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

MSN Admits to Sharing Search Data

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

January 23, 2006, 1:20 PM

Following news that Google refused to comply with a subpoena requiring the company to turn over search records from its database, much speculation swirled about the response from rivals MSN and Yahoo. MSN has broken its silence and now acknowledges that it did share search data, but no personal information.

The subpoena was handed down by the U.S. Department of Justice last summer, and was reportedly issued to gather data to support a child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the Supreme Court. Under that law, the government could punish pornography sites that made content easily accessible to minors.

Microsoft's MSN division says it worked hard to limit the request to data that followed its principals of protecting customer privacy.

"The applicable parties to the case received this data, and the parties agreed that the information specific to this case would remain confidential. Specifically, we produced a random sample of pages from our index and some aggregated query logs that listed queries and how often they occurred," explained MSN Search general manager Ken Moss.

Moss added that, "Absolutely no personal data was involved," and said the government was only able to see how frequently a query term occurred. The data did not allow officials to look up IP address or see if a user who searched one term also searched another.

In its own response, Google contends that supplying the information would violate the privacy of its users, as well as divulge trade secrets that could help its competitors. Company officials said they plan to fight the request, calling it "overreaching."

"We tried to strike the right balance in a very sensitive matter. Now that you have more information, you can be the judge," MSN's Moss said. But some users disagreed with that assessment.

"What if on the basis of the results you have given them, they subpoena you to produce IP details of specific queries that they find questionable?" wrote one MSN user. "This is a cop out and our privacy has been thrown out of the door and a window opened on our searches for all to see."

Add a Comment (144 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 rob51383

edited Jan 28, 2006 - 4:30 AM

Quoting "the government was only able to see how frequently a query term occurred." is outrageous because this data is readily available to the public from every major search engine. For instance by going to http://inventory.overtur...rchinventory/suggestion/ and typing in "Porn" you can see that there were 5,088,504 searches in December 2005.

Why would the government need access to their raw database to get "frequency" reports if this information is available to everyone? The fact is Bush is in hot water with his whole privacy violation issue that he is trying to substantiate his actions by blatantly committing even more acts of illegal privacy violations.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg....

Score: 0

By Reap_r

edited Jan 25, 2006 - 10:14 AM

I do get quite frustrated by issues like this. This is not really a privacy issue. Even if it were, there is no "right" to privacy as such. The supreme court has invented this "right" as a way to strike down laws that they did not agree with. The proper way to change law is through the elected legislature not the courts. An example of why this is necessary is the slavery issue. The supreme court once stated that african americans were not human and therefore did not have any rights. We now know how terribly wrong this was, but the point is that when unelected bodies start playing fast and loose with the constitution and making up (or eliminating) rights to suit their philosophy there is trouble. There is a right to be free of unreasonable (ie random) search and siezure and this subject could end up going that way, but right now it is not. It sounds more like an attempt to expect some sort of convoluted and illogical form of business ethics from a group of companies that deal in information.

If the government wants data, they should pay for it like the rest of us would have to. But that very issue raises another...Why does the government need this data. Over the years the government has steadily expanded its role in managing the lives of US citizens. Every year it takes new powers for itself, but yet never seems to give them up. Now the government feels that it is it's job to tell us how to raise our kids, how to eat, how to think (political correctness, church/state issues).

The role of government should be limited and focused. It should provide for defense, order (keep the strong from preying on the weak through violence), trade with foreign powers and the protection of civil rights. Where in there do we see the need for them to be doing demographic data mining to find out what kids or adults are doing on the internet. Parents are responsible for protecting their kids not the government. Besides, if you think that the government is really interested in anything other than looking out for its own power (ie re-election) then you are living in a fantasy world.

So...this, like many other efforts by them is more about appearance and less about substance. I know I paint with a wide brush, there are certainly some good folks in the government, but by and large the government is a necessary evil that is growing more and more dangerous to the very liberties it purports to protect.

Score: 0

By jimbeauxlc

edited Feb 15, 2006 - 6:36 AM

Amen!

Score: 0

By RaMb0z0

edited Jan 25, 2006 - 9:08 AM

"...So, Google, if everything is shiny and happy in the Googleplex, please hand over the list of banned words for every country. Put them on a public server in the US, where freedom of speech prevails. And please, offer every other country in the world never mind its economic size or internet market share an easy chance to ban their own search words too in Google. That would be fair, and algorithmically balanced, wouldnt it? This would allow every dictator, every repressive regime, and every government restricting human rights to work with you. And your market share would be growing even more. And, by your argument, youd be making positive contributions at the same time...."

http://blog.outer-court....ive/2006-01-25-n33.html

Score: 0

By TanNg

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 6:13 AM

I dont understand who said they protect privacy? What kind of human right do they protect? The right of children to access porn sites? Or the right of sex sites to advertize themself to children?

//The government was only able to see how frequently a query term occurred//

Privacy = Pesonal Information. What the goverment seeking for is Aggregate Information. So could someone please tell me what privacy IN THIS CASE does Google protect?

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 10:15 PM

For the Google groupies:
http://technology.guardi...94294,00.html?gusrc=rss

Enjoy your "Good" company. They suck just the same as any big company.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 10:31 AM

Well duh, all big corporations suck. I thought everyone already knew this.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

edited Jan 25, 2006 - 9:19 AM

All but the most complete fanboys will be as disappointed by this action as the similar action taken recently taken by MSN.

However, it's not likely to change any minds about the current issue regarding Googles reaction to the U.S. government request.

Score: 0

By asellus

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:34 PM

There is nothing MSN has done wrong. Has your privacy being violated? I don't think so.

MSN (and almost of whole Microsoft websites) are certified by TRUSTe, a non-profit privacy organization. The data provided to DoJ by Microsoft doesn't violate users' privacy in any way. If it does, you can seek help from TRUSTe in filing a civil lawsuit that you can won.

"What if on the basis of the results you have given them, they subpoena you to produce IP details of specific queries that they find questionable?"

This actually is highly unlikely to happen. Just because you type "I love Osama bin Laden" or "I love child porn" into MSN Search will not make DoJ file a second subpoena. But it is legal for DoJ to do so, under evidence law as explained at http://news.com.com/FAQ+...6029042.html?tag=cd.hed

I think Google is scared because unlike MSN or Yahoo, Google associate your search engine history with the GMail account, and there is no way to disassociate those list from your account. MSN and Yahoo! did not do that, because TRUSTe will require them to provide means for users to delete the search history tied to their yahoo/hotmail.com account, which will make such association useless anyway. Google just doesn't want people to see how tightly are your search queries are tied up with your GMail account.

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 2:11 PM

So if I were use use Microsoft Office Live, would my data held on their servers be privvy to a sopoena collection from another company?

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 10:33 AM

Absolutely. Your information is only private until the government decides they want it.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 4:32 PM

What the hell does this have to do with MSN Search queries?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 4:12 PM

what?

If a government suboena requested the data, yes.

If another comapny wanted it, they'd have to jump through enough hoops to prove they have a legal right to than would likely be worthwhile.

Score: 0

By DSM

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 2:03 PM

I have one question for those that defend Google.

Does Google RESPECT YOUR PRIVACY WHEN YOU READ AN EMAIL FROM GOOGLE MAIL ?

Also what logs does AOL keep ? if they use Google Search

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 4:16 PM

I have 1 answer:

YES THEY DO BECAUSE THEY (and by they I mean computers) ONLY SCAN FOR KEYWORDS (and by keywords. No context, no personally identifiable information) FOR THE PURPOSES OF TARGETED, RELEVANT, AND SIMPLE ADS.

I would suggest you read the ToS and quit shouting....it makes you look like a moron.

Score: 0

By Eeyan

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 12:57 PM

Looks like another 'incremental intrusion'.... get it, a bit at a time, that way it isn't noticed.............

Anyway hope these companies are billing the info' requester. The costs etc.........

Score: 0

By John_Bedin

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 11:55 AM

And you Americans dare call your country a democracy? Russia is more democratic than you are. You bend over and take up your a** from uncle Bush,the RIAA,the CIA.Now MSN is bending over and taking , at least Google had the fortitude to refuse,maybe because Brilin is Russian.

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 5:58 PM

You seem to be confused.

1) I'm assuming you mean "The U.S." when you say "you Americans" as it is very difficult for an entire continent to have a single governmental system. Canadians are Americans too as far as I know. Mexicans too...

2) The U.S. is, and has always been, a Republic.

Oh, and... shutup. =)

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Jan 25, 2006 - 10:40 AM

I believe the ignoramus is referring to us in the U.S. At least the way I've always heard, Canadians and Mexicans are referred to as such. I guess for the U.S., Americans sounds better than USians.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 2:05 PM

First...I'm ignoring the fact that you are completely ignorant of what you speak, otherwise you would not be so angry with us. Second, I believe in some ways we are still a democracy--but we keep getting more and more government programs, starting with things that go back to FDR and the New Deal, that do nothing but enable Americans to depend on the government when WE are the people (Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people) The government was NEVER intended to be a separate entity, only a group of leaders who represent our views that we elect to office.

So in some ways, take away the anger and the sinister connotation you put on it, and you are sort of right. I don't blame GWB for this though, we definately disagree there. This started way before he came in office.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 1:00 PM

Never called it a Democracy. Hell, it's now barely even a Representative Democracy.

Of course, that would mean little to Trolls like you. :)

Have a nice day.

Score: 0

By ghammer

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 9:03 AM

It always amazes me that people think a company should be arbiter of what the law says.
Folks, 'Google Earth" is just a brand, not a fact.
Google will be compelled to give up the data.
Funny how they are so "righteous" on this while bending to the will of the Chinese govt to limit search results, etc.

Meantime, quit doing things that your wife doesn't want you to do. Then you won't be so scared of others seeing what 'dark secrets' exist on your machine.

Score: 0

By bostonma

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 9:57 AM

Well said ghammer!
p.s. Chinese gov't was just making sure you're
not doing what your wife doesn't want...!
(besides a bit of Communist control ;)

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 9:47 AM

The depth of contradiction and hypocrisy is your post astonishing. The FCC has an employment opportunity waiting for you.

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 9:00 AM

Perhaps, too many of you are just too paranoid of the whole thing. What are you possibly searching that you feel(if it got out) you would be punished by the courts?

It should not be that you are afraid of the govt for looking at what you search, as I am sure they already do to a specific point; but should be concerned what Google, MSN, Yahoo, are doing with the information. The information is more likely to be exploited by them, than the govt.

The govt could care less that you searched "animal sex", "cruel deaths", or "bin ladin." They are, and more than just our govt, concerned about how easily accessible pornography is on the internet - whether intentional or unintentional.

The information that can be given to the govt should be tailored to what they are asking, not given IP addresses or personal information. But, then again, I ask, why does this information even exist with Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. If you are so parnoid, then why do you give it freely to them - and feel that they are keeping it safe for you.

I side with the lot of you that feel the parents should take more of an active interest in the habits of their children on the Internet, but when you type in "white house" for your school project, you are not directed to the actual "White House." This I feel is devious behavior on the side of pornographic sites. Let's face it, that in our society today, the Internet, TV, Music, etc have become under attack from such an industry as well as moral decline; but we all don't have to live by those values - it should be a choice. Just like it is your choice to take an active interest in your child or not.

There are places we know that kids will just end up falling into, but we don't have to take the stand of making it easier to do; just because we do it as adults and like to get to it as easy as possible. As a teacher and parent, we can't be everywhere all the time. It would be helpful if it were not so easy to corrupt, hurt, distort the thinking of children. Making it harder to access, just like putting warnings on music can help do this. "Help" is the key word, not do it for us, but only "help." If anything, to help filtering methods work better for those parents and individuals who do care.(Not that you don't care)

Google should tailor the information as MSN(and others) has done and comply. But more importantly, you should be asking questions as towards why this personal iformation is being kept about you by the very company you are siding with.(blindly - may I add) I would think that they don't have your best interest at heart, but only their wallets and shareholders.

IMO

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 10:15 AM

"The govt could care less that you searched "animal sex", "cruel deaths", or "bin ladin." They are, and more than just our govt, concerned about how easily accessible pornography is on the internet - whether intentional or unintentional."

I could be wrong, don't scorch me with flames--but perhaps google has something to hide. I know that google DOES have search results for illegal material (child porn etc.), as a doctor I know got arrested for it. Guess how he found it? Google. Now, is it illegal for google to do that? I hardley think so...but if they do that, could google be protecting their own skins in the name of "privacy concerns"?

Any thoughts?

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 1:44 PM

bourgeoisdude
When it comes to legal vs illegal, there will always be a grey area. I am not convinced that what Google is doing is illega(keeping information), but it is funny that the very people that cry about privacy of information, use the service in which Google states "will keep information on you." It therefore becomes public domain, and the information they have is given out to others that serve them, but when it could even potentionally be used in a fashion greater for the common good than not, be held and they claim "privacy of information." If it is so private, then why do they keep it, and why do those that use the service give it up so freely.

Which then brings up another point, is it really Google's to give and hold or the one that the information is about? Privacy is a state of mind. You don't have much privacy in America, and if you think so, you are out of your mind. With just a few clicks on the Internet and the right information(very little mind you), you can have a lot of information that most of you would be outraged. The information is being traded like sports-cards and you don't even know it or are just ignorant to it.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 1:29 PM

Aye... it's kind of ironic that the company that in this instance claims to be protecting our privacy has made it their purpose as a business to "archive and index everything".

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jan 25, 2006 - 7:47 AM

Yes, my exact point. But is it then theirs to give out as they please and not for the greater good? I am sure they are passing it out to people that could not care less of what it may potentially do to you or I; and if they are, I am sure they are giving it in a limited form as not to throw secrets out the window. So, they can give similar data to the govt in their quest for specific information.

People are so bent on following the misdirection of the actual point here. They have already given up their privacy by using Google and MSN to begin with. Google has even gone as far as keeping your old mail. I thought that mail was a federally managed regardless of whom is handling it, but I may very well be wrong

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 4:36 PM

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd be more inclined to say that Google is trying to hide the amount of data that they store than trying to protect user privacy.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 5:15 PM

How do you figure?

Couldn't they just as easily as MS did, strip out any personally identifiable information, or...any information they don't want us knowing they know?

Yeah, if you were a conspiracy theorist...

;)

Don't quit yer day-job :P

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 8:29 AM

LOL... I said if I were, and I never claimed to explain or prove my conspiracy.

Score: 0

By bostonma

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 10:01 AM

athome --
It's a relief to know that there are still
level headed, clear thinking people out there!
May your influence spread!

Score: 0

By pc.pain

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 9:56 AM

For clues about what folks might be afraid of, try taking a history course, or simply doing a search online for the history of censorship in the US. Perhaps you'd like to return to the days when contraceptive ads were considered obscene? Or maybe you like the current situation where if you want to say something about d*** Cheney, you have to call him Richard?

Then again, you might believe that the Justice Department really is incapable of defending it's COPA law without this information. They really should learn how to ue a search engine on their own, huh?

Score: 0

By athome

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 5:30 PM

The issue is not about censorship! You have also taken the argument to idiocy. The govt is not trying to stop porn sites from advertising or limiting them on the Internet, but finding a way in which to limit the ability of younger people having access to it. Hardly the same, and if you say that is censorship, we should stop here - you wont hear me anyway.

If anything you should have gotten from history is that there are extremists and you fall under that category. No one, mind you, is saying that Mr. Cheney should be refered to as Richard, because of his first name.

There will always been extremist in America, but they lose site of what really should matter and that is compromise. When we live as close as we do on this small little planet, we need to think of how we can get along. You are entitled to what you think, but if you close your mind to how others think, then you miss it all.

I hope you don't need a lesson in where Earth is(Astronomy,Earth Science). To answer to last question, the data in which to use is that which the search companies hold. It is a sample from the group you are trying to collect data on. Statistically speaking, it is more true to collect it and anaylze it rather than come up with fictitious data in which would hurt their case rather than help. (Math, Psychology, Law)

Score: 0

By googun

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 7:58 AM

There is something quite sinister about this. Tracking someone's activities is a violation of privacy. Certainly if everyone's activities are tracked, some criminal activities will be found, but that does not make it right to snoop on everyone just in case.

MSN should not be handing this information to anyone. It is questionable that they log it anyway. It is such a vast amount of data, MSN must want it for something important otherwise why keep it?

When there's a national census the whole thing is controlled by law, but massive amounts of information are collected about people every day, seemingly with little legal protection for privacy. Surely MSN should seek the permission of the people from whom they collected the information before passing it on to anyone. In the UK we have the Data Protection Act to protect people from this kind of privacy violation, though I'm not sure even that could stop this from happening.

Are we living in a free world or not? The older I get, the less free I seem to be.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 8:28 AM

You're not reading the entire article, or else you are misunderstanding it... At no point in time has the government indicated it is looking to spy on people. They are investigating the number of companies that produce pornographic material illegally by means of providing access to it to children.

Score: 0

By googun

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 7:53 AM

Yes, you are quite correct about the article, but I didn't make my pouint very clearly. I was looking ahead at where this may lead in terms of privacy and the use of information collected about the activities of individuals. I fear that privacy is being eaten away little by little. Just a couple more fields of the data need be revealed to violate everyone's privacy.

If the information is being used to help devise ways to prevent children from accessing pornography then I support it.

Score: 0

By fanboy

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 7:19 AM

As a *di_ck and bush fanboy, I am certainly worried that my searches might be flagged!

*avoiding the BetaNews censor.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:39 AM

Fanboy you're a hoot! :)

d*** and Bush are great together, but nothing competes to hot asian monkey love! ;)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 9:18 AM

I *really* need to change my nick to grammar_nazi.

Or Grammer_nazi...

Yeah. That's it.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:16 AM

I think it's really kind of sad that the boys in the Justice Department still can't figure out how to use a search engine. Were the results ranked by popularity, amount of free content, or length of free trial period? See, Ashcroft was right, removing the drape from the breasts of the Spirit of Justice DID lead to sexual deviance within the department.

Score: 0

By chimpypimpy

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 12:58 AM

"MSN has broken its silence and now acknowledges that it did share search data, but no personal information."

Same with AOL and Yahoo. Since there is no personal information shared there should be no concern. Should be...

Google is doing this as a political move. The founders of Google have close ties to the DNC and the former Clinton administration and want to make a "splash" and show up the Bush administration. Their next move will be to link this subpoena to "domestic spying".

Score: 0

By Couscous

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 1:33 AM

You win the biggest tool of the day award. Congratulations. It only took you 58 minutes.

Score: 0

By fwet

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 2:20 AM

Looks like we have a new tool winner! No comment on story.
Just personal attack.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:39 AM

Yeah, like your post was useful. Not only that, but you're so original that you have to pretend to be another member??? You must be one of those idiots who doesn't actually deserve to have their privacy protected.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:38 AM

And here you are doing the same thing... let's recognize the troll posts and not feed them, eh? Moving on.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 8:09 AM

Trying to "swift boat" me by calling me a troll won't discount the truth. Enjoy you're dictatorship.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 9:46 PM

big deal.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 10:18 AM

With > 88 comments it certainly must be...

Score: 0

By wincement

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 6:02 PM

Not necessarily. Maybe us >88 people are all idiots.

Actually, for some reason, I think that's more likely. =p

Score: 0

By jeffreybt

edited Jan 23, 2006 - 7:19 PM

The internet is not a baby-sister, if little Tony is caught looking at porn its Mom & Dads fault for not watching him. The US Government should not have to step in and do a job the parents should be doing.

sadly each day more restrictions are applied…so much for the anonymous freedom of the internet.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 4:02 PM

Sadely though, this is very true. A lot of parents look to the internet and TV for that matter as a baby sitter. They whine and complain about this type of material being available for the children to consume. Yet they seem content to take no resposibility for restricting access to or learning how to restrict access to said materials.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:41 AM

Parents??? How dare you suggest, in a family values, culture of life, that parents should actually pay attention to what their children are doing???

Score: 0

By tannman1

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:56 PM

Perhaps watching their kids would be better then watching Rush or listening to W's BS about how he values the constitution

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:36 AM

Yes, yes they should... but that shouldn't stop us from helping the parents out by making sure that content isn't available to them in the first place.

Score: 0

By jeffreybt

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 3:34 PM

if you have a child whos trying to look at porn.

-Buy Server based LOGGING watch what they are doing
-Filter what they can look at
-Put the computer where you can see them and when you leave they get off.
-Buy AOL for Kids.

ANd Why is naked body / sex so taboo in America?
I still remember a lady one tv saying Janet Jacksons nipple scarred her family for life.

Score: 0

By tannman1

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:57 PM

Have you ever seen some of the naked bodies here?? lol

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 8:53 AM

lmao

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 8:31 AM

Exactly... lol...

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 11:38 AM

There is no way to completely accomplish that without violating the First Ammendment to death.

There's an interesting article here:
http://news.com.com/Do+W...0200.html?tag=nefd.lede

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 1:31 PM

What's so hard about requiring appropriate content restrictions?

Score: 0

By jeffreybt

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 3:10 PM

question, even if they force porn sites to lock down access its still only for US based sites. do you plan to just block out the rest of the world?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 2:03 PM

Some people see restrictions of *any* sort to be a direct violation of their "God given" freedom.

Of course, some people were deprived of oxygen at birth...not that I'm suggesting a correllation of any kind.

Score: 0

By jeffreybt

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 3:03 PM

I don't believe in God ;D
people who do were deprived of oxygen at birth :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 9:20 AM

So long as it's available to us, er...you...er...

Yeah.

Score: 0

By school1012

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 10:01 PM

This has to do with child porn kids that are 10 years old being exploited.

Score: 0

By jeffreybt

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:29 AM

"Under that law, the government could punish pornography sites that made content easily accessible to minors"

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:35 AM

Thank you for actually discovering the truth and presenting it! :)

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 6:29 PM

question...

why do we need privacy?

are we hiding something?
are we embarrased?
are we afraid of attack, ridicule?
are we breaking the law?

"Your clothes conceal much of your beauty, yet they hide not the unbeautiful.

And though you seek in garments the freedom of privacy you may find in them a harness and a chain.

Would that you could meet the sun and the wind with more of your skin and less of your raiment...

Forget not that modesty is for a shield against the eye of the unclean.

And when the unclean shall be no more, what were modesty but a fetter and a fouling of the mind?"

from The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:45 AM

Please leave your search, medical, financial, voting, video rental and library records at the door, along with the freedom that your don't value enough to defend.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 9:30 AM

freedom isnt the same thing as privacy

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:34 AM

I value my freedoms very much, thank you. I just don't assume that I am somehow entitled to things that I don't really have. Instead I fight to keep the freedoms I have, and if I don't I fight to get them through the electoral process.

Oh I get it... obstructionists are too busy filibustering all the votes that would change things... how quick of me to forget such pettiness.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 8:12 AM

You aren't even aware of what you have. You believe every politician that tells you what you have, as long as they are members of the party you voted for. You won't even know your freedom is gone until five minutes before your execution.

Score: 0

By tannman1

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:58 PM

Bravo

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 8:29 AM

No sir, you are incorrect. I am aware of what I have, because I take time to hear, see, and understand both sides before making up my own mind on an issue rather than taking the side with the loudest outcry of paranoia.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 9:43 AM

Hahahahaha!!! Yeah right. You parrot the party line better than anyone here.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 6:21 PM

Oh crap. This is one time when I don't like Google. Now they're going to look like heroes for sticking up to the big bad government when really, there was no reason to.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:48 AM

It takes baby-steps to get a society to give up freedom. Google didn't take this baby-step. Pretty impressive for a corporation.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 9:01 PM

Only to the fools who can't distinguish doing the right thing with doing the popular thing.

Score: 0

By dvferret

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 8:14 PM

Ya I agree. this is when i really begin to not support google as much and start to support msn more.

Score: 0

By paulstorm

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 6:08 PM

Yahoo! did the same. So did AOL (which uses Google; and Google owns 5% of)...perhaps Google's argument will be that you already got our goods from AOL.

Why does the article harp on MSN when Yahoo! & AOL did the same?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:31 AM

Nate has a bias against any company that he feels violates a person's privacy... but especially if it's a big "power-monger" company like Microsoft.

Sorry Nate, I don't mean to attack you... because despite the fact that it is strictly targeting Microsoft while ignoring AOL and Yahoo, this article is very well written. You state the important facts of the article and you managed to keep the spin out of it. Thanks for that!

I notice that a lot of users read only the last paragraph though and jump on that point. The problem is that they're not looking at the browsers... they're looking to prosecute the content providers that are offering it inappropriately to children.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:04 AM

Maybe thanks to Microsoft's fine defense of censorship of Chinese bloggers, including turning over information to the Chinese government.

Score: 0

By rla0001

edited Jan 23, 2006 - 3:59 PM

The problem with the release of this information is what it leads to in terms of privacy issues.

If a government subpoena is issued for a specific purpose there is little to prevent the collected data from being used for another purpose, particullarly if the information collected becomes part of the record of a public court proceeding.

The idea that privacy is protected because the initial information can not be directly associated with an individual is hogwash. If the government receives data that indicates that unknown people were searching for specific terms it is only a small step to obtain a court order to force search engines to identify the specific names of individuals or ip addresses of persons searching for those terms.

So you have people searching terms like, bomb making, porn, warez, cracks, p2p or anything that might be interpreted as "questionable" then we have a problem. It will not matter if a college student was doing research, some one was searching out of curiosity or just popping in search terms for the fun of it. If some government agent or prosecutor is inclined to investigate then innocent people easily become subject to at least some cursory investigation as a result of these disclosures.

With each round of disclosures more and more personal information becomes non private. This is exactly how things proceed folks.

It isn't a matter of what folks may or may not have to hide. It is a matter that, as we continue to erode the basic constitutional protections, we also erode the freedoms we claim to be fighting to protect. It becomes an issue where federal agents may well start deciding what someone was thinking or doing rather than knowing the facts.

We have already reached a point where words like "terrorist" and "secret operation" are automatically flagged at the NSA. We have already reached a point where every credit and debit card transaction is recorded and lays a clear pattern of the types of purchases individuals are making. We already have a system where your medical history is fully available to employers who operate administered health plans. Employers and others have access to cell phone and credit records of millions of americans.

This is not the world I want to live in and I can't imagine why we would want to assume that the purpose of these intrusions is to protect us.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:22 AM

The problem with your post, although you make a sensible argument, is that you assume we have all the protections to privacy that you claim.

In reality, we are protected only from illegal search and siezure... in this case, however, their search is entirely legal. There are laws that state child access to pornography is illegal. They want the search queries that result in porn sites being listed. They are the ones that have to do the hard work of looking at the sites to verify which ones are compliant with the law... there is no intent to prosecute browsers of that porn-- only the sites that offer it to minors. In order to get some of their information, they went to court and got a court order to subpoena the information. MSN, AOL, and Yahoo complied with the order. To refuse as Google has done may seem like a noble sentiment, but they are the ones breaking the law.

I can appreciate that many people may not like the law as it is... that you somehow feel entitled to something that you aren't truly given, but instead of crying foul that your rights are being violated when they're not, you should be arguing to have existing laws changed and updated to actually give you the rights you seek. Until then, your argument while valid is based on false premises.

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 10:20 PM

I didnt argue law at all, but you did seem to put that in my mouth for the purposes of rationalizing your position. Since you did bring up the law there is certainly a rich history of cases involving abuses by government agents where the acquisition of documentary, physical or electronic evidence is a factor.

My premise is more about how these seemingly innocent information requests turn into "witch hunts" and concerns about how constitutional protections are being eroded.

If the feds actually are interested in finding child porn sites perhaps they could just search the internet rather than looking at what people are searching for. That seems to make sense to me. own creation.

You may have no concerns about these privacy issues and that is certianly your right. Just remember your arguments when someone improperly interprets your history or actions or digs for information that you never expected to become public knowledge *grinz.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 8:37 AM

Well I can certainly see your paranoid delusions as a possibility, but as the saying goes, I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Until then it's nothing more than unwarranted, improbable speculation.

Score: 0

By rla0001

posted Jan 25, 2006 - 12:54 PM

Paranoid Dillusions? Unwarrented?

I can assure you that there is nothing paranoid about the real probabilities that information collected will be exploited well beyond the stated purposes listed in the affidavits supporting the government supeonas.

I stand by what I presented initially and there is a substantial record to back my position. Do some research on investigations of section 605 violations that have occured over the past few decades and see if the trend doesn't effect your opinions.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:51 AM

I'd like to nominate this for BetaNews post of the year. Well thought out and well said!

Score: 0

By Marticus

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 3:28 AM

Interesting point. I'll have to think about it.

Score: 0

By zee7

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 8:51 PM

At last! Someone who can understand the greater issues at stake and make a lucid point. Those of you who find it so much easier to call names and label total strangers tinfoil hat wearers rather than make your point with intelligent discourse could learn a thing or two from rla0001. Best wishes to you all, nonetheless.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Jan 23, 2006 - 4:53 PM

This about sum it up?

“They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Oh, and, ah....you've been flagged.

:)

Have a nice day.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 3:33 PM

I want to know why the article's picture on the BN home page is an MSN Butterfly with a shattered-glass wing... Are you saying something is broken with MSN? It's not an accurate statement being made by the image.

The compliance with a legal order is by no means a violation of piracy, since the only thing that was asked for and submitted is a list of query strings.

To identify that 800 people searched for "sex and candy" while 8,000,000 searched for "hot wild sex" is by no means a violation of privacy. If they submitted that "GoodThings2Life searched for asian monkey love" then I would be a little angry, but they're not (and I don't, btw... lol).

This whole debate is retarded, and any of you who whine and cry about this being a legitimate issue don't have enough to do.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 6:55 AM

If you don't know when someone is sneaking into your Constitution to steal the last few rights you have, you don't deserve them. Please sign over your wife and kids and leave the keys to your house at the door. After all, you wouldn't have the balls to protect them either.

Score: 0

By tannman1

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:00 PM

We still have one??

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:10 AM

This post only demonstrates that you're a troll with nothing to offer but conspiracy and personal attacks. That's the problem with obstructionist thinking... you can't argue a point successfully, because you have no verifiable merit to your claims. You state a position, but then refuse to support it with evidence and proof, then you start attacking anyone with a contrary view to your own. When you have something to contribute to the argument, I will glady provide further evidence that you are wrong.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 7:29 AM

If you're not smart enough to get the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the only defense that I need, then you shouldn't be living in a free society to begin with. I'm sure the Chinese would welcome you. Need help packing?

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 8:32 AM

No thanks, I love my USA. Perhaps you could explain how you've misinterpreted the constitution to believe the way you do... then maybe I can understand why you're wrong, and offer you a solution since in all your criticism and attacks you offer no alternative solutions.

Score: 0

By pc.pain

edited Jan 24, 2006 - 11:54 AM

What would you like an alternative to, requesting these search records??? That's so dumb it leaves me nearly speechless! Okay, you improve the filters available to parents. That can be done without these search engine records, providing the investigators actually know how to run a search engine. Then you actually use the proposed .XXX domain, but you require it, instead of suggesting it, for porn sites (yes, offshore juristiction will cause problems, nothings perfect and it's a start). Finally, you get parents to get off their lazy asses and have them pay attention to what their children are doing, instead of having the government do their job.

There, you have a couple of proactive suggestions. I'm sure there are others. You want to tell me why anyone needs those search engine records to accomplish that? You want to tell me what those search engine records actually accomplish???

What they accomplish is shaving off just a little more of out rights.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 6:26 PM

PERFECTLY said.

Score: 0

By randal2k

posted Jan 23, 2006 - 4:50 PM

MSN is not working for there users, they have clearly shown they cannot be trusted.
Government order or not, the right falls on the head of the individual with the power to do so.
What i would like to know is did MSN even run this by there legal team? I for one have now blocked MSN/Yahoo (they did it too) from my homes access. None will be searching for anything from them.
Why? not becuase i have anything to hide, but becuase i cannot trust them at all!
same reason i dropped everquest 2, sony, after rootkit cannot be trusted.

get it?

as for our government, it's in a state of deprivity and a shell of waht it was before bush illegally took office and began destroying america.

Score: 0

By GoodThings2Life

edited Jan 23, 2006 - 5:52 PM

No, I don't get it... all you've done is taken a dump on the truth and reality of the situation... What evidence and proof do you have to warrant your statement that they can't be trusted? You accuse them of violating your privacy but you fail to demonstrate how. They didn't do anything with customer information, only search queries.

"Moss added that, "Absolutely no personal data was involved," and said the government was only able to see how frequently a query term occurred. The data did not allow officials to look up IP address or see if a user who searched one term also searched another."

--- By this statement alone your entire presumption of guilt is nullified and voided and makes you nothing more than a whiner.

Furthermore, failure to comply with a court order generally results in being found in contempt. But of course, I'm sure that as an obvious bleeding-heart obstructionist, you don't really care about that.

You can't compare a Sony Rootkit to MSN telling the government that there were 9,381 searches for "Mrs. Claus is a HOTT, SEXY MAMA!"

Score: 0

By seascape

posted Jan 24, 2006 - 5:52 PM

You seem to be a bright individual, but lack the capacity to understand how the public values their personal information. Yes, there is a lot of personal information freely available, but it wasn't made available by choice. I do not recall everyone signing something saying "please make my personal information, et. al., publically available". You do not have to have something to hide just to se