February 21, 2006 11:30 AM PST
Justice Department's assault on Google to backfire?
- Related Stories
-
Google may have to fight second subpoena
February 17, 2006 -
Reporters' roundtable: Tech's China Syndrome
February 17, 2006 -
Google to feds: Back off
February 17, 2006 -
Capitol Hill's fury on China
February 16, 2006 -
Bill would force Web sites to delete personal info
February 8, 2006 -
Some companies helped the NSA, but which?
February 6, 2006 -
FAQ: When Google is not your friend
February 3, 2006 -
Judge postpones Google subpoena hearing
February 2, 2006 -
Senator demands info on search engine subpoena
January 25, 2006 -
FAQ: What does the Google subpoena mean?
January 20, 2006 -
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
If Google convinces California courts that a federal privacy law protects Internet users' search terms from a subpoena, it would become more difficult for law enforcement to seek such records in future criminal investigations, legal experts are saying.
That's "absolutely" a concern, said Paul Ohm, a former Justice Department prosecutor who now teaches at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "There's a lot of precedent for that kind of thing."
In Google's written response to the Justice Department's subpoena (click here for PDF), filed with a San Jose, Calif., court on Friday, the search company argued that a 1986 privacy law means that it "cannot disclose the contents" of search terms based on a subpoena. A subpoena is a letter from a prosecutor sent without a judge's prior approval or review.
That law, called the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA, provides potent legal safeguards for "electronic communication services." Google said that because of features it offers, such as the ability to send news alerts, it qualifies as such a service; the search terms of its users are therefore legally protected, it argued.
"It is time for the government to declare whether search terms are covered by ECPA," said Al Gidari, an attorney at Perkins Coie who co-authored Friday's brief on behalf of Google. "It makes no difference, in our view, that the government wants anonymous search queries. (Its argument) would allow them to search e-mail so long as we removed the customer names."
Last month, the Justice Department asked a judge to force Google to hand over a random sample of 1 million Web pages from its index, along with copies of a week's worth of anonymous search terms, to aid in the Bush administration's defense of an Internet pornography law. U.S. District Judge James Ware has scheduled a hearing for March 13.
It's not clear how often search terms are used in criminal investigations. One North Carolina man was found guilty of murder in November in part because he Googled the words "neck," "snap," "break" and "hold" before his wife was killed. In a CNET News.com survey published this month, Google, America Online, Microsoft and Yahoo declined to answer whether they had received requests for search records from police.
The Justice Department subpoena normally would have been a routine matter, and AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo voluntarily complied with similar requests. But Google's resistance sparked a furor over privacy, with Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, asking the Justice Department for details. A bill announced in the House of Representatives also would require Web sites to delete information about visitors.
There's no guarantee, of course, that ECPA will be decisive in this case: The Justice Department and Google could
See more CNET content tagged:
subpoena,
criminal investigation,
prosecutor,
Google Inc.,
Time Warner Inc.
However, I think we fail to realize that by our government borrowing money from other countries and business (the national debt) they no longer feel the need to listen to the general public, becacuse honestly, it isn't our money and who are we to say where it goes? With enough outside funding the government will do whatever they please. If they are forced to rely on the american people, then they will have to comply with our desires (in theory). But the concept of Rational Ignorance has become so obvious in the minds of most people that we have carelessly given up our influence in our own political system. How sad....
"We know what works: freedom works. We know what's right: freedom is right. We know how to secure a more and just and prosperous life for man on earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections and the exercise of free will unhampered by the state." (January 20, 1989) (George H.W. Bush)
"No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor." (December 7, 1903) (Teddy Roosevelt)
Oh well, such is life, that Gonzales seeks to operate both outside his oath of office and the congress of the United States and it's constitution!