Disagreeable
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,464
- Reaction score
- 0
Good for Google. Entire article; link below; my emphasis.
"The Bush administration has gone on a fishing expedition into Google, trying to force the company to hand over a large amount of data that might help the government defend a law seeking to shield minors from Internet pornography.
It's troubling on several fronts. The U.S. District Court in San Jose should back Google's refusal to hand over the information.
The Justice Department wants the court to compel Google to hand over 1 million random Web addresses from its search index as well as all the terms users typed into its search engine over a one-week period.
The reason: The government is in a legal fight to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. Although the case, Gonzales vs. ACLU, does not involve Google, the government says it needs the information from the search firm to ``understand the behavior of current Web users, to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minor materials in the course of their searches and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software in screening that material.'' The request is not an appropriate use of subpoena power. The government wants Google's data not as evidence in a case, but rather to conduct an experiment which it hopes will show that Internet porn filters are ineffective. In short, the government wants Google to help it make its case, using the company as a research arm. Google is right to fight the subpoena, especially since the information at stake can be considered a trade secret.
The information sought by the government would not endanger the privacy of Google's users, since it would not include any data linking specific individuals to searches. Still, the request raises a dangerous precedent. Google and other search engines have heaps of data about what their users search and do online, and a future government subpoena may well seek such sensitive information. We hope Google will show the same resolve in resisting subpoenas that do put its users' privacy at risk.The government is wrong not only about the Google subpoena. Its whole attempt to defend the Child Online Protection Act is misguided.
The 1998 law makes it illegal for commercial Web sites to post material that is ``harmful to minors,'' unless they ensure that only adults can access it. It's ineffective and overly broad: It could criminalize various forms of protected speech, including sex advice columns, Web sites dealing with reproductive health or gay issues, and even those of some art galleries and bookstores. The U.S. Supreme Court has already cast doubt on its constitutionality.
The only good thing about this spat between Google and the Justice Department is that it came to light. It's a reminder for users of Google, or any other online site, that the privacy of their search history, their e-mail correspondence, their online photos, their song lists and buddy lists and countless other details of their digital lives is always at risk.
If they want better protections, they're going to have to demand them from the online sites they do business with. And we should
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13669370.htm
"The Bush administration has gone on a fishing expedition into Google, trying to force the company to hand over a large amount of data that might help the government defend a law seeking to shield minors from Internet pornography.
It's troubling on several fronts. The U.S. District Court in San Jose should back Google's refusal to hand over the information.
The Justice Department wants the court to compel Google to hand over 1 million random Web addresses from its search index as well as all the terms users typed into its search engine over a one-week period.
The reason: The government is in a legal fight to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. Although the case, Gonzales vs. ACLU, does not involve Google, the government says it needs the information from the search firm to ``understand the behavior of current Web users, to estimate how often Web users encounter harmful-to-minor materials in the course of their searches and to measure the effectiveness of filtering software in screening that material.'' The request is not an appropriate use of subpoena power. The government wants Google's data not as evidence in a case, but rather to conduct an experiment which it hopes will show that Internet porn filters are ineffective. In short, the government wants Google to help it make its case, using the company as a research arm. Google is right to fight the subpoena, especially since the information at stake can be considered a trade secret.
The information sought by the government would not endanger the privacy of Google's users, since it would not include any data linking specific individuals to searches. Still, the request raises a dangerous precedent. Google and other search engines have heaps of data about what their users search and do online, and a future government subpoena may well seek such sensitive information. We hope Google will show the same resolve in resisting subpoenas that do put its users' privacy at risk.The government is wrong not only about the Google subpoena. Its whole attempt to defend the Child Online Protection Act is misguided.
The 1998 law makes it illegal for commercial Web sites to post material that is ``harmful to minors,'' unless they ensure that only adults can access it. It's ineffective and overly broad: It could criminalize various forms of protected speech, including sex advice columns, Web sites dealing with reproductive health or gay issues, and even those of some art galleries and bookstores. The U.S. Supreme Court has already cast doubt on its constitutionality.
The only good thing about this spat between Google and the Justice Department is that it came to light. It's a reminder for users of Google, or any other online site, that the privacy of their search history, their e-mail correspondence, their online photos, their song lists and buddy lists and countless other details of their digital lives is always at risk.
If they want better protections, they're going to have to demand them from the online sites they do business with. And we should
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13669370.htm