Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Google Heads to Court to Protect Users

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

January 27, 2006, 11:31 AM

Google will face off against the United States government in a federal court on February 22 over whether the Department of Justice can force the search giant to turn over records from its database. The conflict stems from a subpoena demanding information on searches, which Google refused to comply with citing privacy concerns.

The government is attempting to gather data to support a child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under that law, the government could punish pornography sites that made content easily accessible to minors.

Google competitors Yahoo, AOL and MSN have already turned over search data to the government. However, Google contends that supplying the information would violate the privacy of its users, as well as divulge trade secrets that could help its competitors.

In an effort to allay customer fears, MSN publicly explained its position in a blog posting earlier this week. The company said it worked hard to limit the request to data that followed its principals of protecting customer privacy, and that, "Absolutely no personal data was involved."

But privacy advocates fear that such moves could set a dangerous precedent and enable the U.S. government to go "fishing" for data on individuals without proper cause. The Bush administration is already in hot water over revelations that it has been spying domestically without court approval.

San Jose, Calif. U.S. District Judge James Ware asked Google to submit a legal brief with arguments by February 6, with the Justice Department slated to respond by February 13. The DOJ is asking for a random sampling of 1 million search queries from Google and 1 million IP addresses.

"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," the government said in its initial legal filing.

Google officials said they would fight the request, and called it "overreaching."

Add a Comment (163 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By saint satin stain

edited Feb 4, 2006 - 5:46 PM

I applaud Google. Their stand is moral, constitutional, and good business sense. Write Google and give them your support; write the others and express your condemnation. Reward the companies that try to protect your privacy; punish the ones that bend over and take it up the wazoo from the government d*** Nixons and George Bushs. Go and get encryption. I suggest PGP for email. Use an anonymizer for surfing, at least sometimes. Encourage your friends to do the same.

Score: 0

By ATIR

edited Feb 1, 2006 - 9:16 AM

I believe google's position is correct. the justice department is on a witch hunt to support an already supreme court defeated effort to seek and destroy porn sites. I believe porn sites can be ferreted out and destroyed in another manner, perhaps more costly, without giving the impression that they are infringing on my rights under the Constituition of United States. Horray for Google for standing up and being counted. And at the same time shame on AOL, MSN and the likes for caving in and giving up information so readily.

Score: 0

By diversitynews

edited Jan 31, 2006 - 10:19 PM

I agree with Google not to disclosed any information to the goverment regarding the activities users are doing every single minute online. Each person online are responsable for their actions and free to exercise the First Amendments of the United States Constitution.

Score: 0

By iDMan

edited Jan 30, 2006 - 5:22 PM

roj - and all US vs Google protesting Canadians. Please do not critique our Government until your fix your own...

I will concede to your freedoms and add:

Yes, you are truly free. Free to eat as many cheeseburgers as you like, while sitting at your computer. Free to have a heart attach (from eating those cheeseburgers) and go to the hospital. Free to discover that your countries Government Controlled "Medical Care" is so inferior that you end up on a four month waiting list. And while you are waiting, you can get back to your computer and eat more cheeseburgers. Then your freedom will land you a second heart attach (again from those cheeseburgers). Then you will be free to call your parents and tap into their savings so you can travel to the US and get a bypass within 24 hours.

Free, Free, Free, yes that is all free. Wait, is debt to parents free? No matter, enjoy your freedom.

And, speaking of Freedoms, why couldn't Fox News Broadcast in Canada until after many applications. However, the application for Al-Jazeera easily passed long before Fox News. Now that is freedom.

O Canada…

Cheers

Score: 0

By baldyone

edited Jan 30, 2006 - 11:17 AM

The constant efforts by government, organizations,religious groups and others to regulate and direct our lives seems to be increasing at an alarming rate.

Almost any activity has its critics and its supporters, each group citing freedoms or protective measures to help us have a "better" life.

The question is: where does it stop? How much is too much?

The world has always had "good" guys and "bad" guys. Fortunately, it seems that the "good" have always outnumbered the "bad" guys.

I am just VERY wary of the government when they want to "PROTECT" me.

Score: 0

By iDMan

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 12:37 PM

Canada is accepting applicants... Please go. Please.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 11:28 AM

"I am just VERY wary of the government when they want to "PROTECT" me."

Er... Move to N. Korea? Iraq?

Score: 0

By iamtux

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 9:01 AM

So you complain that the DOJ wants your information, but you complain that Google actually stores web statistics. Wake up morons, that's what has made Google what they are! They aren't OMGSPYZORINGONUS, get a grip. They don't store your ip, your search string, and all the users/passwords stored on your system, then point and laugh say "HA! That person is searching for porn! What a loser!" So would you rather the DOJ know that you ARE searching for cracks for that new burned copy of XP you just got? I didn't think so. Google is a search engine, they make it better by compiling lists of websites and content that is searched for the most. Personally, I applaude them for standing up and fighting for their users' rights. The rest of you need to sit down and shutup.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 9:47 AM

"The rest of you need to sit down and shutup."

...or stand up, voice your opinions, and [singing now] try to help make the world a better place.

Ahh...the 60's. They were groovy.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jan 30, 2006 - 8:25 AM

Information in the wrong hands can be dangerous. I think I just described Google.

I for one, believe that it is "my" information that they are indexing and storing, and therefore I would like them to share it with the government. Everyone should write a letter telling them, just that - either give your information or not. It belongs to us.

I don't want Google deciding what is private and what is not. Standing on their soapbox and waving the constitution around claiming to protect the very information they are exploiting themselves, is idiotic.

Score: 0

By GusDoeMatik

edited Jan 31, 2006 - 6:21 PM

I think you should give the government your computer and all your records. But don't speak for those that don't want our info exposed.

I don't do anything incriminating. They can check my computer as well but they better get a court order...

The government has never ever been really honest with us since the conception of the United States. I don't trust their intent... Nor should you.

Score: 0

By melkor

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 8:24 AM

Too lazy to read everyone elses posts...

DOJ probably wants it so they can use it for statistical modals of what people search for (how many people really are looking at terrorist sites & or searching for software cracks).

Google doesn't want to turn it over because A) they don't want to B) it would become public record exactly how much data google collects.

Score: 0

By jerrico

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 9:59 PM

So why cant the DOJ use the information that they have aquired from the other search engines that are so willing to flex and bend, to gov with little resistence.Why should Google have to spend many hours and dollars collecting and sorting through this info for the gov when they havent broken any laws? It sounds like some Hitler s*** to me. I dont need the gov trying to protect my children. I can do that on my own Because I monitor what my kids do

Score: 0

By GusDoeMatik

posted Jan 31, 2006 - 6:25 PM

You're absolutely correct!!!!!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:40 PM

The reason google is hiding, isn't because of protection of users, its what they will find during the course of the investigation. google supports spam. they own many companies that spam other people. Google is hiding behind their users to proclaim "privacy" when in fact, they are hiding their holding companies..

On another note, I support google to defend themselves, it shouldn't be pushed for them to reveal info about their site. ITs their site. Despite my own opinions and claims of spam, I think this goes against freedom of speech. Google is correct in vehemently defending their company. They are under NO obligation to reveal ANY info, unless we can prove criminal.

They may support spam, and own companies that do so, but that's not illegal.

Score: 0

By GusDoeMatik

posted Jan 31, 2006 - 6:30 PM

I Agree

Score: 0

By Aegis69

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 7:42 PM

Ya right, Goodle is heading to court to fight the DOJ. That sure looks good to investors, but its a sham. They WILL give up their data to the DOJ, or have ALREADY given it to them.

This is just a smoke screen so you will*think* Google gives a crap aout your privacy. They are going to court in order to lose, but to try and keep their dignity and high stock price.

Score: 0

By GusDoeMatik

posted Jan 31, 2006 - 6:28 PM

I think you're wrong....

The government asked quietly. No-one even heard anything about information being turned over until Google said NO. Then everyone else was exposed.

Score: 0

By soots

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 2:32 PM

would it not be better, that everyone surfing the net, that came across these sick sites ,reported it to the police, in their country and remain anonymous,

Score: 0

By GusDoeMatik

posted Jan 31, 2006 - 6:33 PM

If this was actually about pornography and terrorist I think they should make the browser makers create a button that allows us to report a page. That way we can help police the web with out loosing our rights...

Score: 0

By bitterbeta

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 10:46 PM

Publicity stunt by Google. Spend as little as possible on the lawsuit, declare losing, then appear as champion of user privacy all the while recording every of its users' track across the Internet through previously undeletable emails, unexpiring cookies, ad impression logs, and no doubt, searches.

Score: 0

By kevinmook

edited Jan 29, 2006 - 2:28 AM

Uhm, when were their emails ever "undeleteable"?

Nice theory, though.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:44 PM

ITs actually part of their profile. When you delete an email from google, its not really deleted. Its just not visible from YOUR inbox, they still keep it. They build a profile on you, and sell it. ITs a fact.

You can "filter" the message, and you don't see it, but on the google server its still there. They could easily give you 20 gig of email space.. but there is no competion to do so. That extra space on their servers, keeps EVERY email sent/received. Its not a theory..

I know people that work at Google, and they tell me this is the case. But, its about making money.. you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 10:18 AM

Wow...all these "facts" and nothing to back them up with.

Must be a hard life, rijp...

You *do* rrealize no-one here is going to believe a word you say, right? If anything, you're helping Google by making folks believe all anti-google press is just from flaming idiots such as yourself.

Thanks!

Oh, and don't let this deter you, of course. I'd hate to lose your unique and entertaining commentary.

Score: 0

By TC17

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 8:49 PM

The lies spread by a few of the anti-google people here and some other places make me want to support Google all the more.

Someone needs to make a banner that we can add to posts or whatever in support of Google.

I see also that "ComputerWorld" also has some kind of Vendetta against Google. It just shows what this world has come to, with people wanting the Goverment playing big brother to all of us. Most likely they are Republicans.

Score: 0

By StormyWaters

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 10:30 PM

The freedom to express yourself in this country is getting trimmed down, sold to the Bush supported news stations to be put out for all these other countries to not only know that Bush sticks to his word but to also create fear among them so they will have to attack us because of their fear.

I have to say this or Bush will have his internet theorist take the comment out or pretty it up for him, "Go King Bush great job"

Another comment saved by blind worship.

Score: 0

By 1tachyonsign

edited Jan 29, 2006 - 4:08 AM

They wanted too impeach a former president for getting nookie, Your president takes us to war illegally, I think it was maybe... WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Interesting how they didn't find any. Now your president is spying on americans illegally. Why don't you just go to Washington and join the Hitler.. ummm I mean.. Bush Youth.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 10:39 AM

Goodwin, people....Goodwin.

He compared to Hitler...thread over.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:48 PM

Dude they didn't start impeachment procedings against Clinton for the improprietary acts while he was in office, they were going to impeach because he lied about it to the Grand Jury.

And, I dont' care what anyone says, Saddam was so indignant, and still is, during his reign, it was highly plausible he had biological weapons.. They are buried or being held someplace else, the WMD do exist. The CIA knows they exist, they just can't get cooperation from other countries to reveal their location.

Score: 0

By bøøm

edited Jan 29, 2006 - 3:33 PM

I think it's funny how you can equalize Bush and Hitler. If they were equal, you would'nt be giving your opinion on the matter. If they were equal, this country would already be under martial law.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 8:36 AM

Indeed.

Score: 0

By Z_Man

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 7:03 PM

YAAY! GOOGLE IS KING!

Score: 0

By Aegis69

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 7:43 PM

See look at this moron, proving my point.

Hey thanks for proving that people will believe anything!!

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:49 PM

LOL!

Score: 0

By eqlb02

edited Jan 28, 2006 - 10:12 AM

This coming from the same goverment, who decided to tackle and stop the porn industry by shutting it down. So thats like giving a serial killer all the ample people that turn its fantasy to kill. I think the goverment needs to get laid and stop bringing religion into its mix. I am so glad i dont live in the new ussr called america. It really doesnt matter where kids learn about porn or sex cause it is taught in school and lots of boys get there bloody magazines from there daddys secert spot, porn on the internet is the next level of
learning for young boys. Its just peoples thoughts that a kid doesnt turn sexual and know how to mamke decisions until there turn that magical number 18.

Score: 0

By expert01

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 4:53 PM

You obviously aren't from this country, they never tried to shut down the porn industry.

*fish slap*

Score: 0

By Chr1831

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 10:33 PM

honstally i think this is wrong, lets say they see what they want to see and its not about what they are saying they are looking for, does that mean they file another supena and then go after people via search resaults that they wernt even lookin for, i think google should olny hand resaults with *child*,*porn*, and nothing else

atleast google will step up to the plate

Score: 0

By Aegis69

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 7:46 PM

If the DOJ is tryng to crack down on Child Porn and/or explotation of children, why not start with US senators who are all 70 years old and bang 18 year old hookers 3 at a time.

You smell a little hipocracy here?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 8:37 AM

You mean the ones that are drunken liberals like Ted Kennedy?

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:49 PM

Yeah, and they use tax payer money to do it!

Score: 0

By roj

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 9:02 PM

Good for you Google - someone should stand up for your home country's beleaguered populace, beset as they are by neo-fascist corrupt sanctimonious holier-than-thou New Religious Right political hypocrites and their sychophant supporters.

Gee, I entered the following in Google:

"kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn **** you George W. I'm Canadian kiddie porn kiddie porn kiddie porn"

I wonder what will happen now? Think the 90-year-old professional virgins behind this REAL obscenity will fill their Depends?

Thank God I live in a TRUE free and actually democratic country where privacy is respected and supported by law and we also don't have the paranoid bozos from a NSA equivalent ILLEGALLY spying on our population. Oh, and by the way, if that garbage were ever tried up here, we'd sue the government's collective a** off under PIPEDA.

And we'd win.

Take a lesson, True Believers.

Score: 0

By iDMan

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 2:49 AM

Yes, you are truly free. Free to eat as many cheeseburgers while sitting at your computer. Free to have a heart attach (from eating those cheeseburgers) and go to the hospital. Free to discover that your countries Medical care is so inferior that you end up on a four month waiting list. And while you are waiting, you can get back to your computer and eat more cheeseburgers. Then your freedom will land you a second heart attach (again from those cheeseburgers). Then you will be free to call your parents and tap into their savings so you can travel to the US and get a bypass within 24 hours.

Free, Free, Free, yes that is all free. Wait, is debt to parents free? No matter, enjoy your freedom.

And, speaking of Freedoms, why couldn't Fox News Broadcast in Canada until after many applications. However, the application for Al-Jazeera easily passed long before Fox News. Now that is freedom.

O Canada…

Cheers

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:52 PM

Dude, you are a complete moron. You think we citizens of the USA stand for this crap? Just because one agency wants to sacrifice privacy, don't think the rest of us will let them do or take this sitting down.

You canadians kill me. You never cease to amaze your endless stupidity. Thank you for proving my point, your brains are frozen and you are smoking some community bong, because you people are just plain retarded.

Score: 0

By Aegis69

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 7:47 PM

Man you live in a dream world if you believe google gives one fat crap about your privacy. Come see me in a week when they 'lose' this case, then I'll tell you what world we are really living in.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 9:33 AM

Let's see here...

Google--- Big company that's getting bigger, on the record for having a business goal of "index everything".

American Government--- Big government of multi-valued representatives that is freely elected by the people of the country.

Who to trust? Well, I have been taking an oath for at least 20 years to support my country and the republic for which it stands. So I trust my government, despite its flaws... afterall, if I don't like the government, I can always vote to change it. I supported Reagan and Bush Sr while they were in office, I supported Clinton while he was in office until I was given a reason not to (the scandals being revealed and proven), and I will support Bush Jr. until I am given proof and evidence of wrong-doing--- not paranoia and speculation.

You mention paranoid bozos... and yet, you and others here are the ones crying about a violation of privacy when no such breech has been made, and you claim it will be made, but you offer no proof-- only speculation. Who's paranoid?

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:54 PM

...not to metion if you don't agree with the laws of this country, you are free to leave at any time!

Good post.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Jan 28, 2006 - 1:53 PM

"American Government--- Big government of multi-valued representatives that is freely elected by the people of the country."

You actually believe that after your last TWO elections? After dead people voted? After Jeb cooked the ballot? After George W. and his cronies returned your country to the 1950s? REALLY?

Those Rose Colored Glasses must be made of transparent Kevlar - they're certainly industrial strength.

Given that we just went through our own election process and put a Conservative government in power (you guys would label our Conservatives as Democrats - thank God) and even then only gave them a slim majority which will force them to form coalitions with other even more moderate parties thus providing balance, I look upon what you folks have and simply shudder.

"multivalued representatives" indeed. They're all cookie-cutter at this point. Your current government wouldn't recognize that concept if it reached up, bit them in the a** and then slapped them across the face with a freshly caught Newfoundland cod.

However, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you're military (based on your comment about the oath you took - which I respect, by the way), your viewpoint is now eminently understandable.

I can never put my trust that completely in ANY large government body - I know FAR too much about how they really work, based on my occupation.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jan 30, 2006 - 10:29 AM

"However, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you're military (based on your comment about the oath you took - which I respect, by the way), your viewpoint is now eminently understandable."

Just FYI...

The oath in question:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

One spoken by rote, every weekday morning, in just about every public school in the US. Now, how many of those speaking it actually understand what they're saying? That's certainly debateable.

GT2L, you a teacher? What grade/area of study?

Score: 0

By iDMan

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 2:29 AM

Dude, seriously... Blah, Blah, Blah. The government this, the government that. Seriously, stand up and take some responsibility.

Are you claiming that the EU has it right? I must point to France’s latest deal with the Airbus and China. Now, that is smart. I am sure they won't use that “agreement” to but Airbus out of business, and the government will follow suit with their deep dug fangs in that organization. Or, is it Canada you feel has its government together. Have you seen the news? Wow.

And, criticism of our Government… Ouch. You play on American web sites and jab comments to its members. Americans and Soldiers hold Country to the highest regard. And, I understand there is a large difference in what countries that grew up under a kingship, dictatorship, or any of the other mistaken policies of rule. How quickly you forget your past and the wrongs you have done. And based on your dialect, I suspect that you are truly an American that doesn't want to let on that you are an American. I will let you in on a secret, Canada is really close and they are accepting applicants. There is a small fee. But based on your comments, I suspect a 50% tax rate is just what you need.

Cheers

You mention your occupation... My understanding would be that you are a professional protestor.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 8:58 PM

You are canadian. Feel free never to come across the border again. You are cheap anyway.

You are officially on my dork list. What are you like some cynical teenager, whose parents were divorced at 12, and you are angry about it?

I bet you are some overweight loser that watches your beloved shows. You should get out from behind that NHL and quit pretending.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 11:16 PM

And yet your party is the one that is always pushing for more government control of things... go figure.

Score: 0

By theswitch

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 9:05 PM

go roj go

Score: 0

By armand31

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 8:42 PM

I really love this country, I came from a communist country where everything is monitored by the goverment. There I learned that if you allow someone to break a little fragment of that we call liberty the whole thing break down as fast, that when you wakeup the liberty is just a memory that now you are not allow to remember more than once a year or once in your entire life.Google is just doing what they think is ethical. I have been visiting this website and it looks very trusted and impartial at least for me.

Score: 0

By theswitch

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 9:07 PM

yes I completely agree with you armand31

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 7:06 PM

Nate,

It really pisses me off how you and others insist on presenting it as the government looking to spy on web surfers rather than acknowledging the truth that they are going after the companies that publish pornography that children can access.

I hate to say it, but if this is the type of reporting that you guys are going to continue to produce, I am going to have to stop using BetaNews as a resource. Please guys... lets stick to the facts in reports, or label your articles as "OPINION" and "EDITORIAL" if they're going to have your personal spin on them.

Score: 0

By benny20_1

edited Jan 29, 2006 - 3:26 PM

And how do you know they dont want more than what they say they do? maybe they are looking in to it for other resons too. + first they want to view what you search for and then the they will want to install a little trojan to monitor activity to every computer in the world and forbid antivirus companys to delete it. as they say, "you give them a hand they will take the hole arm"

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 8:40 AM

I don't know... but that's the whole point... I'm not a paranoid delusional fool that makes assumptions on the false information that is spread around. I deal in facts and evidence. When you show me an actual problem, I'll show you an actual solution... until then, I have work to do, and I don't have time to sit around dreaming up fake problems because I ran out of real ones.

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 10:17 PM

I totally agree.

Now just wait and watch as we both get a "-1" score.

Hahahahhahaha

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 5:31 PM

The fact that google keeps the ip addresses on record tells you something. Google can't tell what they don't know. This whole thing is stupid--I personally will trust the government over google any day (which I'm sure many flames will come my way for thinking such). Even if I didn't, think about it. If Google thinks it is an invasion of privacy to give data that THEY THEMSELVES HAVE, Google PROBABLY has your personal data.

Score: 0

By rijp

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 9:00 PM

Probably isn't in Google's dictionary.

They DO have your data, count on it. That's why I don't let any personal info on Google. My email I use for junk. I have another email for private info.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 6:34 PM

Indeed... but then their mission is to index ALL content in the world, so what else would you expect? :)

Score: 0

By snoecks

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 4:09 PM

Giving out 1 million searches is ok...aslong as they are related to childporn! Any samples relating other subjects is irrelivent and shouldn't be handed over to the DoJ.

As far as handing over a random 1 million IP addresses, that's just not done! Compare it to a crime being comitted and the DoJ picking a random 1 million POTENTIAL subjects to investigate. Now that will result in violation of privacy. I think that the US government is indeed overreaching it.
As a Google user you can then be subject to a criminal investigation, no matter whether you did anything wrong or not. Hence why Google is putting up a fight and good on them!

Score: 0

By DarkOne123

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 4:41 PM

OMG, for the record its not "Child Porn" its Children Looking at Porn.

I am amazed at the stupidty of News Websites and users who mistake it.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 7:04 PM

Indeed... but more than that it's business producing porn for children's access... not children looking at porn.

Score: 0

By GeorgeSantayana

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 3:50 PM

Giving out a sample of searches seems rather trivial compared to doing the bidding of the Chinese government to censor information.

It seems like they're just fighting to protect their PR myth of "[d]o no evil." All show, no substance.

Score: 0

By Desides

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 3:45 PM

"Protect Users?" Listen, I'm not a big fan of Gonzalez's diverting of FBI resources from the war on terrorism to anti-porn efforts, but, Betanews, let's at least try to keep the reporting unbiased, okay? There's no "protection" going on here. Google wants to keep its information private for reasons that have nothing to do with protecting anyone but themselves.

Score: 0

By microFawad

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 3:30 PM

What the hell U.S government thinks? This is totally not fare that they force any company to do anything they want.

Score: 0

By theswitch

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 3:20 PM

simple question:

what else could the U.S. Government want with all this data besides war on terrorism etc etc

come on think, are you all really that dense, you people need to read a book called 1984 by george orwell or that one by Huxly. . . brave new world, WAKE UP

edit: yes google is fu8^%n huge but there is a bigger picture here, thats all I'm sayin, I figured I better thow in this edit, yea corperations are going to rule the world and yes they will take control of governments throughout the world yada yada yada but this kind of news SHOULD be huge, not for google pr but for the fact that this marks the end of the peoples privacy forever, yea they got satalites to probe everything now but this is the last step, after this thats it, the government can take any thing it wants from us, I'll probbibly have a swat squad raid my house for typing such things but thats the world we are almost in, almost. . . almost their. . .

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 3:37 PM

Someone turn theswitch off.

Thanks. :)

Score: 0

By theswitch

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 4:35 PM

hehe, I'm done

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 4:38 PM

:P

Sorry, man...couldn't resist.

Score: 0

By theswitch

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 4:47 PM

Question #2:

how do I write the above in a non wako kind of way cause I think people missed my point?

hmmmmm. . . (thinking). . . .?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 6:38 PM

You could try writing about the truth, instead of spreading paranoia and lies.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 9:45 AM

Play nice with the crazies, now...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 5:23 PM

You could try removing the tin-foil hat. That might help a bit.

;)

Of course, then you'd be subjected to reprogramming...but you'd make more sense...it's a trade-off, I guess.

Score: 0

By eman8ions

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 2:56 PM

IP address = Personal Identification.

If it didn't, the music industry could not have sued anybody.

Therefor no matter what the conjecture, turning over IP addresses along with all the other data equates to turning over personal information.

MS says 'no personal data was involved'... which if they turned over IP's is an intentionally misleading statement (read: blatant lie)

Score: 0

By mtsuguitar

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 3:29 PM

I read into that also and laughed at that same thing. Total BS.

Score: 0

By mtsuguitar

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 2:34 PM

Most of you on this thread are wrong. The fact is that google gets a few more than one million searches per day.. wouldn't ya say? Big Brother will ask for the one million random searches (AND FREAKING IPS!) and then they will ask for more later if Google just allowed them to have free reign.

The fact is also that if you are really interested in finding bad guys, you will ask for targeted information based on IPs that belong to people you suspect of doing something.... That, of course, is fine because they would have just cause. But to just data mine and pull up some info on the searches is pointless... unless, of course, you want to check the first million so that you will know what to ask for later. That gets back into the part where they will never stop.

I guarantee if Google offered our administration free reign over all of their content they would seize the oppurtunity. That, my friends, is a bad thing.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 6:40 PM

Sorry, but it's your post on this thread that is wrong.

The government is looking to put a stop to the business that are publishing unrestricted pornography, not to spy on users.

In other words, the government is looking to censor pornography to protect children... not sue them.

*grumbles about people's inability to read, and thinks that people need to go back to school instead of looking at porn...*

Score: 0

By mtsuguitar

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 2:09 AM

What's wrong with a little porn? Maybe that's why you grumble?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 9:13 AM

I'm not the one promoting censorship... I'm just pointing out the flaws in everyone's complaints. :)

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 9:11 PM

The fact is you don't know what the government intends to do and that is exactly what happens when these broad and vague witch hunts are allowed. If you research the history of this supoena there is a new justification by the government everytime there is a valid argument against compliance to this frivolous subpoena.

It does seem a little odd that the government would go around collecting information to fight over a law that was nullified by the Supreme Court over two years ago. This isn't exactly a situation where there is going to be another vote - the Supreme Court has ruled...so what is the purpose of this data collection exercise? You sure can't figure it out with all the double talk coming from the small part of govenment that is on this campaign.

This is not a case where the legislators are fact finding to write a new bill. It would certainly be a sorry state if business and citizens were suddenly required to supply millions of pieces of data just because the administration or the Justice Department doesn't like the state of the law or wishes to milk some politically correct campaign.

The intial DOJ spin was all about gathering data to support an overturned law that is in effect unconstitutional. If we are to assume that the government was straightforward in it's rationalization of this supoena then this supoena action was NOT about enforcing laws already on the books. It was a fact finding mission to support a political agenda. Since when is it the right thing to serve up this information because a few in the government don't like the Supreme Court decision?

Reaserch the history of this mess and get over it. If congress can't write a law that can withstand constitutional scrutiny then vote some legislators in who can.

I would much rather see some government follow through on issues like bribery in congress, FEMA bribes and kickbacks and influence peddling. How bout we supoena finance records of those in close relationships with lobbyists?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 11:16 PM

Actually, I took the time to actually read all the articles (on other sites as well), and I took the time to look the limited information up on the DOJ site... For now, I trust their intentions. If I later see a problem, I will be among those taking actions to resolve it. I see no reason to create paranoia against a problem that doesn't yet exist.

Score: 0

By jerrico

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 1:23 PM

So why cant the DOJ use the information that they have aquired from the other search engines that are so willing to flex and bend, to gov with little resistence.Why should Google have to spend many hours and dollars collecting and sorting through this info for the gov when they havent broken any laws? It sounds like some Hitler s*** to me. I dont need the gov trying to protect my children. I can do that on my own Because I monitor what my kids do

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 8:44 AM

Because they aren't spending hours on it at all... they already have the log files all they have to do is perform a data-dump of what they want. Those of us who actually know how to use technology don't take forever to accomplish our jobs......

You say that you don't need the government to protect you, and yet it's the liberal party that always wants to ban this and censor that. The people of New Orleans said they didn't need extra help or money to improve their dams and safeguards, and then when the problems came they cried no one was helping them fast enough. Go figure.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jan 30, 2006 - 8:19 AM

So why doesn't the DOJ only get their information from others? Because, Google is number one and the number one when it comes ad serving and directing internet searches to the sites. Why not go to the number one source that most people use. They are not asking only for Google's, but others as well.

Why doesn't Google want to give out the information, possible - possibly, they have something to hide. Like directing young users to Internet sites that are innappropriate. Did you ever think of that. The last thing they care about at the end of the day, is your rights.

The very same facts that you argue for Google on could be used for the govt in their asking for the information. Google can give information that does pertain to the directives, but not give out any secret information from their business. Concede that point. I hardly feel that Google needs to keep any of the specific information about individuals in order to do better business. If it were so darn private, then why do they collect and store it?

There are corrupt people in the government and there are corrupt people in business. I don't think lumping everthing or everyone into a large category of corruption is the best point to take on this matter.

Score: 0

By eman8ions

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 2:58 PM

hear here

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 2:29 PM

"Google Heads to Court to Protect Users"

This is Nate speaking. Whether or not it is truly "to protect users" is knowledge only Google truly knows for certain...

Score: 0

By iDMan

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 2:14 PM

You guys have been hugging trees so long... And protecting the environment and your "rights" now far exceeds a childs right to be protected from preditors that intentionally prey on our young. Issues like these should prevent you from using Google, but instead empower you to nominate them for ACLU client of the year!

Score: 0

By roj

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 9:08 PM

Byte me with that stupitity masquerading as logic.

When you start down the slippery slope that obviates individual privacy rights, what do you think happens?

Man, I swear some of these mental midgets in your country should be sterilized to protect the gene pool in general - their overzealous myopia is really a very dangerous thing to those around them.

By the way, for the record, I have three kids.

Score: 0

By ehn

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 8:08 PM

Damn the right to bear arms! So long as kids shoot up kids at school... blah...blah...blah.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 6:51 PM

Democrats, I mean Liberals, I mean Obstructionists don't have a clue what they want...

They want to protect children by banning everything bad (censor this, ban that)... but they demand complete freedom of speech (first amendment rights)... they demand privacy (fourth amendment, which they fail to understand only protects against unwarranted police searches, not "privacy")... but then they want bigger government control on life (and government programs-- healthcare, unemployment benefits)... but then they complain when that government starts controlling things... and what happens when they don't get their way? They threaten to block votes from occurring, they file lawsuits... they start slandering people by calling them fascist, propaganda spewing, fanboy, slave-owners.

Republicans may be corrupt, capitalist money grubbers, arrogant, and completely intolerant of political correctness, but at least we tell it like it is, and we know what we want. We don't expect you to like it, we just expect you to shut the hell up and deal with it. Sure we like to spend the insane amounts of money we make, but that's what keeps the economy going. And we're not the type that will cry to the courts when we don't get our way... we just go back to the drawing board and do something bigger and better.

Score: 0

By ehn

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 1:15 PM

Would your definition of Obstructionists include the president when he and his administration opposed the formation of the 9/11 Commission?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/...1.commission/index.html

How about when the president opposed extending the commission's deadline to investigate?
http://www.washingtonpos...4Jan18?language=printer

How about when they blacked out portions of the commission's official report, and as if that wasn't enough, published their own "official" account?
http://www.nytimes.com/2.../politics/14terror.html

Score: 0

By roj

edited Jan 27, 2006 - 9:28 PM

"Democrats, I mean Liberals, I mean Obstructionists don't have a clue what they want..."

But tunnel-visioned neo-fascist who pray to the extreme right every night (Because It's The Moral And Right Thing To Do) definitely do know what they want. Yup. Kill the commies. Shoot anything that doesn't believe in our god. Imprison anyone who doesn't do it in the missionary position - they're sexual deviants. Crush individual rights in the name of truth, justice and democracy. Make sure that everyone watches and reports on anyone else lest our Great Society be infiltrated by Unbelieving Filth from Outside. Might makes right and we have a Divine Right to be the world's police force. We'll justify anything and everything, no matter how extreme in the name of that Holy Cause.

Wonderful version of of "tell it like it is" you've got there.

The sad thing is that you DO go back to the drawing board and the obscenity does get bigger but even sadder is the fact that you actually BELIEVE that junk.

Fortunately, the rest of the planet remains somewhat more level headed.

With that, I bid you adieu. You can stop holding your breath now and go back to your black and white universe where everything is So Simple. Your exposure to this unpleasant dose of "how it really is" where people actually have individual rights is over.

Cheery Bye!

Score: 0

By iDMan

posted Jan 29, 2006 - 11:08 PM

You need to flip the channel from Air America or CNN, at least five minutes a day. You have aligned your beliefs to the extreme left and insist that anyone without your views is on the extreme right. You take advantage American Soldiers and Marines (There is a difference) fighting for your rights and I would wager that you publicly praise (probably even have a sticker on the back of your Toyota Prius – that actually gets worse gas mileage than many other vehicles on the road) and then you secretly. I believe that everyone should have a moral and ethical compass, and there is a difference. And I must ask you... If you beliefs in the rights of an organization protecting another organization that is "preying" on children, which way is your compass pointing. I realize and appreciate the fact that you have a problem with “Praying,” but do you also have a problem with "preying?"

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 11:26 PM

roj, I've yet to read a sensible post by you in the time I've been visiting BetaNews. The fact that this response is no different isn't a surprise. I'm voicing my opinions that are based on the facts and the views I have... you do the same. The difference is that I don't sit around crying about it when you and others disagree. I just deal with it. That being said, I'm not going to respond to the accusations you make, because I view them as nothing more than the usual slander used to turn people against real information.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Jan 28, 2006 - 1:32 PM

Given your oft displayed acumen, I'm surpised you *can* absorb information.

Your "views" indicate that nothing more recent than 1950s dogma has ever permeated your conciousness.

Given that last, it's not surprising you can't respond - you wouldn't know how.

End of line.

Score: 0

By iDMan

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 12:15 AM

Nice use of your "Word of the Day" calendar... But, I suggest putting the calendar on a day past 9/11/2001, because that is where we live. Sure, you put a flag on your porch for two weeks. And I now see the problem, surrounding yourself for far too long with liberal professors in persuit of your doctorate degree. There is a real world out there where text books and law books can't defend an protect your perceived "rights." You curse anyone right of John McCain and blame the hurricanes and other natural disasters on George Bush. Grow up, jump of your computer, get a job, and please stop counting on the government for your paycheck. You bleeding heart has gotten below your feet and you a sliding yourself into a hole of "Why Me?" and "Who is to blame?"

You probably curse the use of wire tapping on people who have contacted terrorist within our country. Yet, you feel zero compassion for a child who is being terrorized by organizations who prey on our youth. I got one question, "roj, do you prey?"

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 30, 2006 - 8:46 AM

You sounded a lot like Jack Nicholson's character Colonel Jessup on A Few Good Men, lol... right on, though!

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 9:24 PM

Who is we? You surely aren't implying that you are speaking for Republicans now are you?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 27, 2006 - 3:02 PM

That's the hook for evil. It disguises itself to look like it's the "right" thing to do.

Slowly you start trading your rights away in order to "protect the innocent".

When you finally realize you have no rights left...it's too late. All in the name of what is "right".

When do we get to say the "right" way is not always the "good" or "correct" way?

Yes, stopping the child pr0nographers is the "right" thing to do. This just may not be a "good" way to do it.

Score: 0