DU lawyers/tech people: The Google thing. Explain it to me like I'm 5.

[BlueIris]

Well, okay, maybe like I'm a little older than that. When I first read the story about the WH wanting access to all of those web addresses and also for all Google searches conducted within one week, I was horrified. When I read that Google declined to comply with the WH subpoena on the grounds that compliance would violate the privacy of Google users, as well as unfairly force Google to reveal trade secrets, I was happy that Google resisted the prying, heavy hand of the Admin, on principle if nothing else.

But after I posted about the issue on my blog, a contributor there who is an attorney posted that he 'didn't see' how compliance with the government's request 'actually violated anyone's privacy.' Of couse, he admitted that he wasn't exactly an Internet expert and I admit that while I'm not totally computer illiterate, well, I don't know the answer to his question which is: if Google is forced to comply with the subpoena, will the Admin get to see not just what we've all been looking at via our Google searches, but who has been doing the searching?

If anyone wants to kick me over to any threads that have already covered this, that would be great. I searched, (heh) but failed to locate any.

[Hugin]

1. Your lawyer friend needs a broader mind...

"he 'didn't see' how compliance with the government's request 'actually violated anyone's privacy.'"

They would also receive "Who searched for what and when" in their requests.

About as personal as it gets.

[BlueIris]

5. For the record, he's not my friend. We just post on the same blog.

And I think the Admin getting access to Google's search records is squicky no matter what the parameters for that access are.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. A note of caution

On the Internet, it's impossible to know who's who.

You have no way of knowing that the "lawyer" who said that - an astonishing take on the Google matter, I must say - is really a lawyer.

I, for instance, am a lapdancer.

[mmonk]

23. What do you mean

on the internet, its impossible to know who is who? In reference to the claim of being a lawyer or in reference to determine who is searching for what?

[Gormy Cuss]

25. I'm pretty sure OldLeftieLawyer isn't a lapdancer

but maybe she is and just likes to practice fantasy law on the internet.;-)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. Actually,

I lapdanced my way through bartending school.............. ;)

[Gormy Cuss]

37. Oh, so that's what you meant

when you said you had passed the bar.:silly:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. Never passed one

that didn't end up in finding true love ..............

[BlueIris]

24. Ah, there. I was hoping you'd weigh in.

And...okay, I would have preferred to PM you about this, but what the hey.

This person...is an attorney. I could say more about how I know, but that would take forever. I happen to know a little about his RL identity and it includes a law degree.

And, yeah, without a background that in any way resembles legal training, I found his take on it "astonishing" as well. Because...what? But I wanted to get other perspectives.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. Consider the people - some of them lawyers -

who think the NSA spying thing is no big deal, no assault on personal privacy.

This whole go-round has my head spinning. People I'd have considered to be well-adjusted, thoughtful, experienced, and educated folks have suddenly gone almost freeper in their thinking, citing "national security" as their rationale.

"Well, we haven't been attacked since 9/11."

WHAT THE .................?

As long as you know the person's really a lawyer, I'll shut up now.

[mongo]

27. I KNEW IT!!!!!!

I always suspected you were a Lappdancer



Don't bogart that lukefisk!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

31. Where'd you get Mom's picture?

In Lapland, we're sort of the Paris and Nicole of lapdancers.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!

Check your email, you big brat......

[kurth]

2. Not much preventing them from going from "what" to "who"

Fascists love fishing expeditions. Especially fascists with massively parallel supercomputers in undisclosed locations.

[Why Syzygy]

3. It depends ..

http://news.com.com/Week+in+review+Google,+the+defiant+one/2100-1083_3-6029046.html

http://news.com.com/FAQ+What+does+the+Google+subpoena+mean/2100-1029_3-6029042.html?tag=nl

Q: Then why are privacy groups complaining? Your article includes I-am-outraged statements from the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
There are probably a few reasons. First, they'd say, private companies should not serve as convenient information repositories for trial attorneys hoping to win court cases. Second, it's not clear where this information will end up, and how far the protective order stretches.

Third, they simply believe that search engine companies are collecting too much information about their users. Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft set cookies, collect personal information, and retain permanent logs that could be used to create a kind of dossier about a person's search habits.

[acmejack]

4. From a BBC article

snip>
Google is a privately-owned US company that has a policy of collecting as much information as possible about everyone who uses its search tool.

It will store your computer's IP address, the time/date, your browser details and the item you search for.

It sets a tracking cookie on your computer that does not expire until 2038.

This means that Google builds up a detailed profile of your search terms over many years.
snip>

ON edit: There is a lot of really interesting detail at this article, I wanted to put more here but the rules! BBC likes to use sentenences as paras.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2786761.stm

[BlueIris]

7. This is more like the kind of answer I was trying to get.

So, does this mean that if the Admin gets the kind of access it wants via this particular subpoena, its members could link searches to specific IP addresses?

[DrDebug]

11. The problem with google is that they keep everything

and that is why that company has been under a lot of pressure from privacy advocates, because they retain all search entries, all IPs, all pages etc. At first they didn't even expire the cache pages are a certain period but finally had to because the pressure and the number of delete questions were too much. But google has a habit of storing things indefinitely.

That's why google is a resource which they want to have access to. It's probably far better than Microsoft, because just look at your computer and it's clear that even though they store a lot, it's probably one big chaos without any chance of finding anything.

In short with your "valid until 2038" cookie tracknumber (since IP is not reliable and often confusing), IP, all your search questions are probably still in their databases and even if they cleaned it, it will still be at least months of your queries. The only thing they don't know is what page you've selected, because it is a direct link.

[bpilgrim]

16. yes - with your IP it is easy then to get your Contact Info via your ISP

see this poat...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=202149&mesg_id=202350

peace

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Supposedly,

they just want the "broad" information - this is, what specific web sites were visited. Not by whom, they say. They don't want information on you and me.

But, keep in mind why this information is being sought: to shore up an Internet Kiddie Porn law that was already tossed by the Supreme Court.

So, right there, the reasons for its gathering are suspcious, and I'll be damned that three entities rolled over for them.

I bought more google stock yesterday.

[mmonk]

39. Yes,

I'm pretty sure the reason isn't really porn.

[1monster]

9. It sets a tracking cookie on your computer that does not expire until 2038

I delete cookies on my computer almost on a daily basis. Does this get rid of the tracking cookie? Or is it hidden on my hard drive somewhere else just like that dispicable IST Slotch Bar spyware that I have to delete on a regular basis?

[DrDebug]

20. Yes, but the cookie contains your IP

So they can match them up again if you have a static IP. I have the cookie on reject so that's an option as well, but that's browser dependent. The only problem is that with google cookies disabled you cannot surf for porn on images.google.com because you the safe surf filter is on by default :cry:

[mmonk]

40. Always remove tracking cookies.

[IDemo]

6. According to the Washington Post, they are not after user info - yet

But this could set a precedent for future subpoenas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001799.html

"Even though the government has demanded no personal information -- only a list of Web queries divorced from the names of those submitting them -- Google is resisting partly on grounds that turning over the data might create a public perception that it would readily cough up personal factoids, if asked."

[BlueIris]

10. Okay. Better. I'll make sure to post that.

Good. Sort of.

[ismnotwasm]

21. I'm confused why the government needs it.

If it's for a "broad inquiry," or whatever. I was looking up pornography and sexual violence statistics on Google. I was not particularly looking for the statistics on internet porn, but their seemed to be a plethora of webs sites on them, from a lot of view points. Page after page. A lot of info. So, I'm lost here as well, if they are not tracking individuals, what are they trying to do?

[DrDebug]

22. It's not about pornography, but to gain control over the internet

First you have to know what people look for and how many queries are about things which they do not want you to know about (rate of dissent in the general population). Once you have that then you can adjust and fine tune your propaganda.

It has nothing to do with pornography. Like I said in another post, I was surprised why there weren't any sex search engines included, but it seems that they all have a clear statement against child pornography and have reporting systems and blacklists of dubious sites which can be shared as well. So it seems that if the problem was with pornography that you can deal with it within the industry itself and you don't need google search queries, because linkspam rules as far as google sex queries go, since all you get is linkspam and trash anyhow, so I doubt whether many experience porn hunters will use it. Only dumb kids and equally dumb adults will use google to find porn.

[bpilgrim]

13. the Government asked for a million random web addresses. (your ID #)

with that they can easily get your contact info.

"In addition to a breakdown of every request typed into its search engine during a single week - potentially hundreds of millions of queries - the Government asked for a million random web addresses."

more...
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/google-fights-bush-on-search-data/2006/01/21/1137734186112.html

peace

[sandnsea]

8. chilling affect

Just one more intrusion into people's sense of privacy. You can get search info without this kind of broad sweep anyway, any good SEO company knows how to target search phrases and which ones are affective. I don't know why the government has to get this info from the search companies, it just seems to me like they're trying to push open the door to being able to get the IP number associated with the search. They've already gone from only being able to investigate internet activity based on an ongoing investigation; to just being able to go out and randomly surf and entrap people. Now it seems like they don't even want to do that, they just want to get search records, and eventually the IP connected to the search, and start hauling people in. Very scary to me, scarier than the library records.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

14. I think they're hoping

to find Osama bin Laden's #3 guy.

He loves porn, I hear.

[sandnsea]

19. I heard it was key lime pie recipes

If they start asking for cooking searches, then we'll know they're on his tail!!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

34. Well, who wouldn't want

a good key lime pie recipe? I mean, it's only the best pie in the world, no?



Authentic Key Lime Pie

Real key lime pie is not green. The pie gets its true pale yellow color from the egg yolks that predominate the ingredient list. For best results, use fresh key lmes, not bottled juice. This is a very simple recipe and only takes a few minutes to prepare and 12 minutes to bake.

Crust Ingredients
16 graham crackers, crushed
3 tablespoons sugar
1 cube (1/4 lb.) butter

Crust Directions
Mix the ingredients and press them into a 9-inch pie plate. Bake in a preheated, 350F oven for 10-12 minutes until lightly browned. Place on a rack to cool.

Pie Ingredients
4 large or extra-large egg yolks
14 ounces sweetened, condensed milk
1/2 cup fresh key lime juice (12 limes)
2 teaspoons grated lime peel, green portion only
Whipping cream for garnish (optional)

Pie Directions
Use an electric mixer and beat egg yolks until they're thick and turn light yellow; don't overmix. Add sweetened, condensed milk. On low speed, mix in half of the lime juice. Once the juice is mixed, add the other half and lime peel, continue to mix until blended (just a few seconds). Pour the mixture into the pie shell and bake at 350F for 12 minutes..

[sandnsea]

35. oh yum

I think I gained 5 pounds just looking at that!

[peacetalksforall]

18. I always thought the examples using libraries was trivial compared to

what the Patriot Act could mean.

The regime wants to be our obsessed missionary parent and a corporation and mailitary slave driver.

They want us totally bugged whether on the road, in the woods, or in our living and work spaces.

Who are the patriots here? Those who love the Constitution and Bill of Rights and want to protect it or those out to destroy it?

[peacetalksforall]

15. Do your remember reading that the government wants to set up a

parallel internet? We would operate on this one, they would have a new one?

Google is saying that the government would gain access to their trade secrets?

Are there dots here?

[mongo]

26. My understanding of the government's position

Is that they want to know how many times porn comes up in an "average search"

Then they can show what filth comes up when little Suzie does a search for "girl scouts" (nevermind that google has a safe search function)

They want to be able to say that 55% of all searches turn up porn (nevermind that 50% of ALL searches are for porn) Note: stats pulled out of my ass for example.

They want to be able to say X number of minors accessed porn -- by matching up a search with a person.

[ComerPerro]

28. First thing I thought when I heard that? "Quick! Everyone google

'miserable failure' and 'Santorum'!"

Make sure that those google bombs are running, and lets see a spike in people googling them...

[sendero]

29. I'm not an expert..

... but I'm pretty sure of what I'm going to say.

The govt wanted, in weekly chunks, the IP, time and search terms of a million users. With nothing more than those three pieces of information, the govt can tell WHO SEARCHED FOR WHAT for that week.

Soemthing like this:

121.223.14.4 01/21/06 23:32:22 bush sucks
122.223.14.4 01/21/06 23:36:42 cheney bites
122.223.14.4 01/21/06 23:52:12 good democrats

With the IP and the time, you can be identified through your ISP.

If you don't think that is an invasion of privacy, well that's your opinion. I don't share it. Also, their stated aim of "finding out if minors are getting porn hits" is ludicrous, a minor cannot get an ISP account so how are they going to know it was a minor entering the search.

[bpilgrim]

30. &&

lot's of folks search for their own and their acquittance's contact info (NAME, phone, addy, ss#, etc.)

which would save the feds an additional step :evilgrin:


DU's SwampRat
more...
http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10002

peace

[blogslut]

36. It's supposed to be about COPA

COPA is the Child Online Protection Act and it was signed into law in 1998. The intent of the law is to protect children from viewing adult content on the web by methods that have been ruled unconstitutional three times by lower courts, namely the Third Circuit. COPA has also been before the SCOTUS twice. The last time, the SCOTUS threw the case back to the Third Circuit and gave this opinion:

"In particular, it noted that "he record before the Court reveals that blocking or filtering technology may be at least as successful as COPA would be in restricting minors’ access to harmful material online without impos-ing the burden on constitutionally protected speech that COPA imposes on adult users or Web site operators."

Well, the DOJ still thinks they can make COPA work. So, now the DOJ is trying to prove that "it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn."

The Department of Justice (claims) they want all these Google search records in order to substantiate thier argument. Also, the DOJ is lazy and wants Google to do their research for them.