WTF? Google being told to hand over...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Shortass

Senior member
May 13, 2004
908
0
76
This thread hurts my head. As long as they government continues to research into our lives, no matter how ill-founded and unproductive it is, they are wasting tax-payers dollars and a whole lot of time.

This isn't a Republicans thing, and I'm not really sure that all that many people on ANY side are going to enjoy this if they manage it. Both the Democrats and Republicans will benefit from this I suppose, and neither really seem to care for the personal liberties of the public all that often. Stop pointing fingers and start voting for people who want to change this ******, we all know how productive getting pissed on an online COMPUTER forum will change things. Not to imply that you all don't vote the right people, most of them are horrible, but at least we have the right to change it if we're motivated enough.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
I found the EFF take on this interesting:

However, Broader Privacy Concerns Remain

The Justice Department asked a federal court in San Jose,
California, Wednesday to force Google to turn over search
records for use as evidence in a case where the government is
defending the constitutionality of the Child Online
Protection Act (COPA). Google has refused to comply with a
subpoena for those records, based in part on its concern for
its users' privacy.

COPA is a federal law that requires those who publish
non-obscene, constitutionally protected sexual material
online to take difficult and expensive steps to prevent
access by minors, steps that would chill publishers of
sexual material as well as the adults who want to access
such material anonymously. EFF is one of the plaintiffs in
the First Amendment challenge to COPA.

The subpoena to Google currently asks for a random sampling
of one million URLs from Google's database of web sites on
the Internet. More importantly, the DOJ is also subpoenaing
the text of each search string entered into Google's search
engine over a one-week period, absent any information
identifying the people who entered the search terms.

"The government is overreaching here, asking Google to do
its dirty work and collect information about the Internet
speech activities of Google users," said EFF Staff Attorney
Kurt Opsahl. "Last month, the federal court rejected many
of the government's over broad discovery requests to its
opposing parties. Rather than learn its lesson, the DOJ
continues to push for overreaching discovery, this time
from a company that isn't even a party to the case."

Google has cited its concern for user privacy as a reason
for not complying with the subpoena, in addition to the
unreasonable burden that compliance would place on Google
and the proprietary nature of its query database. In
particular, Google is rightly concerned that many of the
randomly selected search queries would contain personal
information about Google users.

While EFF applauds Google for defending its users' privacy
in this case, the current controversy only highlights the
broader privacy problem: Google logs all of the searches
you make, and most if not all of those queries are
personally identifiable via cookies, IP addresses, and
Google account information.

"The only way Google can reasonably protect the privacy of
its users from such legal demands now and in the future is
to stop collecting so much information about its users,
delete information that it does collect as soon as
possible, and take real steps to minimize how much of the
information it collects is traceable back to individual
Google users," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "If
Google continues to gather and keep so much information
about its users, government and private attorneys will
continue to try and get it."

Importantly, users can also take steps to protect their
privacy from Google, the government, and others, by using
anonymizing technologies such as Tor when surfing the web.
Tor helps hide your IP address from Google so that even if
the lawyers come knocking, Google cannot identify you by
your searches.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
A follow-up thought: Google could solve this whole problem by allowing users to check a "opt out" checkbox on their homepage. Doing so would keep Google from tracking anything you do while at their site. No cookies, no server records, totally anonymous.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
A follow-up thought: Google could solve this whole problem by allowing users to check a "opt out" checkbox on their homepage. Doing so would keep Google from tracking anything you do while at their site. No cookies, no server records, totally anonymous.

[neocon]If you don't like it you can just opt-out of this country[/neocon] :laugh:
 

teddyv

Senior member
May 7, 2005
974
0
76
>Google could solve this whole problem by allowing users to check a "opt out" checkbox on their homepage

That is a great idea - it is nice to see people aware and concerned about privacy. What gets me is that people seem to have no concern whatsoever for the far more invasive information and profiles that private industry gathers and sells.

Sign up for a free t-shirt or register for some other freebie? Your IP is now attached to a name, address and other fun info. Visit a prOn site (yes, it was just an accident) - they purchase your IP/user profile and match your name to their server logs. Then they sell it to even more people and your profile grows (and grows) as more and more info is added. Buy groceries with your super savings card? Don't buy tobacco or alcohol or your health insurance company might increase your premiums and you might lose out on life insurance completely. Want to keep your cell phone call history private, only way is to buy a throwaway (your call records are available on the Internet to anyone for about $175.) Yes, the list goes on and on.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: Condor
And all this time you libs have been saying that the wiretapping would have been OK if he had just gotten the court order. He got the court order for this and you continue to whine!

wiretapping = Google logs.. senile logic. zzz

Yet, you love Kennedy!

Who? You have a son named Ted?

Never voted for the guy nor would I. Not a big fan of drunks.. current or 'recovering'.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Here are a few suggestions for safe searching from an article at TechNewsWorld. They're pretty simple and straightforward and most likely elementary for a high tech crowd like Anandtech but just in case...

Safe Search

How the courts will decide the issue remains to be seen. Meanwhile, privacy advocates have wasted little time advising people on safe-search practices. The World Privacy Forum has posted tips for people who worry that their personal information may wind up linked to their search requests in either a government or private company's database.

It makes the following recommendations:

* Avoid using terms that include your full legal name attached to any information that you don't want associated with it, such as your social security number. "If you have conducted this search, then your name and your SSN will appear together in the search string, and may be stored for a long time by the search engine."

* Use an anonymizing tool. There are services available that allow people to use the Web without revealing a computer address, such as Anonymizer.com.

* Do not sign up for related services, such as e-mail, offered by the search engine you most often use.

* Do not accept search-engine cookies.

* Be aware that online purchases can be correlated to search activity at some search engines.

Link

 

cumhail

Senior member
Apr 1, 2003
682
0
0
This whole situation is Google's fault as much as it is the government's. Back in July of last year, a CNET News.com article warned that exactly this might happen in writing about how Google (and other search engines) hold onto personally-identifiable information and data (up to and including copies of our gmail emails, our searches, et al.) long after they should be disposing of it. In it, the author wrote:

The fear, of course, is that hackers, zealous government investigators, or even a Google insider who falls short of the company's ethics standards could abuse that information. Google, some worry, is amassing a tempting record of personal information, and the onus is on the Mountain View, Calif., company to keep that information under wraps.
Click here for the CNET News.com article

Well that fear has now become reality; and for Google to act as if it was unforeseeable and that they're now the defenders of our privacy, when it is their actions that put it at risk in the first place, isn't just dishonest... it's ludicrous. The administration is acting wrongly, yes... but what they're trying to do is only possible because of what Google and other search engines have already done.

cumhail
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
The problem for Google is that their search engine competition doesn't have much of a viable marketing and advertising income base - which is why Google's stock is so high. So MS and the other engines could just give up their data without a lot of fuss.

Google needs all of that identifying information about you so that they can be the #1 on-line advertising and marketing company. THAT is their competitive differentiator - lose that, they lose their stock price.

And yet Google KNOWS if they cave to the government, all hell with break lose with privacy advocates pushing for them to eliminate such identifying information. Because even though THIS demand wasn't about personal information, you can bet the one coming up WILL request personal details, or the ability to find such out.

Future Shock