Comments on: Do No Evil and Perhaps Do Some Good: Google, Privacy, and Business Records

By: William

William — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:52:16 +0000

I believe the Government is over reaching in its claim this information will protect minor children from photographic material. This claim is speculation and no expert can say this information will do what the Government is seeking to discover. In my opinion the Government is asking for more data then it needs. It has already received data from other businesses that run search engines and that should be enough data to conduct their test. The question is, can we trust the Government to not misuse this information? If you consider their past record, they have made promises before to protect an individual in the witness protection program and that individual wound up dead. I just don’t trust the Government with my private information. We have seen our Government outsource credit report informaton to India. I just don’t trust the Government or the Courts to protect our privacy.

By: William

William — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:49:06 +0000

By: Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Technology & Marketing Law Blog — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:23:29 +0000

DOJ Fishes for Search Records, and Google Fights Back–Gonzales v. Google

By Eric Goldman Gonzales v. Google, Inc., No. 5:06-mc-80006-JW (N.D. Cal. motion to compel filed Jan. 18, 2006) This event…

By: Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Technology & Marketing Law Blog — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:23:29 +0000

DOJ Fishes for Search Records, and Google Fights Back–Gonzales v. Google

By Eric Goldman Gonzales v. Google, Inc., No. 5:06-mc-80006-JW (N.D. Cal. motion to compel filed Jan. 18, 2006) This event…

By: Tech Law Advisor

Tech Law Advisor — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:48:14 +0000

Government Google Search Saga…

* Letter from Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [pdf] (Senator demands info on search engine subpoena) (recently added) * Court Documents & Summary Of United States Versus Google Over Search Data * Google Resists U.S….

By: Tech Law Advisor

Tech Law Advisor — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 03:21:41 +0000

Government Google Search Saga…

Hopefully, these links will close out my collection for now: * Court Documents & Summary Of United States Versus Google Over Search Data (recently added) * Google Resists U.S. Subpoena of Search Data * AOL denies it complied with DOJ…

By: Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Technology & Marketing Law Blog — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:25:02 +0000

DOJ Fishes for Search Records, and Google Fights Back–Gonzales v. Google

By Eric Goldman Gonzales v. Google, Inc., No. 5:06-mc-80006-JW (N.D. Cal. motion to compel filed Jan. 18, 2006) This event…

By: Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Technology & Marketing Law Blog — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:25:02 +0000

DOJ Fishes for Search Records, and Google Fights Back–Gonzales v. Google

By Eric Goldman Gonzales v. Google, Inc., No. 5:06-mc-80006-JW (N.D. Cal. motion to compel filed Jan. 18, 2006) This event…

By: Boing Boing

Boing Boing — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 03:50:25 +0000

Search and privacy: Danny Sullivan, Declan, GoogleAnon

Search Engine Watch co-editor Danny Sullivan, who’s been providing excellent coverage and analysis of the DoJ subpoenas on search engines, tells Boing Boing, I’ve posted two new items today, one a flowchart of just how hard it is to secure privacy (Lin…

By: E

Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:53:48 +0000

(apologies for the formatting of the above post – preview served it up a little differently)

By: E

Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:52:14 +0000

How exactly is the "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard applied? Is it under an objective, reasonable person standard? The vast majority of people using the Internet are unaware of data retention policies of search engines such as Google, or even what a browser cookie is. Also, few are aware of the trail of breadcrumbs left via server logs, or the amount of information about people's web surfing habits being aggregated by companies (including Google) that are serving up web ads.

A web browser is a very complex piece of software that perfoms a great number of actions that people are unaware of, and often do not approve of. For example, how many people reading this post realize that in visiting Concurring Opinion's homepage, one's web browser exchanges information with:

concurringopinions.com
sitemeter.com
extreme.com
technorati.com
feedburner.com

And this is tiny compared to the number of disparate sites are implicted in visiting the typical webpage. Each of these sites has differing data retention and data sharing policies. It seems that under such circumstances, analogies to ideas such as customers “know[ing] that they must convey numerical information to the phone company” when they dial the phone break down. Unfortunately, it sounds like one shouldn't count in the Supreme Court to appreciate this distinction...

By: Bob in Pacifica

Bob in Pacifica — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 04:57:53 +0000

I am confused. The DOJ says it just wants to see how many searches went to pornographic sites, from what I got from the story I read, and that they don’t want to know who did the searches. But this search is supposed to give the Administration the ammunition to try to regenerate COPA legislation. If the purpose of the legislation was to protect children, and you don’t know who is visiting the websites, then what good is the data? What does the information provide to the DOJ to justify reanimating COPA?

By: Ideoblog

Ideoblog — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 01:18:28 +0000

Google, corporate social responsibility, and reputation

On Google’s resistance to a government subpoena of its records, Dan Solove applauds Google’s action on principle. Geoff Manne says Google does not have a duty here to saddle its shareholders with the cost of saving the world from itself.

By: Tech Law Advisor

Tech Law Advisor — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:10:28 +0000

Government Google Search Saga…

Hopefully, these last three links will close out my collection for now: * Google Resists U.S. Subpoena of Search Data * AOL denies it complied with DOJ search subpoena * Do No Evil and Perhaps Do Some Good: Google, Privacy,…

By: an innocent bystander

an innocent bystander — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 02:45:06 +0000

Methinks the MJ doth protest too much.

By: MJ

MJ — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:17:53 +0000

Understood, but so could every financial institution in the United States that gets served with 100 subpoenas a day – they just won’t prevail – an neither will Google.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:58:46 +0000

MJ, there is caselaw standing for the proposition that a third party like Google has standing to move to quash a subpoena that would burden the rights of others (fourth parties, I guess) *if* there is reason to think those fourth parties may be unable to litigate the issue themselves. If that caselaw is as I remember and is applicable in N.D. Cal., Google could assert the harm to First Amendment rights as an “undue burden,” or perhaps as a sort of privilege.

By: MJ

MJ — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:18:31 +0000

I readily bow to your knowledge in this particular field – a bit like getting into a bible-quoting contest with a preacher – but let me try to clarify:

1. It’s not “wrong” to challenge the government’s subpoena – I just think that it is not meritorious, and question whether or not this was the case to make a stand (protection of children, others have already complied…)

2. Google is challenging the application of Civ. R. 45 – which was created by congress, by statute, interpreted over, and over again to allow access to this type of information. That’s what I meant by “a rule adopted in accordance with congressional authorization.”

3. I don’t know. The criterion for requesting this information is that it must be “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” Not exactly a high hurdle to jump over – which is why Google’s argument is weak IMHO.

4. You don’t request information in discovery because you know exactly what you will find, you subpoena the information if it is “reasonable” to believe that it will help you prove your case. The government evidently believes this will help them prove whether or not COPA is more effective than filtering software, which was important question to the Supreme Court. Sounds reasonable to me.

The government interest is two-fold: protect children while protecting constitutional rights to the greatest extent possible.

By: Daniel J. Solove

Daniel J. Solove — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:48:09 +0000

MJ –

1. I don’t follow your first point. Why is it wrong for Google to challenge the subpoena and exercise its legal rights? Anyway, as I’ve said, the argument on the subpoena isn’t addressed in this post — it’s addressed in the other post I’ve pointed you towards.

2. Miller was primarily an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. I still don’t understand your authorization argument.

3. Aren’t there other ways for the government to address the constitutionality of the statute? How does obtaining the information help it prove its case? I think that the government’s arguments were even more compelling in the Posner case, and if the court follows the Posner case, I don’t see how the government can prevail.

4. What is the legitimate government interest in the information? This whole government inquiry in to the searches strikes me as a silly wild goose chase. I’m quite surprised that the government has gone this route. There is plenty of information that the government can use to support its case, and I don’t see why seeking this information is worth the government’s time and attention.

By: MJ

MJ — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:41:29 +0000

I misstated that Civ. R. 45 was the source of the subpoenas in Miller – they were grand jury subpoenas.

However, the subpoena to Google is a Civ. R. 45 subpoena.