| ||||||
| 5/17 |
| 2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Database, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41430 Activity:kinda low |
1/19 Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_hi_te/google_records
\_ That's definitely seems to be overreaching. I hope
Google can win that one.
\_ Note that it isn't a specific case they're prosecuting, but a
desire to find out how often Americans search for (child) porn.
Also note that AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have already rolled
over, accepting this child porn explanation; however, the data
can be used for other purposes ...
Also note that AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have already rolled over.
If the stated purpose is to go after pedophiles, I can understand
their rolling over, but the data can be used for other purposes ...
They originally asked for a complete list of all search terms and
returnable URLs over a two-month period, but now they've "limited"
this to a 1-million-count random sample of queries and returnable
returned URLs over a two-month period, but now they've "limited"
this to a 1-million-count random sample of queries and returned
URLs for a one-day period.
\_ Are they going to pay for an engineer's time to do this?
If not, pound sand no matter the reason.
\_ Whatever about this case but generally speaking, if the
request is legal, the business doesn't get expenses. The
alternative is the FBI comes in and confiscates everything
in sight and extracts what they need on their own time.
Anyway, even if the childish "pay up or pound sand" thing
was realistic, the cost would be about 10 minutes since
they should have this data easily accessible anyway. Knowing
what is in their logs *is* their business model.
\_ While they should have a good database of search queries
turning that into a list in the format the gov't wants
may be non-trivial. I could easily see it taking someone
A few days if their database is really not set up for this
type of thing. And it does seem like a the sort of thing
that cannot be subpoenaed because it's not in reference
to a particular crime, or even for investigating a crime.
It's basically saying "we demand you do free research for
our legal case".
\_ By the way, the URL above shows it would take a
"disproportionate amount of engineering time and
resources" to comply.
\_ Exactly. If the FBI wants to send people in (with
court orders) to look at the data then feel free,
but don't waste my time. Google is not a party to
any case, so they shouldn't have to spend time
and money on this. They can dump the entire database
and let the FBI sort it out on their own time.
\_ No, you don't understand. They don't look at it
onsite. They *take the computers* and look at it
later.
\_ They wouldn't even know what to take. Dump
all the data to a RAID and they can have at it.
If it's too much data to fit then you ask
them where they want it dumped. They are
entitled to the data, not the hardware.
\_ Still not getting it. I'll make it simple for
you: the FBI can and would *take the
computers*. *All* of the computers if they
felt it necessary. FBI >>>>>>>>> google. If
google loses in court, they'll have no choice
but to hand over everything the Feds want and
no they don't get to bill the government for
the 5 minutes it will take some geek to write
an sql query. |
| 5/17 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_hi_te/google_records Click Here Google has refused to comply with the subpoena, issued last year, for a broad range of material from its databases, including a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period, lawyers for the US Justice Department said in papers filed Wednesday in federal court in San Jose. Privacy advocates have been increasingly scrutinizing Google's practices as the company expands its offerings to include e-mail, driving directions, photo-sharing, instant messaging and Web journals. Although Google pledges to protect personal information, the company's privacy policy says it complies with legal and government requests. Google also has no stated guidelines on how long it keeps data, leading critics to warn that retention is potentially forever given cheap storage costs. The government contends it needs the data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches as part of an effort to revive an Internet child protection law that was struck down two years ago by the US Supreme Court on free-speech grounds. The 1998 Child Online Protection Act would have required adults to use access codes or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online, and it would have punished violators with fines up to $50,000 or jail time. The high court ruled that technology such as filtering software may better protect children. The matter is now before a federal court in Pennsylvania, and the government wants the Google data to help argue that the law is more effective than software in protecting children from porn. The Mountain View-based company told The San Jose Mercury News that it opposes releasing the information because it would violate the privacy rights of its users and would reveal company trade secrets. Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's efforts "vigorously." "Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching," Wong said. Google CEO Larry Page introduces Google Talk Beta, a free global online instant messaging and talk software application Jan. rebuffs the Bush administration's request, in a porn probe, for a broad range of information from the search engine leader's massive databases. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. |