of browser you're running, the language your browser uses, and your IP address. Many times, after giving you a list of Web sites that match your search, Google will also record which sites you actually visited. "Google may choose to exhibit its search results in the form of a 'URL redirecter,'" reads Google's main privacy policy. "When Google uses a URL redirecter, if you click on a URL from a search result, information about the click is sent to Google."