Quote:

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort ``vigorously.''

``Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Wong said.

The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.

``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''

Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy.

``The government can't even claim that it's for national security,'' Everett-Church said. ``They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.''

The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.

However, the Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn.

As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is ``harmful to minors.''

The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.

``The production of those materials would be of significant assistance to the government's preparation of its defense of the constitutionality of this important statute,'' government lawyers wrote, noting that Google is the largest search engine.

Google has the largest share of U.S. Web searches with 46 percent, according to November 2005 figures from Nielsen//NetRatings. Yahoo is second with 23 percent, and MSN third with 11 percent.

---

badchad said:

Once again, this will only help eliminate the terrorists.

Don't worry, it's making you safer.

---

Quote:

Google is refusing to comply with a U.S. Department of Justice subpoena to provide the records of the searches that Web users ask it to carry out.

The Justice Department wants to use search records, compiled over a week, to see whether a law designed to protect minors from pornographic Web sites is effective.

The Justice Department first approached Google last summer, requesting access to the search-engine firm's records.

"We also approached Yahoo, MSN, and AOL," said Charles Miller, a spokesperson for the Justice Department. "They all complied with our request."

Filter Test

Miller said that the purpose of the requests to the companies was to enable the Justice Department to see what kind of searches people are conducting and what URLs they are accessing.

"We are concerned about whether the parental-control filters provided by antivirus programs are effective in blocking access to harmful-to-minor Web sites," he said.

"We will do a statistical analysis of the information provided by the search-engine companies to compare the effectiveness of filters in blocking access to pornographic Web sites as against the effectiveness of the Child Online Protection Act (COBA), which was passed into law in 1998."

Following Google's refusal to comply with the Justice Department request, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales filed papers with a federal judge in San Jose to enforce the order.

Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel, said in a statement issued by the search engine firm: "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their (the Justice Department's) demand for information overreaches. We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."

Both Sides

Mukul Krishna, an analyst with Frost & Sullivan, said that there are two sides to the issue. "From the parents' point of view, they are naturally concerned that when their children are online doing their homework, they are not viewing unsuitable Web sites," he said.

"But if Google complies with the Justice Department's request, where will this stop?" he asked. "People took a long time to get accustomed to using the Internet for shopping and other activities like researching movies. If they feel Big Brother is watching them, they will be concerned. What if they accidentally get on a government watchlist because they have the same name as someone who is accessing online pornography?"

Krishna said that pornographic Web site operators seed their sites with standard search terms so that when people do Web searches, their sites will come up. "It is almost impossible to do an Internet search without a pornographic site appearing in the list somewhere down the line," he said.

"Suppose you do a search for 'investment banking.' I can guarantee that there will be porno sites that have included the term 'investment' on their site so that they appear on a Web search."

Krishna argued that one solution might be in forcing porn sites to use the domain suffix .xxx. "This would make it very clear that they are porno sites, and it would be easy for firewalls to block access to them," he said.

---

zappaisgod said:

It would not be unreasonable to search "kiddie porn" if you are writing a paper and want to find out how many piece of shit assholes have been arrested by the great Jeanine Pirro with her stings.

I reiterate, nobody is trying to identify the origin of the searchers

---

zappaisgod said:

You all do realize that no searchers are at all to be identified, don't you? I know that there is no shortage of hysteria mongers out there but nobody's search habits are being identified.

---