Feds want Google search records

January 18, 2006 10:53 PM

Feds want Google search records according to Mercury News. John Batelle has some analysis as well. This isn't looking too good. Google promises to fight it, but even if they do, does a loss still hurt them the same amount?
posted by rhyax (53 comments total)

You know, the odd thing is that this news is slightly pleasing as lately I was just inclined to believe they already had access to all this. Sounds like this request is from some lower level busybodies rather than from the kind of people who already have switch taps.
posted by well_balanced at 11:12 PM on January 18, 2006

TFA: The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content inaccessible to minors.

Is this egalitarianism taken a step too far or what?
posted by pompomtom at 11:23 PM on January 18, 2006

It sounds like a guise by this administration to continue their attempts at making America a police state. This time they know the whole "terrorists" shit isn't working so they switch their tactics to, "we want to protect the children". It lets them pander to the religious right at the same time. A simple solution is to just go to google.com and search for shit and see how many times porn pops up, but I bet what they want is full access to google's database so they can violate as many people's civil liberties as they can.

One million random searches, gee I wonder what the fuck their going to do with that? Why don't they just crawl google with a million random searches, it's not that hard to program. This is just another fishing expedition at the cost of civil liberties.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 11:28 PM on January 18, 2006

Wait a minute, they are demanding some company not involved in the case to turn over private information. The feds balls much clang, what arrogance...
posted by IronWolve at 11:31 PM on January 18, 2006

I think google should deliver a database of a million searches that contain the word "impeachment" to them.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 11:31 PM on January 18, 2006

It is interesting to hear that Google was the only search engine that opposed it.
posted by mathowie at 11:45 PM on January 18, 2006

Maybe it's just payback for the 'miserable failure' thing†.

† Warning: clicking that link if you're American may get you in trouble with the government at a later date.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:52 PM on January 18, 2006

a request for one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

To fight terror protect children!

I've had it up to here (raises hand in air, fairly high) with this crap. The Republican party has finally gained control, and all they do is grow the government, in almost every conceivable way.

I liked the party a hell of a lot better when they where a relatively uncorrupt minority, that just wanted a small, efficient federal government.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:19 AM on January 19, 2006

Also, I applaud Google for opposing this, instead of taking the cheap and easy road. Hopefully they'll be successful, even though I have absolutely no faith that my ISP, or any other company, will have the same level of commitment.
posted by I Love Tacos at 12:25 AM on January 19, 2006

I've had it up to here (raises hand in air, fairly high) with this crap.

Allow me to be blunt. You democrats have "had it up to here" for years now, but somehow you couldn't stop Bush from winning a second term—in fact, he won more of the popular vote the second time around.

I've had it up to here with watching you people get all worked up about Bush Scandal #2047 for three days, and then letting it pass without so much as an angrily worded letter in response. If you're so sick of the Bush regime, do something about it. The rest of the world doesn't get to vote in your elections, so it's all up to you.
posted by chrominance at 12:42 AM on January 19, 2006

like we are surprised. what makes you think they already don't have the capability to secretly steal data from google? if I you can get the google searches and brings up my site, government can do a lot more.
posted by sundaymag at 12:54 AM on January 19, 2006

Is it really plausible that anyone can stop minors from seeing whatever they want to see on the crazy internet?
posted by Redruin at 1:08 AM on January 19, 2006

I'm soooooooooo glad I don't live in America. (Sorry)
posted by vac2003 at 1:18 AM on January 19, 2006

why be glad you don't live here? if they win they have your data too you know... :(
posted by rhyax at 1:38 AM on January 19, 2006

The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

This can only mean two things:
a) They want to see how often pornography shows up in online searches.
b) They want to see who's searching for pornography online.

The first option could easily be solved by reassigning a handful of the Orwellian troops to "search-o-mania" week. The latter, on the other hand, would require google's data.

The trouble here is not really that the U.S. government wants coupious amounts of search data they couldn't even get a brush fire going with in the first place, but rather that the U.S. government invent reasons, one after the other, that serves no other purpose than to invade your privacy and to control that (as it becomes) non-privacy.

In a year or two from now, they will demand the gmail (or any arbitrary major data warehouse or ISP) data in the war against, hm, terror, child pornography the giant-epileptic-spiders-from-Mars invasion?
posted by psychomedia at 1:56 AM on January 19, 2006

"does a loss still hurt them the same amount?"

To a certain group of fascist Republicans it makes the beatniks in Silicon Valley "the enemy".
posted by raaka at 1:58 AM on January 19, 2006

That's an interesting take also. I meant it more along the lines of it being the same whether they gave up the data or lose in terms of the loss of trust their customers will have. I am glad they are fighting it, but at the end of the day how likely are you to use gmail if they lose? I would like them as a company for fighting, but i don't think i would be comfortable using search history any more. And that hurts google's bottom line. Pro-business republicans indeed...
posted by rhyax at 2:21 AM on January 19, 2006

Remember the anger when Yahoo handed over user details to the Chinese government? But in general, Chinese freedoms are increasing while U.S. freedoms are being eroded. I wonder if there will come a time when there is no difference between the U.S. and Chinese governments, when there will essentially be world uber government.

Imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. And that boot will be made in China.
posted by Meridian at 2:32 AM on January 19, 2006

Apparently the gubment needs google search data to defend the constitutionality of Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998
SCOTUS has upheld a lower court injunction against enforcement of COPA.

What do they want to show, that people search for porn or that there are occourrences of people looking for child-porn ? Assuming that there are some or many or none, what would that prove ?
posted by elpapacito at 2:34 AM on January 19, 2006

The records are completely random. So, the government starts off with this search for porn on the internet, but stumbles across somebody going to al-Qaeda links and bomb making sites. What do you think they do with that information? They then go to another court and demand all of google's search records as a matter of national security (this will probably happen in secret, because national security is at risk). Out of 1 million random searches, I'm sure they'd turn something up for them to demand all of google's records.

Google may have another motive in blocking this, aside from protecting its customer's privacy, they want to protect their search algorithms. If their records are used in a court case they could be asked in open court how their search algorithm works, that's definitely not something google wants to let out of the bag.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 3:04 AM on January 19, 2006

Mijo Bijo, the first link refers to Google protecting "company trade secrets" as one reason for its refusal, so you're probably right about the algorithms bit.
posted by chrominance at 3:14 AM on January 19, 2006

Won't somebody please think of the children! (Bush is a bigger socialist than Clinton ever was.)

Back on topic, the best way to stop fishers hooking you is to make the pond bigger. Good luck sifting through the world's information when there are 3 billion people online, and as many different forms of communication. If I wished to be hidden from prying CIA eyes, I'd communicate with my partners in crime exclusively through a pre-arranged pattern of jumps and wiggles in World of Warcraft.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:27 AM on January 19, 2006

yea, rhyax, I don't think people will stop using Google unless someone very publically gets indicted on the basis of information from Google. Most people just don't give a damn about their privacy because they barely know what information is collected on them. It's sort of like food labeling. The food industry knows damn well if they had to label all their products that are genetically modified they'd lose money on people switching from GMO foods. (Whether consumers would derive any benefit from that is not my point.) So they lobby the hell out of Congress to prevent GMO labeling. People don't know what they're eating, so they don't care what they're eating.

Information brokers largely do not have to tell people what information they collect or what they do with it. Google does not sell my information to a third party. Hey that's great, but what the hell are they doing with it?
posted by raaka at 3:29 AM on January 19, 2006

Does anyone actually have to search for pr0n? Haven't they memorised the URL of a couple of their favourite sites, and then just play follow-the-link to get any other new/different/interesting stuff?

Uh... you know... just speculating...!
posted by Chunder at 3:45 AM on January 19, 2006

And my generation, back in the fifties, long before any of us ever heard of search engines or even computers used to see porn that one of our schoolmates had come across in the form of tatty old copies of copies of photos dating back to even earlier in the century with the guys wearing masks and socks held up by garters and girls, fortunately for us, wearing nothing. So, what's this all about, really?
posted by donfactor at 3:48 AM on January 19, 2006

Well, something could be started where thousands and more computers start sending automated requests for pr0n, flooding the Google database with leads that are going nowhere...

It'd be fairly trivial to start a project like this and I bet a lot of people would collaborate if they start understanding the threat - don't underestimate hords of geeks that feels their privacy and freedom are taken away...
posted by NewBornHippy at 4:11 AM on January 19, 2006

you can also find your porn in the woods
posted by mr.marx at 4:23 AM on January 19, 2006

People use Google to search for porn?
Weak.
posted by slimepuppy at 4:32 AM on January 19, 2006

Nobody fuck with Teh Google.
posted by rxrfrx at 5:12 AM on January 19, 2006

How long would it take for a million records to show up in Google's logs? Seconds? Less than a second?

This sounds mostly like an attempt to intimidate people who host materials--and possibly Google itself--rather than people searching for them. For now.

Still, bravo to Google for standing on principle.
posted by gimonca at 5:43 AM on January 19, 2006

It bears asking -- of a lawyer -- what exactly Google can do to combat this? What are their options?

Also, which search engines complied?
posted by ChrisR at 6:49 AM on January 19, 2006

It is interesting to hear that Google was the only search engine that opposed it.

Google doesn't give a damn about principle. If you read their counsel's words carefully, they are simply trying to:

1) Protect their intellectual property from competitors
2) Make sure that they are not letting the government use Google as a free, high quality surveillance service

Principle, my ass. It's about the dollars. The other search engines don't have much to lose since they all emulate Google's techniques to some degree.
posted by Rothko at 6:57 AM on January 19, 2006

don't underestimate hords of geeks that feels their privacy and freedom are taken away...

Yeah, they might form a group called the EFF and lose nearly every important privacy rights case they fight.
posted by Rothko at 7:00 AM on January 19, 2006

chrominance

We can vote all we want but since our votes are counted by Diebold's secret software, it doesn't matter.
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:09 AM on January 19, 2006

Wish the reporter had bothered to at least ask for comment from Yahoo, et al. Would have been nice to know which other search engines were approached, and what, if anything, they turned over.
posted by mediareport at 7:12 AM on January 19, 2006

Chrominance:
Some of us (though I will NOT call myself a democrat, i hate bipartisanship) DID do something about it. Many of us realize that Kerry was not all he was cracked up to be. Many of us are enraged at the state of affairs in our country, mainly that fear(not just of terrorism, but a sort of xenophobia) still rules our law making processes.
"Do somethingabout it" you say? like what? the only viable approach I can see to do anything but vote is to get into politics myself. and I am NOT a politician, and I'm sure not many of the members here are inclined that way either. Voting is, unfortunately, the only REAL voice we have, and yet the apathetic do not use that right, and the idiotic abuse it. All i can say is no matter what, we're between a rock and a hard place now and Google is just the smallest example of how we're being screwed. Stop getting enraged by members of this metablog and try spreading the word in real life like the rest of us.
posted by Doorstop at 7:18 AM on January 19, 2006

I feel exactly like Doorstop. But didn't you hear that Bin Laden is planning new attacks?!!
posted by Mr_Zero at 7:28 AM on January 19, 2006

How come nekked people having sex is mindblowing?

The neocons need to grow the fuck up. Really. This ain't no treehouse any more.
posted by chibikeandy at 7:33 AM on January 19, 2006

Allow me to be blunt. You democrats have "had it up to here" for years now, but somehow you couldn't stop Bush from winning a second term—in fact, he won more of the popular vote the second time around.

You lose, please try again. I'm a Republican. I just happen to have noticed that this administration has completely forgotten what the party used to be about.

At this point I'm mostly annoyed at the lack of viable candidates from any party.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:39 AM on January 19, 2006

cheers Mr_ Zero. But, Bin Laden has been planning new attacks since 9/11. I'm not surprised by this at all. I'm more afraid of losing my constitutional rights than I am of terrorist attacks.
posted by Doorstop at 7:57 AM on January 19, 2006

Doorstop, I was not serious. Unfortunately much of the US is distracted by announcements like this, and that is why they are made.
posted by Mr_Zero at 8:02 AM on January 19, 2006

"I don't think people will stop using Google unless someone very publicly gets indicted on the basis of information from Google."

Rather hard to find out something like that when people can be held without charge, or sent to Eastern Europe for questioning.
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:18 AM on January 19, 2006

Rothko - you've been reading Orwloski? Because that's a good source for your EFF news.
posted by sysinfo at 8:29 AM on January 19, 2006

Cory Doctorow is a dopey dope for so many reasons, I can't begin to count. I have little reason to doubt Orlowski's reporting on him, on Doctorow's objections alone.
posted by Rothko at 8:49 AM on January 19, 2006

This porn crusade is more bullshit smokescreen, just like gay marriage, just like vegetable Schiavo.

Keep the evangelicals stewing for the elections, while the real action is behind closed doors and out of the pulpit.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 8:57 AM on January 19, 2006

It's about the dollars.

Yeah, good points....but standing up to the government is expensive, too. The legal legwork being done in the background is not being done for free. The least expensive way to proceed would be to surrender.

If you'd prefer a more cynical take on it--taking a stand could be seen as part of their "brand identity". It's good PR for them to defend privacy rights, bad for business for them not to. It's a competitive advantage for Google to be seen as more protective of privacy than other companies.

But even then--they'd still be on my side.
posted by gimonca at 9:40 AM on January 19, 2006

Damn, it sucks to be an American these days. Your administration is looking more and more like China's every fucking day!

When are you gonna do something about it?!

For all the hand-wringing and whinging that I see on the nets, there seems to be very little in the way of actual, real-life action. Are you gonna just couch-potato yourselves into a tyranny?
posted by five fresh fish at 10:16 AM on January 19, 2006

Rothko - I should have clarified, I was mainly focusing on the rebuttal of Orlowski's claims about the EFF within Doctorow's writing, what with his actually being employed there until recently. Then again, that's why the wikipedia links to Orlowski's history and EFF accomplishments are there, to show that it's not just Doctorow's claim. Or is wikipedia a dopey site because Orlowski says so? In that case, I doubt I'll change your mind.

Afraid I've veered off track here, though. While this is 'just' another step in the government's latest war against a concept, it does make me wonder how many of the searches and random pages would be followed up with subpoenas (public or otherwise) for details on who submitted them. While it's nice to see a company standing up against this, I'll reserve judgement until this plays out further. Ah, I'm so angry, but this couch is so comfy! At least this latest outrage isn't blatently illegal.

Does anyone else wonder whether the unspecified search engines that the DoJ claimed complied actually did, or are just mentioned in an attempt to compel Google to follow suit?
posted by sysinfo at 10:31 AM on January 19, 2006

Or is wikipedia a dopey site because Orlowski says so?

Not to derail further, but Wikipedia is a dopey site because, save for verified science entries, the factual basis of the rest of the site can be open to debate when opinions can represent fact. Politically-charged entries doubly so. I think I would put EFF in that category.
posted by Rothko at 1:10 PM on January 19, 2006

DANGER WILL ROBINSON
posted by tranceformer at 2:29 PM on January 19, 2006

Looks like Yahoo already gave up their data to the Bush Administration. :(
posted by banished at 4:03 PM on January 19, 2006

Cory Doctorow is a dopey dope for so many reasons

That's as may be, but I think he writes like a chrome-plated, steam-driven, pissandvinegar writing machine. Which is to say, well.

He's also a member here, but, like so many Meta-apostates that I wish were engaged here, he doesn't show up much. Then again, he never really did, so hey hoopla.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:51 PM on January 19, 2006

Patriot Search - Help the government by making your search activity public.
posted by Wet Spot at 8:15 PM on January 19, 2006