| 6:56 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Yahoo has stressed that it didnít reveal any personal information. "We are rigorous defenders of our usersí privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said last night. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue." |
There's no privacy issue here. So nothing to tsk, tsk about.
What interests me is that if this data will be used in a court of law as evidence, then it becomes a public record. In other words, we will be entitled to a copy of the raw search query data ourselves (unless the Justice Department promised not to do that, or the folks at Yahoo didn't think about that).
| 8:17 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I just really can't understand what information this will give the Justice Department other than the fact that people search for porn. So why did they ask in the first place?
| 8:27 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|So why did they ask in the first place? |
It is the thin end of the wedge to open up the door marked "1984" (and yes, I'm paranoid).
| 8:51 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Doesn't the Patriot Act give the US govt the right to access most any of the data the engines might have collected? Kudos to Google for standing up to this.
| 9:12 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
is it the search query that the govt wants or the resulting websites that they're after? or both?
| 9:12 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
if they're looking for what the purvs search, the paid tool that everyone uses for keyword research will give them that information for much less than spending months or years battling Google...
| 9:41 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|What interests me is that if this data will be used in a court of law as evidence, then it becomes a public record. In other words, we will be entitled to a copy of the raw search query data ourselves |
Aha! I hadn't thought of that. I knew there had to be some reason other than privacy that Google chose this fight.
| 9:46 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|It [the Department of Justice] says the order will not violate personal privacy, but Google says it is too broad and threatens trade secrets. |
| 9:47 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
According to the radio news report I heard this morning on NPR the government's subpoena sought both the search queries AND the IP addresses from which those queries originated - covering a 2 month period.
Connect the dots: Query on July 3 from IP address of ###.##.##.###, which IP address was assigned by ISP ABC to the phone number of the Smith household during the hours of . . which corresponds to the queries for . . .
Now, aren't you glad that on that date your bored little mind, having just read a news article about the prolific sex habits of fruit flies lead you to do a search for . . .?
You think Uncle Sam doesn't have the computing power to match up that data?
Turn the lights out. Unplug the computer. Put down the cell phone. Somebody just can't resist sifting through all that data you are creating.
Knock, knock. "Who is it?" "Mr. Smith, it's your friend, the government. We have a subpoena for your computer. We're not looking for any personal data. We'd just like to take a look around inside your hard drive. You don't have a problem with that, do you?"
[edited by: Webwork at 9:56 pm (utc) on Jan. 20, 2006]
| 9:50 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|I heard this morning on NPR that the government subpoeana sought not only search queries but also the IP addresses from which those queries originated - covering a 2 month period. |
I've seen the same thing said about the subpeona for Yahoo/MSN as well now, so I'm wodering if their reps are misinformed or purposely denying what they gave away...
| 9:56 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|the government's subpoena sought both the search queries AND the IP addresses from which those queries originated |
they want the ip address too? are you certain? because if yahoo relented in a way in which they indicated that their customers privacy was not impacted I'd have to believe that translates to NO IP FOR YOU.
| 10:00 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|What interests me is that if this data will be used in a court of law as evidence, then it becomes a public record |
I think that is exactly why google is fighting back. MSN, Yahoo, jeeves and most of the worlds search geeks would love to get their hands on that data.
| 10:01 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
I'm fairly certain I'm not dreaming what I heard on the radio this morning. It stuck in my mind because as soon as I heard "queries" + "IP addresses" I began to feel searchers remorse.
Keira Knightly is over 18, right? :)
| 10:04 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Perhaps they are going to do a few spam engines to shore up the trade deficit...
no better way to have a crack than to include the best performing search terms ;)
[edited by: TinkyWinky at 10:15 pm (utc) on Jan. 20, 2006]
| 10:08 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
They aren't looking for IPs - here is the actual motion to compel:
It asks for search queries and urls
Even so some consider this a violation of their privacy (I do) and Google claims it is a burden, irrelevanty, trade secret, and would make them look like they were caving into privacy invasions.
| 10:08 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
|Yahoo and AOL both insist that, while they complied fully with the feds' request, none of the information handed over was personally identifiable. |
What's interesting is that MSN is missing from that statement but MSN complied with the request as stated earlier in the article.
| 10:09 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
great link Chris... thanks.
| 10:21 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
According to page 4 of the link Chris_R posted, they were asked to provide:
"all queries that have been entered on your company's search engine between June 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005, inclusive."
They amended this after "lengthy negotiations" to:
"the text of each search string entered onto Google's search engine over a one-week period (absent any information identifying the person who entered such query"
So they did want everything, they've just narrowed down this foothold attempt to get a victory against Google - I wonder what the other engines agreed to?
[edited by: bcolflesh at 10:36 pm (utc) on Jan. 20, 2006]
| 10:23 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
>So they did want everything
I am not sure that is the case. I don't read it that way, but:
1) I could see how one could
2) Who knows what the other SEs turned over - they may have sent IP, Query, and Cookie as well.
| 10:27 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
its not just the government.. its the Bush Administration.. even scarier..
CNBC is talking about it right now... Yahoo does not seem to stand up to government - they got rid of their chat rooms online and acted cowardly towards the gvmt. I praise Google for standing up to the gvmt.
| 10:32 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Chris_R, I'd sure like to see the actual subpoena.
Know where I can see a copy?
According to the Motion you linked to (government's brief) Google is arguing that compliance with the government's subpoena would require Google to disclose personally identifiable information.
Our friendly government may be arguing that - without the final match up - IP to phone number - the IP addresses are not "personally identifiable information".
Don't rest easy on this one. The came's nose is peeking under the big tent of search.
| 10:44 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
According to Gov'ts definition D - on page 12 - it would exclude information identifying user or computer - which I would assume to mean IPs & Cookies.
| 10:54 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
webwork and bcolflesh have 20/20 hearing ..thats what they originally asked for ..thats what MS and Y rolled over for ..
Sales of the (nevertheless worthless ) "evidence eliminator" type progs will no doubt go though the roof..
The current AG where you folks are wouldn't be named Torquemada by any chance would he ..seems like some of his close friends are behind this ..considering the recent history of the churches in the matters of sex and children ( their smoke and mirrors I know ..but some will be blinded ..even here in fora ) I would 've thought they would be better staying away from this area ..Glass houses , stones and all ..
| 10:57 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Alrighty then . . so at this stage it looks as if they're only seeking the actual query.
Wonder what they'll ask for next, after they find a query for "bad stuff"?
I wonder what the government intends to use the record of queries for . . in the future? Might it serve as the basis for future legislation? Might it serve as the basis for more "surveillance by presidential power authority"?
Stay tuned. This has a certain smell of rot about it.
"We're only sticking our noses into everything to protect you."
Ya, right. I feel protected now.
How long until the next election?
| 11:46 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Great way to stir up press, get the data, then the gov. can bring to attention (rekindle the press) the massive amounts of searches for whatever the propaganda du jour calls for so that the mob can see the light and vote for them to have the power to nab that info on a regular basis.
"Gosh Martha, sez here theres a hundrid 'n fify thousan serches fer pipe bomb each monf. Don' see why the feds shoun't be able git them serch engin's to cooperate."
| 11:46 pm on Jan 20, 2006 (gmt 0)|
Google stuck it to MSN and Y! pretty good this time: Google is looking as the nice guys whereas the other ones are being portrayed as snitches. However, I suspect this will backfire soon as the argument will switch to why do you have he information to begin with? The stories a month or so from now will mention this case as a reason why storing data is dangerous for privacy.
Until that happens though, Google is looking good and the rest as spineless companies eager to give the government your private data...the average person just reads the headlines :)
| 12:56 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
One day a Bedouin and his camel were crossing the desert. Night came and the temperature became colder. The man put up his tent, tied the camel to it, and went to sleep.
The temperature became slightly colder and the camel asked the Bedouin if he could just put his nose in the tent to warm up. The man agreed that the camel could just put his nose in, because the tent was small and there was no room for both. So the camel's nose became warm and after a while the temperature went down even more.
The camel asked the man if he could put his front legs in because they were very cold. The Bedouin reluctantly agreed that the camel could put his front legs in. So the camel moved in his front legs and they became warm. After sometime the camel asked the man to allow him to put in his hind legs or else he won't be able to make the journey the next morning with frozen legs. The man agreed and once the camel moved his hind legs in, there was no room for the Bedouin in his own tent.
| 1:03 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The man agreed and once the camel moved his hind legs in, there was no room for the Bedouin in his own tent.
hahaha nice one:)
| 1:13 am on Jan 21, 2006 (gmt 0)|
The Bedouin, frostbitten and angered by the ordeal, drew forth his light saber and slayed the presumptuous beast, and took refuge in the warm cavity of its abdomen.
| This 55 message thread spans 2 pages: 55 (  2 ) > > |