Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe

Google is so far not compelled to give them anything. They are SEEKING a court order to compel Google to do things. They ain't got it yet.

aND YOUR POINT IS?

Wikipedia. And yes, I am aware of it's unreliability. Best I've got.

aND YOUR BEST IS ESSENTIALLY N OTHING

wildcap[slockqueenAlaska
 
I understand that under the Miller Test, 99% of all pornography is not "obscene"...

While I don't know what the "Miller Test" is and I hesitate to quote or site percentages. This probably isn't too far off in most local areas (which is usually where obscenity is determined).

Kansas is a fairly conservative state. I do not know the specific pornography presented to the jury I mentioned before but I am sure it was probably not soft core. I would guess it included some proclivities not commonly accepted or practiced. Yet only one obscenity charge out of some 20 hours of porn review (it remains to be seen if the charge will result in conviction, I doubt it).
 
Beyond the invasion of privacy there is also a matter of damage to Google.

If Google searches are to be transparent to the govt, then many people will stop using Google, which will cause Google damage. For instance: Friday, stock in the company plummeted 8.5%, or $36.98 a share, to $399.46, a day after published reports of its refusal to bow to a Justice Department subpoena. It was Google's biggest daily percentage decline since it went public in August 2004. Should the govt have the right to go on fishing expeditions that can cause direct harm to the company they have demanded information of?

Some obviously believe that this govt action is of no consequence; but I disagree. It is another step taken by a govt that wants control beyond the amount of control that I want it to have. The other major search providers — Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and Time Warner's America Online — have cooperated with the government. Company representatives all said that they did not turn over data that identified individual users. What the govt has demanded here has been freely given by all but Google. When, not if but when, the govt demands IPs, who will stand up to them?

There is something far more frightening about this collection of data. What about when a subpoena comes about an individual? Imagine you are under investigation for something, or just in a frivolous lawsuit or even a messy divorce. You can bet lawyers are going to want to say “I want the search records for this IP, or this cookie.” And it’s going to be a lot harder for search engines to turn down those requests, because they will be specific and will relate to the data the search companies are holding on all of us.

The next logical step is to start using Anonymity software when doing searches, and I personally find it disquieting to feel that I have to do that in order to maintain my privacy. Kind of like wearing a mask when going to the library.
 
Beyond the invasion of privacy there is also a matter of damage to Google.
Repeating the words invasion of privacy over and over, while Goebellian, still doesnt make it correct. In fact, its simply not true. Why start an excellent post with a lie?

Should the govt have the right to go on fishing expeditions that can cause direct harm to the company they have demanded information of?

Any ltigation where a company or a person is involved as either party or witness can cause hardship financial or other wise to the company or person

Please provide evidence by the way of the subpoenae being the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the stock fall vis a vis general market fall or other reason

What the govt has demanded here has been freely given by all but Google. When, not if but when, the govt demands IPs, who will stand up to them?

The government cannot demand "IPs" without a legal basis to do so, such as litigation, criminal investigation etc all under control of a Court. Are you contending that IPs are sancrosant info that can never be revealed?

What about when a subpoena comes about an individual? Imagine you are under investigation for something, or just in a frivolous lawsuit or even a messy divorce. You can bet lawyers are going to want to say “I want the search records for this IP, or this cookie.” And it’s going to be a lot harder for search engines to turn down those requests, because they will be specific and will relate to the data the search companies are holding on all of us.

its done all the time in criminal investigations and if its relevant in a civil case, tell me what the problem is? If I sue you for taking nudie pics of my kids, you mean to say I cant discover your porn searches?

The next logical step is to start using Anonymity software when doing searches, and I personally find it disquieting to feel that I have to do that in order to maintain my privacy.

O well thems the breaks.....maybe privacy is one of those penumbras that is so important when the goverment is looking to get data they are entitled to, yet so fallacious when it provides the basis of a womans right to chose.

WildsortofhypocriticalAlaska
 
Repeating the words invasion of privacy over and over, while Goebellian, still doesnt make it correct. In fact, its simply not true. Why start an excellent post with a lie?

I will determine for myself what is my privacy and what is not, this is I do not give you or the govt. permission to decide for me. My internet searchs are private. The govt may not (at this time) have my IP to associate with the information out there, but it is still information that I generated. I do not want to the camel to get it's nose even partially under this tent. You may go ahead and record your searches and voluntarily send them to the govt, if you so choose.

Please provide evidence by the way of the subpoenae being the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the stock fall vis a vis general market fall or other reason
Coorelations do not require evidence, however if you want to you can do a "Google" search using the appropriate key words and find that Googles CFO has determined that this was the primary cause.

The government cannot demand "IPs" without a legal basis to do so, such as litigation, criminal investigation etc all under control of a Court. Are you contending that IPs are sancrosant info that can never be revealed?

The govt can request anything it wants to, and if the requestee wants to comply it can. Yahoo for one rolled over on this request without hesitation, and might on an IP request as well. The govt can't do wire taps without a court order either you know, but they do. I am suggesting that the IPs are vulnerable to a govt that will misuse the information.

its done all the time in criminal investigations and if its relevant in a civil case, tell me what the problem is?
You are correct, with proof of relevance to a civil/criminal proceeding, the information should be available by court order.

.....maybe privacy is one of those penumbras that is so important when the goverment is looking to get data they are entitled to, yet so fallacious when it provides the basis of a womans right to chose.

The right to privacy is of fundamental importance to liberty. I fail to see how you can have true liberty without an iron clad right to privacy.

WildsortofhypocriticalAlaska

Please explain the meaning of this - it appears to be a personal attack and not germaine to the conversation.
 
Are you contending that IPs are sancrosant info that can never be revealed?

You didnt answer that question, but then you say

I will determine for myself what is my privacy and what is not, this is I do not give you or the govt. permission to decide for me. My internet searchs are private

Yet, you admit

you are correct, with proof of relevance to a civil/criminal proceeding, the information should be available by court order.

Accordingly, what is happening here to Google is OK in your book (please note that the mere existence of a civil actiioon triggers the right of a litigant to get "private" information)

The right to privacy is of fundamental importance to liberty. I fail to see how you can have true liberty without an iron clad right to privacy.

Wher is there a right to privacy set forth in the Constituion?

The right to privacy is of fundamental importance to liberty. I fail to see how you can have true liberty without an iron clad right to privacy.

Not particulary directed at you unless you take the position that the right to privacy is limited by your politcal leanings

WildtryingtoskirtthebannedareasAlaska
 
WA, I think you have become enamored of listening to yourself, as opposed to joining into a relevant conversation.

See ya down the road.
 
WA, I think you have become enamored of listening to yourself, as opposed to joining into a relevant conversation.

Dont mind reelvant conversation as long as its based on facts.....

WildguessyourconcedingAlaska
 
I'll try to explain Wild's argument in a different way (Wild, please correct me if I'm wrong):

For the sake of argument, we'll presume that there is a Constitutional right to privacy ("the right"). Now we have to decide whether the right applies to your communications with Google.

My limited understanding of how the Internet works is as follows: you use your computer to send information (like a search request to Google). You send the information, which is routed to one place, and then routed to another place, and then to several others, until it finally is received by Google. [I told you my knowledge was limited!!!] If this is correct, your communication has been received by several different sources. Just so, it is difficult to argue that the right was violated after several different sources received and had access to the information you are claiming is private. After all, if you really wanted to keep the information private, you wouldn't have allowed so many others to have access to it. Sort of analogous to using Jack a send a message, who provides it to Mary, who provides it to Jim, who finally relays it to Buffy. You couldn't reasonably expect to keep the information between only you and Buffy after you provided it to so many other people; those who intend to keep information private generally don't expose it to several people -- they release it only to the person who they specifically want to receive it. Now, once again, if I'm wrong about how the Internet works, please forgive me.

The rules of discovery allow liberal access to information, including information possessed by third parties. Basically, any information that could be reasonably expected to lead to relevant information is discoverable. Now, if a third party (like Google) is concerned about the information that a litigant wants, it can request a Protective Order, and ask the Judge to review the information first, or for permission to redact information (like IP addresses), and/or to limit what kind of information the third-party has to provide.

If Google provides the search requests, but does not have to identify IP addresses and/or other information that would identify who specifically made the search request, then none of us Google users can complain. After all, the Government won't know who made the search request; the Government will only know the specific information requested.

Hope this helps; this legal and internet tech stuff is tough!!! maybe I've just mucked things up even more. :(
 
The rules of discovery allow liberal access to information, including information possessed by third parties. Basically, any information that could be reasonably expected to lead to relevant information is discoverable. Now, if a third party (like Google) is concerned about the information that a litigant wants, it can request a Protective Order, and ask the Judge to review the information first, or for permission to redact information (like IP addresses), and/or to limit what kind of information the third-party has to provide.

Gets a big Blue C for keerect

If Google provides the search requests, but does not have to identify IP addresses and/or other information that would identify who specifically made the search request, then none of us Google users can complain. After all, the Government won't know who made the search request; the Government will only know the specific information requested.

Go to the head of the class

WildseehoweasyitiswhenyatakethetimetoanalyzeitAlaska
 
The government's subpoena, google's response, and a few other documents are halfway down this page:
http://news.com.com/Feds+take+porn+fight+to+Google/2100-1030_3-6028701.html

(The links are wrongly labelled. The government subpoena is the third link in the box, and the Stark declaration is the first link.)

The subpoena looks stupid. Even if the search data suggest that there is significant material that's harmful to minors, who's to say that the search engine algorithms don't disproportionately rank "harmful to minor" content higher than other content? In that case, wouldn't the search engines need to be regulated rather than the sites themselves?

Let's not kid ourselves. Of course there's material readily accessible that's harmful to minors, under some puritan definition of "harmful to minors." But google by default has safesearch turned on, which manages to filter out most of that. The subpoena makes no mention of the safesearch feature... so again, just what information is the Government trying to get?

I believe that the government really has no idea what it wants, that it's just fishing for any information it can get in an attempt to justify an ill-conceived law, and that Stark is going along with it because he's either corrupt or politically naive.
 
Even if the search data suggest that there is significant material that's harmful to minors, who's to say that the search engine algorithms don't disproportionately rank "harmful to minor" content higher than other content? In that case, wouldn't the search engines need to be regulated rather than the sites themselves?

Good point, but thats a question as to the credibility of the evidence reserved to the trier of fact, not an issue at this stage

Of course there's material readily accessible that's harmful to minors, under some puritan definition of "harmful to minors."

I think that some of the internet content at issue is beyond puritan...even a per like me finds some of it disgusting

so again, just what information is the Government trying to get?

Its discovery...whatever they are entitled to...

WildexcellentpointsAlaska
 
I think that some of the internet content at issue is beyond puritan...even a per like me finds some of it disgusting
Yeah, and I find the brady bunch and HCI websites beyond disgusting -- subversive and traitorous, in fact. I don't see any attempt to get them regulated, and unlike the porn industry, HCI and the other anti-gun groups have a significant political effect in this country.

I don't see how porn, even BDSM, fetish stuff, and/or bestiality infringes on my rights. I am free to ignore them, and if a search engine like google tends to return harmful-to-minor results, I'm free to take whatever measures I need to to protect myself, up to and including -- gasp -- not using google.

Not only might the search engine artificially inflate rankings of porn sites (maybe not purposefully, but as a byproduct of their pagerank system), but the types of people who use google might be more prone to look for porn. I don't know, and I'm certain the DoJ doesn't know, all the variables that might account for lots of harmful-to-minor sites being returned in searches.

Nobody, not even the government, can request anything they want just because it's discovery and because they're entitled to some form of discovery. As I said, I have yet to find a coherent rationale for why the government needs search engine records, or what exactly they intend to do with them.

Stark's declaration is extremely vague. I want to see the government or Mr. Stark state the process that is going to transform the requested search results into some sort of statistical conclusion.

And let's not forget that a major problem with the label "harmful to minors" is that it tends to be vague enough to endanger access to a variety of material besides porn... notably sex education information, and even other non-harmful material that mentions some aspect of sex in passing.
 
I don't see how porn, even BDSM, fetish stuff, and/or bestiality infringes on my rights.

Not a question of rights its a question of lack of constituional protection

Not only might the search engine artificially inflate rankings of porn sites (maybe not purposefully, but as a byproduct of their pagerank system), but the types of people who use google might be more prone to look for porn. I don't know, and I'm certain the DoJ doesn't know, all the variables that might account for lots of harmful-to-minor sites being returned in searches.

Again thats an issue of the weight that the eveidence might be given by the trier of fact

Nobody, not even the government, can request anything they want just because it's discovery and because they're entitled to some form of discovery. As I said, I have yet to find a coherent rationale for why the government needs search engine records, or what exactly they intend to do with them.

The law is material and relevant....thats a minimal burden for the requestor....you may not see a cohernet rationale, I can give you 10 and thats all that counts...that one exist...or do you want to get rid of the ENTIRE discovery process in civil cases

Stark's declaration is extremely vague. I want to see the government or Mr. Stark state the process that is going to transform the requested search results into some sort of statistical conclusion.

Again, thats an issue reserved for the trier of fact


WildyoumaynotlikeitbutitslegalandclearlyconstitutionalAlaska
 
Anything that doesn't infringe on my rights and that isn't specifically enumerated in Article II is supposed to be beyond the power of Congress to mess with. Forget the first amendment... COPA is unconstitutional because of Federalism.

The law is material and relevant....thats a minimal burden for the requestor....you may not see a cohernet rationale, I can give you 10 and thats all that counts.
You mean the subpoena, not the law, right? I don't need 10. Give me one solid reason why this request will help the government defend whatever law it is they're trying to defend (COPA?).

I see a bunch of rambling in the documents about how the requested data from google will allow Mr. Stark to find out something about search requests for material that's harmful-to-minors. I see nothing about how this will help the government with its case. How does the government even know whether a URL is harmful to minors or not? Do they have a master list? Did they buy it from a web filter company that considers TFL to be subversive? These are questions I'd expect to be answered before the government can compel google to turn over the records. They should have to show a clear connection between the records and their case, which I submit they are unable to do.

Google makes an excellent point in its initial response to the subpoena. Since several other (at least yahoo and microsoft, iirc) search engines have turned over requested records voluntarily, why does the government need google's data so much that it is justified in compelling Google to turn it over? After all, the request is merely for statistically random sample... hardly anything specific that Google might be in a unique position to help with.
 
I personally find it disquieting to feel that I have to do that in order to maintain my privacy. Kind of like wearing a mask when going to the library
what, you mean like how people used to get their porn? wearing overcoats and hats and glasses and going only after dark to the XXX store?

but that was more because the porn aficianados didnt want anyone else to know what their hobby was, right? not because they didnt want big brother to know what they were buying.

p.s. this is all academic since everyone knows you only get crappy material off a google search. :D
 
You mean the subpoena, not the law, right? I don't need 10. Give me one solid reason why this request will help the government defend whatever law it is they're trying to defend (COPA?).

Dosent need to be "solid", the court doesnt pass on those issues...the test os one of relevance and material and

I see a bunch of rambling in the documents about how the requested data from google will allow Mr. Stark to find out something about search requests for material that's harmful-to-minors.

I find it less rambling (approaching it from a legal point of view of course), regarless, Mr Starks logic is suffienct IMHO and bet ya a donut the Court will find so

Anything that doesn't infringe on my rights and that isn't specifically enumerated in Article II is supposed to be beyond the power of Congress to mess with. Forget the first amendment... COPA is unconstitutional because of Federalism.

Your views and mine (and mine is closer by the way, to most consituuional scholars) differ but hey, we have argued that before and neither is gonna convince the other

Soemhow all this wailing and gnashing of teeth over a simple and PROPER discovery request is overdone..

WildsuchislifeAlaska
 
Although I'm not sure what a constitutional scholar is, I'll take your word for it. :) I'm fairly sure the founders would not be impressed that constitutional scholars are a very small subset of the population, and would be even less impressed at some of the conclusions reached by said "scholars."

The motion to compel talks about how the objective is not to sample the internet, but the view of the internet provided by search engines. The data requested from google would represent nothing more than a pagerank-weighted list of sites, selected by search words (and if you watch most people try to search for things, you know how poorly chosen most search terms are). The data won't even reveal the most popular sites, because Google doesn't generally record which search results users click on.

If either the predilections of google searchers, or Google's decision (and it is fully entitled to make such decisions with no regard to "accuracy", whatever "accuracy" means) whether or not to index pages and how it ranks pages, is going to have some effect on whether a law is constitutional, that is pathologically stupid. I don't see how the actions of either Google or Google's users affect whether commercial web filtering programs are effective.
 
The motion to compel talks about how the objective is not to sample the internet, but the view of the internet provided by search engines.

Whether or not you or I are convinced of a respective parties position based on the Google evidence is not the point, it is the position at trial that counts in conjuction with all the evidence presented.

lets say that the government is attempting to show that innocuos search terms lead to innapropriate content....assuming arguendo that they find that innocuous search terms do in fact return innapropriate pages, then the inof they obtain from Google is highly relevant....

Try some inncuous words and see what ya get...

'm fairly sure the founders would not be impressed that constitutional scholars are a very small subset of the population, and would be even less impressed at some of the conclusions reached by said "scholars."

I'm fairly sure that many scholars wouldnt be impressed that some of the freedon loving founding fathers owned slaves.

WildonandonAlaska
 
Back
Top