Get hooked up with AT&T ConnecTech
- Related Stories
-
Feds take porn fight to Google
January 19, 2006 -
Year in review: Electronic surveillance takes center stage
December 29, 2005 -
Government steps up electronic surveillance
April 11, 2005 -
FBI adds to wiretap wish list
March 12, 2004
The department asked the search giants to hand over millions of records involving what search terms people have used on the sites and what Web sites are accessible via the search engines.
On one level, the situation involves a straightforward question of whether the department's demands are too onerous and therefore not permitted under federal law. On another, the dispute raises novel questions about search engines' privacy protections and the relationship that four tech giants have with the federal government.
What does it all mean, and what happens next? Read on.
Q: What is the Justice Department demanding from search engines?
A: Federal prosecutors have asked Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and America Online to turn over two types of data: logs showing search terms used by people, and a list of Web sites indexed by the companies' search engines.
News.com Poll
Q: Which companies have complied?
The Justice Department isn't talking, at least not yet. Google has opposed the request. Yahoo and AOL have acknowledged complying, saying that they went along with the government's request but did not turn over personally identifiable information. At the time this was written, Microsoft was refusing to say anything, but the ACLU has confirmed that the company did comply.
Q: What information was turned over?
We don't know. The Justice Department initially demanded that the four companies divulge "all URLs that are available to be located through a query on your company's search engine as of July 31, 2005." The subpoena also asked for "all queries that have been entered on your company's search engine between June 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005, inclusive."
But at least when trying to negotiate with Google, the Justice Department eventually narrowed that request to a "random sample of 1 million URLs" and "copies of the text of each search string entered onto Google's search engine over a 1-week period."
Q: So we don't know whether Microsoft, Yahoo and AOL went along with the initial request, or whether they negotiated a better deal?
Exactly. We just don't know, at least not yet, and they're not providing details.
AOL came the closest, saying it turned over a list of "aggregate and anonymous search terms, and not results, from a roughly 1-day period." But it refused to elaborate.
Q: Is there any law preventing a company from talking to the press?
Nope. If they chose, they could disclose all the negotiations that took place, release the correspondence they exchanged with prosecutors and so on. It's a little odd that they're being so tight-lipped.
Or they could have done what Google did and fought the Justice Department in court.
Q: I used those search engines in June and July. Should I be worried about my privacy?
It depends. If you typed in search terms that you consider to be private or confidential, you should be concerned. Such terms might include personal information about you, such as your name or street address.
But what's important to note is that the Justice Department has not been asking for any information that would link those search terms to your identity. It hasn't requested Internet Protocol addresses.
So if you typed in search terms indicating that you, say, have a healthy interest in marijuana cultivation, the data turned over won't implicate you.
Q: The subpoena came from the Justice Department's civil division. Will the attorneys there share the data with their colleagues at the department's criminal division or the FBI?
No law would appear to prohibit them from doing so. A protective order does say that only Justice Department attorneys "who have a need" for the information may receive it.
If the disclosed search logs show evidence of criminal activity, that language may be vague enough to let prosecutors return with a second subpoena to demand the identification of one or more Internet addresses linked with those search terms. Terror-related searches are another likely area of information-sharing--President Bush likes to talk about how "law enforcement officers should not be denied vital information their own colleagues already have."
There has, however, been no evidence that the Justice Department has or has not done this to date.
See more CNET content tagged:
search engine,
America Online Inc.,
Google Inc.,
request,
Yahoo! Inc.
However there is a search engine that actually is available on a country basis. It is called AnooX.
To be exact they are offering their search engine for Free & under an Open Source type of license to anyone around the world who wants to be an AnooX Search Engine provider in their country. So this way then all the
searches you do will stay in your own country based AnooX. You can find the details here:
http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp
However there is a search engine that actually is available on a country basis. It is called AnooX.
To be exact they are offering their search engine for Free & under an Open Source type of license to anyone around the world who wants to be an AnooX Search Engine provider in their country. So this way then all the
searches you do will stay in your own country based AnooX. You can find the details here:
http://www.anoox.com/sep-overview.jsp
This was not discussed in the article.
This was not discussed in the article.
First, there is nothing "intrusive" about the government's request. Note that they only want search terms. So, while it's true that if you entered "my name is John Smith, 123 Maple Lane, Podunkville, Nebraska, and I'm looking for instructions on how to make an atomic bomb in my kitchen", you might be in danger of being found out, but I'm guessing not many people would actually do this. Or, if they did, it could be argued that anyone so idiotic deserves to be caught, since he'll probably blow himself (along with you and the rest of Podunkville) into Kingdom Come long before he ever gets the device built.
Second, it's to note that the article continues to perpetuate the myth that cookies provide "personal" information. Cookies mainly provide SYSTEM information, such as operating system, screen resolution, browser version, whether or not you have Flash enabled, etc. The only "personal" information is demographic, in that they also show which general area of the country you're located in by displaying your ISP. Actual "personal" information, such as your name, address, social security number, credit card number, phone number, passwords, etc, is the realm of spyware, viruses, trojans, worms and keyloggers.
It's also to note that the search engines, themselves, along with ICANN and Congress, are really the ones to blame that it's come to this. Remember the proposal that all x-rated sites be placed in the ".xxx" domain category? If ICANN and the major search engines had supported Congress to enact this, along with seriously stiff penalties for those who didn't comply, the entire problem would have been resolved. The search engines would simply filter out any domains ending in ".xxx" and that's that.
And, before you cry, "But how would I get my daily porno fix?!", remember sites like AdultCheck? You'd pay a small yearly premium with a credit card, thereby proving you're 21 years or older, and there are your .xxx sites, ready for perusal.
All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody.
They are taking a shotgun approach to try and justify their UnConstitutional law. Google, or any of the people who use Google are not specifically targetted. They want ALL data on EVERYONE which is unreasonable and wrong.
If they have someone specific in mind then they should get a supeona concerning that person. They should not do this broad unreasonable search and espect law abiding citizens to just sit back and let it happen.
you must be purer than caesars wife. no skeletons in your closet, eh?
but whether there are or not, the gov't has no right to information that is not the genesis of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. every law enforcement agency would love to have the right to go on fishing expeditions for crime. ever hear of the 4th amendment and due process?
submission to govt's ever reaching intrusions leads us down the path to orwellian encroachments on our valued right to privacy.
this administration is the most corrupt and disrespectful of its citizens constitutional rights since the last president who resigned from office for breaches of the constitution.
perhaps we can impeach this dolt post november elections.
it's unimaginable to me that americans can be so fearful of terror attacks that they would willingly sacrifice the protections the constitution affords its citizens from overreaching government in the name of security.
As for Mr Bolt's assertion that the .xxx domain would solve the problem, that is a non-starter. Who would get the .xxx domain for a given name - the owner of the .com, .net, .us, .org? How could this be enforced under country level domains - can (and should) the US control the rest of the world (dubya appears to think they should)? The most that could be done legally from an international standpoint is that a new .xxx.us domain name is introduced and all US based porn companies are forced to use it.
Just my 2 euro cents worth.
Stuart
Companies like Google should support such a move, it's a good way to increase their profits by providing a niche service very easily.
REally? I thought that should be parents' role in keeping their children off pornography. It's a funny thing when conservatives keep ranting about smaller government, less control but they sings a different tune when Bush administration tries to have more power & control.
Some other points,
-American kids already know about sex even before the internet ages.
-US government can't control what other countries web site decided to display
-There are more way to get x-rated flick, p2p, etc.
I applaud Google's effort to stand up on this issue
First, there is nothing "intrusive" about the government's request. Note that they only want search terms. So, while it's true that if you entered "my name is John Smith, 123 Maple Lane, Podunkville, Nebraska, and I'm looking for instructions on how to make an atomic bomb in my kitchen", you might be in danger of being found out, but I'm guessing not many people would actually do this. Or, if they did, it could be argued that anyone so idiotic deserves to be caught, since he'll probably blow himself (along with you and the rest of Podunkville) into Kingdom Come long before he ever gets the device built.
Second, it's to note that the article continues to perpetuate the myth that cookies provide "personal" information. Cookies mainly provide SYSTEM information, such as operating system, screen resolution, browser version, whether or not you have Flash enabled, etc. The only "personal" information is demographic, in that they also show which general area of the country you're located in by displaying your ISP. Actual "personal" information, such as your name, address, social security number, credit card number, phone number, passwords, etc, is the realm of spyware, viruses, trojans, worms and keyloggers.
It's also to note that the search engines, themselves, along with ICANN and Congress, are really the ones to blame that it's come to this. Remember the proposal that all x-rated sites be placed in the ".xxx" domain category? If ICANN and the major search engines had supported Congress to enact this, along with seriously stiff penalties for those who didn't comply, the entire problem would have been resolved. The search engines would simply filter out any domains ending in ".xxx" and that's that.
And, before you cry, "But how would I get my daily porno fix?!", remember sites like AdultCheck? You'd pay a small yearly premium with a credit card, thereby proving you're 21 years or older, and there are your .xxx sites, ready for perusal.
All in all, I would call this 'much ado about nothing', and all Google is really telling the nation is that they're simply not interested in protecting children from x-rated pornography. Or, put another way, that they consider their own "ethics" to be more important than society's ethics, which shouldn't surprise anybody.
They are taking a shotgun approach to try and justify their UnConstitutional law. Google, or any of the people who use Google are not specifically targetted. They want ALL data on EVERYONE which is unreasonable and wrong.
If they have someone specific in mind then they should get a supeona concerning that person. They should not do this broad unreasonable search and espect law abiding citizens to just sit back and let it happen.
you must be purer than caesars wife. no skeletons in your closet, eh?
but whether there are or not, the gov't has no right to information that is not the genesis of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. every law enforcement agency would love to have the right to go on fishing expeditions for crime. ever hear of the 4th amendment and due process?
submission to govt's ever reaching intrusions leads us down the path to orwellian encroachments on our valued right to privacy.
this administration is the most corrupt and disrespectful of its citizens constitutional rights since the last president who resigned from office for breaches of the constitution.
perhaps we can impeach this dolt post november elections.
it's unimaginable to me that americans can be so fearful of terror attacks that they would willingly sacrifice the protections the constitution affords its citizens from overreaching government in the name of security.
As for Mr Bolt's assertion that the .xxx domain would solve the problem, that is a non-starter. Who would get the .xxx domain for a given name - the owner of the .com, .net, .us, .org? How could this be enforced under country level domains - can (and should) the US control the rest of the world (dubya appears to think they should)? The most that could be done legally from an international standpoint is that a new .xxx.us domain name is introduced and all US based porn companies are forced to use it.
Just my 2 euro cents worth.
Stuart
Companies like Google should support such a move, it's a good way to increase their profits by providing a niche service very easily.
REally? I thought that should be parents' role in keeping their children off pornography. It's a funny thing when conservatives keep ranting about smaller government, less control but they sings a different tune when Bush administration tries to have more power & control.
Some other points,
-American kids already know about sex even before the internet ages.
-US government can't control what other countries web site decided to display
-There are more way to get x-rated flick, p2p, etc.
I applaud Google's effort to stand up on this issue
What in God's name are you people doing on the internet that is so private? Are you afraid that the search term "kiddie porn" is going to lead to your house?
I'll vote for the safety of kids over and above the privacy of perverts anyday!
We've become such a country of passing our responsibilities off to others, it's no wonder people are willing to let the government come in and take over. These are the same people arguing conservative values and limited government but are willing to let government increase in size and influence at the same time. Maybe we should start punishing parents directly when their children go places they're not supposed to on the internet..NOW THAT'S AN IDEA...let's monitor their behavior and punish parents when their children go places online that are dangerous!
What do you say about Government Safety now?
Remember, Such things as the constitution are hard to write, taking much study, but easy to tear up, taking only two hands. Putting it back together is much harder.
People like you seem to say "Sure, go ahead" to tearing it bits off the constitution. Fine, if it will "Save our Children."
And then, in twenty or thirty years, the children will say "What did you save us for? For this?"
Oscar Rat
The current controversy has absolutely nothing to do with kiddie porn or with terrorists, but these are certainly important straw men that are used to influence the public.
The current controversy is about criminalizing *any Web content* that the Government considers harmful for children to view. That could include the visual arts, political opinions, science (e.g., evolution), fiction, ... virtually anything. But they've got Nathan's vote, because he's been sold a meritricious justification.
Does anybody remember when the reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction?
Bush has to be stopped.
Uninvited marketing,
Identity theft,
Electronic harrassment,
Stalking,
Political muckraking,
Blackmail,
etc, etc...
What in God's name are you people doing on the internet that is so private? Are you afraid that the search term "kiddie porn" is going to lead to your house?
I'll vote for the safety of kids over and above the privacy of perverts anyday!
We've become such a country of passing our responsibilities off to others, it's no wonder people are willing to let the government come in and take over. These are the same people arguing conservative values and limited government but are willing to let government increase in size and influence at the same time. Maybe we should start punishing parents directly when their children go places they're not supposed to on the internet..NOW THAT'S AN IDEA...let's monitor their behavior and punish parents when their children go places online that are dangerous!
What do you say about Government Safety now?
Remember, Such things as the constitution are hard to write, taking much study, but easy to tear up, taking only two hands. Putting it back together is much harder.
People like you seem to say "Sure, go ahead" to tearing it bits off the constitution. Fine, if it will "Save our Children."
And then, in twenty or thirty years, the children will say "What did you save us for? For this?"
Oscar Rat
The current controversy has absolutely nothing to do with kiddie porn or with terrorists, but these are certainly important straw men that are used to influence the public.
The current controversy is about criminalizing *any Web content* that the Government considers harmful for children to view. That could include the visual arts, political opinions, science (e.g., evolution), fiction, ... virtually anything. But they've got Nathan's vote, because he's been sold a meritricious justification.
Does anybody remember when the reason for invading Iraq was weapons of mass destruction?