Google is endeavoring to fight a government subpoena of its records. They are to be commended for their determination to resist yet more government fishing expeditions into the private lives of American citizens.
Nowadays whenever the government strives to intrude into everyday life, two reasons are cited: It’s to fight terrorists, or it’s to protect the children. In this instance, it’s the latter, as the government is endeavoring to crack down on child pørņ. As always happens in these cases, if one defends a privacy right or a right of free expression, those in opposition try to paint you as immoral: “Don’t you care about keeping America safe?” “Don’t you care about protecting innocent children?” The answer of course is, Sure I do. I just don’t believe that the government should be able to do any dámņëd thing it wants in that pursuit, especially when it sets precedents for being more trampling on rights of the individual.
You know what’s interesting? This administration automatically believes that desiring a right to privacy is tantamount to masking wrong-doing (“If you’re having conversations with Al Quaeda, we want to know about it,” said Bush in his loopy disconnected way of justifying his impeachable action of illegal wiretaps). This is also one of the most secretive administrations around. Do they assume wrong-doing on the parts of others who want their privacy…because they themselves are up to no good, and thus assume that anyone who wants to maintain their privacy likewise is?
In any event, kudos to google for taking a stand. Google has done nothing illegal. If one is throwing about subpoenas, one should at least have SOME shred of proof that the person being subpoenaed deserves it.
PAD
• 
Ya gotta love the way the government works.
Much like the spying fiasco, they want to use the largest “fishing net” as a way to prove they’re right, and everybody else is wrong.
In this case, they want Google’s records to prove that pornography is bad. *chuckle* Bunch of maroons.
But then, this Administration has had it out for pornography, as well as Iraq, from Day One.
Very good point, Peter. It is interesting that the administration that considers the names of the people who helped write the energy policy for the entire nation to be None of Your Ðámņ Business to insist that private citizens have no expectations of keeping their private activities private.
And then there were the statements by Bush saying that the government always obtains a warrant before spying on US citizens. Until of course, it was revealed that he didn’t.
And of course, if God answers Pat’s prayers and sends a few blood clots to smite Justices Ginsburg and Souter, then Bush will continue to on his mission to pack the court with people who believe that the rights of the almighty executive branch supercede that of the individual in all matters.
With Google, if the government had a list of names or userids that they had cause to believe were sharing kiddie pørņ over the internet, that would be reasonable for them to subpoena Google’s records for those limited individuals. But for the government to say, “Hey, Google, we know you’ve got all that data just lying around your server, how about you let us go fishing through just for kicks?” is outrageous.
You can call it a case of derangement if it helps you sleep at night, but I take our constitutional rights very seriously.
Someone has to.
And yes, if Clinton were doing it, I would say the exact same thing, so screw you if you want to play the partisan game.
I really get the feeling that this is one of two things. Either most of the people in Washington don’t really understand computers and the internet, or they’re so concerned about returning America to the 1950’s that they’re clueless. I’m aware the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Now trying to go through Google to crack down on child pørņ is kinda like going through Barnes and Noble to crack down on bad books. Personally, I think child pornographers should be drawn and quartered by their genitalia, but GO AFTER THEM!
Okay, my rant is over.
Well, we may very well learn the cost/impact of having two Bush appointees on the SCOTUS fairly soon. The law the administration is using to issue this subpoena was struck down as unconsitutional by the Supreme Court just 2 years ago. So, now that Bush has a new court to appeal to, it’s clear he’s willing to try again, even though the ink on the prior opinion probably is still drying.
When they came for the Google records of child pornographers, I said nothing, for I am not a child pornographer, and that’s some nasty stuff.
When they came for the Google records of suspected terrorists, I said nothing, for I am not a terrorist.
When they came for the Google records of disturbed teenagers, I said nothing, for I did not want my kids’ schools to get shot up.
When they came for my Google records, it didn’t matter what I said, because by that time Google was the government’s puppet.
I agree but with a comment. If I recall news reports correctly, Google isn’t the high minded company in all aspects. Have they not helped the Chinese government censor Chinese citizen’s web searches?
Google should either cooperate with all governments or none. I prefer the latter choice.
I believe unless they (the government) has reason there should be no crossing the line of my private life.
Just because someone is talking to Al Quaeda doesn’t mean they want to join the cause or hurt the usa. And unless someone has a means of a plan you can’t do nothing to them.
Just because they put this before as the most dangerous thing doesn’t mean we should cave in. What if it was pot, and they wanted cameras in everyones house so no pot could be grown, or your front door needed to fit a master key so a daily check from drug sniffing dogs could come into your house.
There is a line, and bush CROSSED IT.
“‘If you’re having conversations with Al Quaeda, we want to know about it,’ said Bush in his loopy disconnected way of justifying his impeachable action of illegal wiretaps.'”
Except, y’know, that, hey, it’s not illegal. But, that’s besides the point.
Ok. Here’s what I think is a real issue: Who is leaking confidential information? And don’t give me the spiel that the person should be awarded because The Bush Administration is doing evil things. Bullchips. Someone leaking information from NSA (CIA, FBI, or any other alphabetical bunch that is supposed to conduct these things secretly) should be found, and seriously eyeballed for treason.
Why treason? Because we’re at war. Love it, hate it, agree or disagree.. we are. And we need to recognize that, and take care of the situation at hand. I think this administration is doing it’s best to do that. Do I agree with everything they do? No. (i.e. Google) But I do believe that they’re making the hard decisions, not the easy or publically agreeable ones.
Let’s say wiretapping goes bye-bye. What suggestions does anyone have that we could utilize to battle al-Qaeda?
RLR
Just because someone is talking to Al Quaeda doesn’t mean they want to join the cause or hurt the usa.
Well, with this Administration, it’s very simple:
If you’re talking to Al Qaeda, you’re a terrorist.
If you’re against the war in Iraq, you’re unpatriotic and un-American.
If you’re subscribed to Playboy, you’re into pornography and going to Hëll.
seriously eyeballed for treason.
Get back to me when members of this Administration are hung for intentionally leaking Plame’s name to the media.
As always happens in these cases, if one defends a privacy right or a right of free expression, those in opposition try to paint you as immoral: “Don’t you care about keeping America safe?” “Don’t you care about protecting innocent children?”
My answer for this is simple. Did they catch Osama yet? No. Did they not let New Orleans and a good chunk of the Gulf Coast die? Yep. Then I don’t want these clueless idiots wading through my personal stuff.
God only knows what they’s do with it.
I don’t know what the fuss is all about; I’m sure the government is just interested in stopping all those Internet predators and would never dream of misusing that wealth of personal information for any other reason than the one they told us about.
I can’t believe I said that with a straight face.
Oh, forgot to reply to this bit:
Let’s say wiretapping goes bye-bye. What suggestions does anyone have that we could utilize to battle al-Qaeda?
Now, read carefully, in case you have trouble grasping this.
Nobody is saying that wire tapping isn’t necessary. Nobody is saying that it is entirely against the law.
What is being said, and you apparently don’t want to read, is that Bush went out of his way and told the NSA “don’t bother to get a warrant”, which is against the law.
And he told the NSA to wire-tap people who were doing nothing wrong, had no connections to terrorism, and so forth.
Whether that is illegal in of itself is up for debate, but for the oh-so morally proud Republicans, it should be a sign that something is *really* fubar’ed with this Administration, as well as how little they think of the people they represent.
Except, y’know, that, hey, it’s not illegal.
Actually, Bush’s interpretation of FISA and his “inherent powers” argument have yet to be tested in any court, so at best, it’s a gray area. Now, of course we know CJ Roberts and (unless he’s caught in bed with a dead prostitute this weekend) soon to be Justice Alito will rule that the president can do whatever the hëll he wants and screw the 5th and 9th amendments, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with it.
As for the leaking of classified information, like Craig said, I thought this wasn’t a big deal anymore if it’s done for political reasons.
Or is that another case of IOKIARDI?
Yet another scare tactic designed to separate thinking people from their thought processes and then have them “running to Daddy” for protection. It’s how the Republicans have stayed in power as long as they have. The Boston Globe has an interesting comment at the end of their editorial today about the bin Laden tape: “This is a bald attempt to frighten Americans. It comes after US officials… have spent three years frightening Americans. Bin Laden is a petty cult leader who has to be thwarted but who must not be allowed to inspire inordinate fear.” To me this is almost like saying “Nyah nyah, bin Laden is a total terrorism pussy compared to the people running this country!”, which just sounds, you know, so wrong in a purported democracy…
I need to state first off that I am a Youth and Children’s Minister under the Southern Baptist umbrella. That said, Bush is an idiot.
Why not check and see who is Googling about firearms? Oh, wait, they are ok. This is just another example of how people I serve as a minister have sold their ability to think over hot button issues like homosexuality, abortion, etc. Bush broke the law, plain and simple. He believes that he can because he fights the terrorist. Wiretaps are not bad, having an affair in the Oval Office is. This is just hypocrisy at its worst.
I wondered if we could start a way of making the administration mad once they do get this fishing permit. Can we get people to just start Googling random things about Bush and Company like, Bush is an idiot, or Cheny stinks? Will those show up on the search they do. Then when they attack normal citizens for saying things about them, there is a real case for a lawsuit. Is that possible?
You want to keep your kids safe on-line? Pay attention as parents. Be nosy, use programs to restrict and filter web pages you do not want in your home. Just do not mess with free speech.
Someone leaking information from NSA (CIA, FBI, or any other alphabetical bunch that is supposed to conduct these things secretly) should be found, and seriously eyeballed for treason.
Such as, oh, I don’t know…hmmm…outing a CIA operative in the press?
JSM
“Now trying to go through Google to crack down on child pørņ is kinda like going through Barnes and Noble to crack down on bad books.”
Or going through library records to crack down on terrorists…
Oh. Wait.
PAD
You want to keep your kids safe on-line? Pay attention as parents.
Wait a second, are you suggesting that parents are responsible for raising their kids? What a radical idea! But that means parents have to pay attention to not only what their kids do online, but always what books they read and what TV shows they watch.
That means we can’t arrest comic book shop clerks for selling material labelled and shelved for adults to an adult just because it’s a comic and comics are, after all, just for kids.
That means parents have to reaquaint themselves with the word “no” and not sue TV stations for airing commercials for sugary snacks.
That means parents would have to pay attention to those video game, TV, and movie ratings instead of trying to censor the entertainment available to other adults.
Wow.
Making parents the gatekeepers of what their kids are exposes to? That almost sounds like something a country that values individual freedom would do.
Anyone when the Republican party believed that the best government was the one least intrustive in the lives of its citizens? I guess that’s just for big business now. Anyway…
The audacity of this is staggering. Bush is trying to move from having a basis for searches to using a popular phrase — “protection from terrorists,” “going after child pornographers” — to warrant searches and spying that is, literally and figuratively, warrantless.
And where are the politicians — Democrats and Republicans — willing to stand up for the rights of citizens to their privacy? What politician will remind everyone that tossing around scary phrases isn’t a basis for spying?
Anyone when the Republican party believed that the best government was the one least intrustive in the lives of its citizens? I guess that’s just for big business now.
That ideology is so 80s. The GOP is now all about being up in our personal lives. As for big business, it’s all about handing out favors and goodies to their corporate buddies.
I am a cynic and think this also helps Microsoft. They faced how many years of litigation during the Clinton years?
As far as Bush goes I would bet theres deep pockets pushing litigation that ties up Google the way Microsfot was.
Can we get people to just start Googling random things about Bush and Company like, Bush is an idiot, or Cheny stinks? Will those show up on the search they do.
“Bush daughters pr0n”
I wonder if that search phrase thrown into Google would get the government’s attention a bit more… 😉
They faced how many years of litigation during the Clinton years?
And they deserved many of those lawsuits.
However, neither Yahoo or MSN have said whether they were also the target of this attack by the Bush Administration.
Somebody brought up the issue of companies like MS and Google voluntarily agreeing with censorship in China. And I agree – it’s a deplorable practice on their part, but it’s capitalism at it’s best unfortunately.
But at least they’re standing up to the government here.
You have to wonder if Google was the only search engine target because they are the biggest or if they are the only one fighting it. Maybe people should shift all of their searching to Google until Yahoo and Microsoft come forward on whether or not they’ve been subpoened.
As for the situation in China, it’s deplorable that the price of doing business there is to go along with their censorship policies. Unfortunately, they’ve become such a huge economic player, especially in the field of communications, that companies like Microsoft and Google can’t afford to not do business in China.
But that can’t happen here, right?
After watching my 89 year old MENNONITE Grandma being yanked out of her wheelchair and frisked because her frickin’ girdle staves were setting off the alarm, I’ve come to the conclusion that “homeland security” is a joke.
Unfortunately, this is really nothing new. This administration has always considered anything that could be considered pørņ to be a priority. Not terrorism, not drugs or organized crime, but what consenting adults do to get their kicks.
According to the news, MSN, AOL, and Yahoo have all complied with the investigation. AOL stated that they “gave the Justice Department a generic list of anonymous search terms from a one-day period” (from the NYT Coverage, at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/technology/20google.html). Google is the only holdout.
There is nothing good about the China situation, and I think if all the companies involved were willing to unite and say, “No” to the Chinese government, the government would have capitulated. China needs the Internet as much as the net companies need China. Unfortunately, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google are all there to make money, first and foremost, so one of them saying “yes” means all 3 will out of sheer competitive drive. Of course, just because I understand the rationale behind the decision isn’t incompatible with thinking it’s still dead wrong.
However, unlike the China situation, there is zero competitive advantage in going along with the other players in this supoena and America still has a court system that is nowhere near as flagrantly corrupt as that in China. If Google’s refusal upsets any on the Republican side of the fence, they can use those much-vaunted market-driven forces that they claim to love so much and use a different search engine in protest. Maybe some Republican can just whip up a right-wing alternative to Google, like those guys who tried making ice cream and ketchup to keep from supporting Ben & Jerry’s and Heinz, respectively.
Den, I agree with what you said above 167%. However, the government DOESN’T because they know the whole “children are our future” line and it scares the hëll out of them. They don’t WANT parents raising their own children because then the children become young adults who GASP! Think for themselves. That’s not what they want. They want REAL Americans who think the way that they do, act the way that they do, and will do anything to protect the Collective, er, country. And only in this way can WE BE HAPPY. And they keep their jobs.
Sorry for this, was thinking of it as my last one posted. Pretty soon you’re going on a list if you like the wrong flavor ice cream. I’m sure to be at the top of the list for liking Death By Chocolate.
Maybe some Republican can just whip up a right-wing alternative to Google, like those guys who tried making ice cream and ketchup to keep from supporting Ben & Jerry’s and Heinz, respectively.
The laughable part of this is that: 1) Teresa Heinz-Kerry’s first husband, John Heinz was a republican, as was she until 2004 and 2) She has no official connection to the Heinz Company. In fact, the total amount of stock that the entire Heinz family owns is about a 4% share.
But hey, it’s not like she was the first potential first lady to have been savagely attacked by the GOP.
And no, Hillary wasn’t the first either.
Here’s more on the topic…
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=2805
JamesLynch:
“And where are the politicians — Democrats and Republicans — willing to stand up for the rights of citizens to their privacy? What politician will remind everyone that tossing around scary phrases isn’t a basis for spying?”
They’re on the Endangered Species List.
Is it just me or does it seem more and more everyday that we have government for government’s sake? All they apear to do is have inquiries and councils and investigations and commitees until they are all too busy to represent that most insignificant of groups known as “We, the People.” And since every private issue that makes the evening news demands the attention of government nothing of relevance gets done.
Many think that “I love you” is the best three-word combo. Bûllšhìŧ! “We, the People” is the best three-word combo in the history of this planet.
Don’t go to Google and type in something that would be personally insulting to our elected officials. Go to Google and type in “We, the People.” Just once when you go online would suffice if enough people did it.
I’m getting tired of our government fishing expeditions and impotence on matters of true relevance. That’s ‘Impotence,’ as in a bunch of limp dìçkš.
I don’t mean just this administration either (I wouldn’t want to misunderestimate anyone, you understand). It’s been going on for decades. Although, it is of historical interest that a group of ultra-churchy whackaloons is today engaging in a witch hunt.
Although I applaud Google for standing firm I can understand why MSN and AOL cappitulated. Would you want to be on this governments šhìŧ list after the lase few years? That makes Google’s stand all the more pertinent. And impressive.
Yes, we can all agree that child pørņ is wrong in a big way. However it is dealt with there are three ways to go about it: The right way, the wrong way and the smart way.
Here’s an interesting bit of info…
I once heard (I don’t recall a source) that the pørņ industry makes more money per year than movies, mus and sports. Combined.
IF that is factual and the pørņ industry is brought down what would the ecconomic impact be?
I know! We could outsource that too! Preferably to a country with no protections for it’s workforce.
Don’tcha love it when I ramble?
Mitch
I’ve heard that same statistic, Mitch. Pørņ is still very much an underground entertainment activity with most people who indulge in it unwilling to admit so in public. I wouldn’t be surprised if many in the Bush administration who are pushing this subpoena are also secret users of it.
Here’s a question though: How can the federal government execute a subpoena based on a statute that the SCOTUS blocked two years ago? Have we already crossed that line into Cheney’s dream of an executive branch unfettered by any checks and balances from the other two branches?
How can the federal government execute a subpoena based on a statute that the SCOTUS blocked two years ago?
I don’t know, but I find it highly ironic that the Bush Administration does this the day after a new tape from bin Laden is released.
What’s our priority again? Pørņ or terrorism?
In fairness to Bush (Yeah, I’m biting my lip as I type this), the subpoena was probably planned weeks if not months ago. You don’t just whip one of those out of thin air.
What’s really strange is that the administration is already under fire from privacy advocates over the wiretapping issue and now they open up this front.
What I don’t get is that Google is easily the BEST tool we could have to catch child pørņ buyers. By setting up dummy sites they can easily snare any pervs dumb enough to order illegal pørņ with a credit card.
I’d rather they go trolling for the actual pedophiles in chatrooms. Seems a better use of time and these guys are doing a lot more than just reading about molesting kids.
I think Google made a big mistake working with the Chinese Government. It will really weaken their moral standing to say that they are willing to stand up for the rights of child pørņ buffs but not for freedom loving Chinese because, hey, we need the dough.
BUSH SUCKS!
BSH SCKS!
Buck Fush!
I wish it were that simple. Unfortunately, as I said before, I don’t think any company with international aspirations can afford not to do business with China. Hopefully, by engaging with the Chinese people as employers, Google and other US companies can inspire them to demand more change from their government.
Yeah, but isn’t that the same argument that companies that worked with the pro apartheid government of South Africa? And even if it has merit, it’s one thing to engage the people, it’s another to be one of the very elements of their oppression.
All that said, you’re probably right. But there ought to be some point beyond which they won’t go.
What about the rights and private lives of Canadian citizens? We use Google also.
Regardless. Kudos to Google. Do no evil!
What about the rights and private lives of Canadian citizens?
You heard about this guy? He didn’t like his bank information being processed in the U.S> so he paid his bill pennies at a time in protest.
http://www.sitnews.us/0106news/010206/010206_shns_creditcard.html
Den: I’m sure they had it waiting in the wings for the next time they needed to distract the sheep. Nothing works better than “what about the children!”
BSH SCKS!
BluiSH SoCKS ???
Wait a second, are you suggesting that parents are responsible for raising their kids? What a radical idea! But that means parents have to pay attention to not only what their kids do online, but always what books they read and what TV shows they watch.
That means we can’t arrest comic book shop clerks for selling material labelled and shelved for adults to an adult just because it’s a comic and comics are, after all, just for kids.
That means parents have to reaquaint themselves with the word “no” and not sue TV stations for airing commercials for sugary snacks.
That means parents would have to pay attention to those video game, TV, and movie ratings instead of trying to censor the entertainment available to other adults.
Wow.
Making parents the gatekeepers of what their kids are exposes to? That almost sounds like something a country that values individual freedom would do.
Dear Den:
I love you.
Sincerely,
Queen Anthai
On the somewhat related topic of Repulicans and secret informants:
2. INFORMERS NEEDED: FINANCIAL HELP FOR STUDENTS WITH AN ATTITUDE
A UCLA alumni group headed by a former campus Republican leader is offering students up to $100 per class to keep tabs on radical professors. It’s not clear how the information is to be used.
(Source: http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn012006.html [Item #2])
X-Ray: BSH SCKS!
Luigi Novi: Quick, someone tell me how long after Peter posted his blog entry about Hilary Clinton and Ray Nagin that this retard posted this. I wanna know how long it took. 🙂
Luigi:
More info on the UCLA group:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/18/professors.targeted.ap/
A couple of points, for those few interested in facts…
A) The subpoena was issued months ago, so don’t try to “x-files” the timing. You’re not Mulder, and the truth isn’t out there. This isn’t some big distraction plot. Just coincidence..
B) They’re not wanting specific user information. They want statistics. Information on how ofter pørņ is searched for, and what the common search terms are. This is for research for a court case in front of the SCOTUS.
To use the library analysis, this would be the equivilent of the goverment asking a library system how often a certain book was checked out. I don’t see that type of information as protected information. Now, once they ask “who” checked it out, that’s a whole different line in the sand.
And before slippery slope arguements pop up, let’s remember they’re not valid for either side (such as gay marrage or the like).
“The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week – a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Google asserts that the request is unnecessary, overly broad, would be onerous to comply with, would jeopardize its trade secrets and could expose identifying information about its users.”
– San Diego Union-Tribune, 1/20/2006
Sounds to me like they want a lot more than you claim they do, Jerry…
Just to make sure my point is clear…
“The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google’s search engine during an unspecified single week – a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Google asserts that the request is unnecessary, overly broad, would be onerous to comply with, would jeopardize its trade secrets and could expose identifying information about its users.“
I don’t see that type of information as protected information.
Well, I don’t see Google being a public library, either. Which kind of ruins your whole argument. 🙂