Google Must Give Web Addresses to Government

Porn Studies > Porn in the News

 Reuters, 3/18/06 - As expected, a federal judge ruled on Friday that Google, the Internet search engine, must turn over some search data including 50,000 Web addresses to the government for a study of child pornography online.

But the judge, James Ware of the Federal District Court for Northern California, denied a government request that Google be ordered to hand over keywords that customers use to search its database.

In a 21-page ruling that has implications for the privacy of Internet users, Judge Ware said privacy considerations led him to deny part of the Justice Department's request.

"To the extent the motion seeks an order compelling Google to disclose search queries of its users, the motion is denied," Judge Ware wrote.

"This concern, combined with the prevalence of Internet searches for sexually explicit material" the judge said, "gives this court pause as to whether the search queries themselves may constitute potentially sensitive information."

The dispute with Google comes as the government has been moving aggressively on several fronts to obtain data on Internet activity to achieve its law enforcement goals, from domestic security to the prosecution of online crime.

The United States attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, had subpoenaed Google to turn over data the government wanted from the company as part of the Bush administration's attempt to defend the effectiveness of a 1996 online child pornography law.

During a court hearing on Tuesday the government reduced the request for data from Google searches to just 50,000 Web addresses and roughly 5,000 search terms from the millions or potentially billions of addresses it had initially sought.

Judge Ware indicated then that he intended to approve some of the government's request.

"The court grants the government's motion to compel only as to the sample of 50,000 URL's from Google's search index," the judge ruled on Friday, referring to the searchable catalog of documents that form the core of Google's Web search service.

He ruled that the request for 50,000 Web addresses, or URL's, was a relevant one by the government for use in a statistical study it is doing to defend the constitutionality of its child antipornography law.

"The expectation of privacy by some Google users may not be reasonable," Judge Ware wrote, "but may nonetheless have an appreciable impact on the way in which Google is perceived, and consequently the frequency with which users use Google."

In his decision, the judge wrote of the "three vital interests" that needed to be weighed in the case: national interest, proprietary business information and privacy concerns.

"This court is particularly concerned any time enforcement of a subpoena imposes an economic burden on a nonparty," he wrote in a filing made late Friday.

The judge found that given Google's importance in the Web search business, the government would need at least some data.

Three of Google's competitors in Internet search technology the America Online unit of Time Warner, Yahoo and MSN, Microsoft's online service have complied with subpoenas in the case.

Background ...

Bush Wants Google Data on Porn Searches

Mercury News, 1/19/06 - 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.

Google Refuses Demand for Search Information

Washington Post, 1/20/06 - The Justice Department said yesterday that it subpoenaed four major Internet companies for data on what people search for on the Web as part of an eight-year battle over a federal law designed to shield children from online pornography.

Three of the companies responded to some degree, but Google Inc. said it was resisting the demand. Privacy advocates said the subpoenas raised deep concerns about the government's ability to track what ordinary people view on the Internet.

Attracted by the Internet's apparent anonymity, Americans have turned to the Web in growing numbers to view pornography and, according to one industry publication, spent $2.5 billion on online adult entertainment last year.

The government asked Mountain View, Calif.-based Google, which operates the world's most popular search engine, to turn over every query typed into its search engine over the course of one week without providing identifying information about the people who conducted the searches.

It also asked for a random sample of 1 million Web pages that can be searched in the vast databases maintained by Google, whose stated corporate mission is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

While privacy experts said the requests appeared to have been tailored to try to protect the privacy of the millions of people who carry out searches, they said it could set a precedent for more intrusive future government demands. They also said it raised the question of just how much information Google stores about consumers.

"The real issue here is, is Google being deputized to spy on us? In this case, you could maybe argue that the spying is not that bad, because very little of it is personally identifiable, but what will the next case be?" said Richard M. Smith, a Boston-based software engineer who has written about the Internet age. "It's a terrible precedent."

Several privacy advocates said they did not object to government subpoenas in criminal cases in which someone is suspected of a crime, but they suggested that the latest demand was so broad it amounted to a fishing expedition.

"This is the government's nose under the search engine's tent. Once we cross this line it will be very difficult to turn back," said Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a District-based nonprofit group that advocates privacy protections. "If companies like Google respond to this kind of subpoena . . . I don't see why the next subpoena might not say, 'Give us what we asked for the last time -- plus a little more.'

"Google has always been a kind of ticking privacy bomb because Google retains personally identifiable information," he added. "Even though Google may intend to protect online privacy, there will be circumstances beyond their control that will place Internet users at risk, and they include government warrants, as in this case, or future security breaches which have plagued the financial services sector over the past couple of years."

The Justice Department issued subpoenas to four companies in August: Google, Time Warner Inc.'s America Online Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s Microsoft Network, and Yahoo Inc. News of the government subpoenas emerged this week when the Justice Department asked a federal court in California, where Google is based, to force the company to turn over the information.

The San Jose Mercury News reported on the filing on Thursday.

America Online, Microsoft and Yahoo said they had responded to the requests but stressed that they did not provide all the requested information.

"We complied on a limited basis and did not provide any personally identifiable information," Yahoo spokeswoman Mary M. Osako said. "In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue."

"We did provide the DOJ with some information that we thought would be of use to them, but it was not the information requested in the subpoena and there were no privacy implications for our users," AOL spokesman Andrew S. Weinstein said. The spokesman said AOL gave the Justice Department only a "generic list of aggregate and anonymous search terms."

"We did comply with the their request for data in regards to helping protect children in a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers. We were able to share aggregated query data (not search results) that did not include any personally identifiable information at their request," a Microsoft spokesperson said in an e-mail.

The Justice Department issued the subpoenas in August as part of its effort to resurrect the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, a federal law that was designed to shield children from Internet pornography but whose enforcement has been blocked by a 2004 Supreme Court decision.

The law required that sexually oriented commercial Web sites take steps to keep minors out, such as requiring a credit card for entry. Visiting such sites has become a big business.

According to Nielsen-NetRatings, more than 38 million people -- or 25 percent of active U.S. Internet users -- visited an adult Web site in December. Adult Video News, the porn industry's trade magazine, estimates that Americans spent $2.5 billion on the Web for adult entertainment last year.

The Supreme Court held that the government had failed to prove that the law's criminal penalties would protect children without unduly limiting options for adults.

It sent the case back to the Philadelphia-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit for a trial that is due to begin in October.

Google has made it clear that it will resist the government's subpoena but said it was not doing so on privacy grounds.

"Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their 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," Google associate general counsel Nicole Wong said in a written statement.

The company declined to further explain its position, but the Justice Department said in court documents that Google believes disclosing the information would divulge trade secrets.

The Justice Department said it needed the information to address a Supreme Court demand that it establish a "factual record" on which to buttress its argument that the 1998 federal law would be more effective than filtering software in preventing children from accessing adult material on the Internet.

The government argued that the Google data would, among other things, help it to understand what Web sites people can find using a search engine, to estimate how much "harmful-to-minors" content may be on those sites and to gauge the effectiveness of software in screening out such material.

Aden J. Fine, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is part of a group that opposed the 1998 law in court on grounds that it violated the First Amendment, said Google was right to resist the demand.

"This is the latest example where the government seems to think they are entitled to get all sorts of information without providing an adequate justification," Fine said. "They have not explained exactly what they are going to do with this information and exactly why they need it. Until they do that, they are not entitled to get this information."

This page contains copyrighted material and is made available to better understand pornography, e.g., its effect on society. It is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes.

Porn Studies > Porn in the News

Copyright 2005 pornstudies.net