Google Wins on Privacy

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]danmaftei wrote:
…

When did I mention MY friends?
[/quote]

That was a joke. Yo need not take it literally.

[quote]
Don’t take it so literally Zap, it was a half-joke/half-truth that praised Google for not caving in to such a powerful opposer. For a corporation, that’s impressive. I also think it’s impressive how the Brin and Page accepted a base salary of $1.00 after Google’s IPO. Sure, it doesn’t mean much considering they’re in the top 30 richest people in the world, but look at the greediness of their company on that list.

So don’t take it so literally. Google is still a corporation. But they’ve shown themselves to be pretty noble for one.[/quote]

They may be noble compared to other billion dollar corporations but that is not saying much.

22

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

They may be noble compared to other billion dollar corporations but that is not saying much.
[/quote]

Are they more noble than Enron?

23

Enron is to corporations what Harding’s administration was to politics.

24

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They may be noble compared to other billion dollar corporations but that is not saying much.

Are they more noble than Enron?[/quote]

Was Milosovich more noble than Hitler?

25

[quote]harris447 wrote:
In an incredibly liberal class with an incredibly liberal teacher
[/quote]

Come on, am I the only one who found this funny?

Well, your real responsibility to the shareholders is to yield them favorable long-term results, not short-term high trading. If your company dumped waste where it wasn’t supposed to go, you’d risk the expense of having to clean it up in addition to the original costs you were trying to avoid. Not to mention the public relations nightmare and possible loss of business. This is one of the reasons people are such ardent detractors of capitalism… they don’t see that there is a difference between short-term and long-term.

26

Umm, I don’t know that it’s such a victory on a going-forward basis. Unfortunately, it looks like a blip – some stuff denied because the government could get it itself from the urls, and no particular rule of privacy established – as the U of CO prof points out at the end, this will bear on the next case hardly at all…

Judge Grants Google a Reprieve
By a WALL STREET JOURNAL Staff Reporter
March 20, 2006; Page B4

A federal judge ruled Google Inc. doesn’t have to turn over data about consumer Web-search queries to the Justice Department.

U.S. District Judge James Ware on Friday ordered Google to work with the government to provide 50,000 randomly selected addresses for Web sites from its databases. He denied a request by government lawyers for a sampling of 5,000 search queries entered by Google users, concluding that they essentially duplicated information the government could glean from the Web addresses.

Judge Ware also said that turning over the queries potentially could cost Google the trust of some users, and he expressed concern about whether releasing “search queries themselves may constitute potentially sensitive information.”

The Justice Department requested the information from Google last year to defend the Child Online Protection Act, a federal law intended to shield minors from sexually explicit materials on the Internet. Enforcement of the law has been blocked in the courts.

“This is a clear victory for our users,” Google said in a statement Friday. A Justice Department spokesman couldn’t be reached.

Some legal experts said future government requests could meet with more success.

“The next time the government comes calling, it will pile so much more on its side of the scale – a better explanation of its need and a more compelling set of facts – that the court will have no choice but to compel Google to turn over search queries,” said Paul Ohm, a former Justice Department lawyer and associate professor at the University of Colorado School of Law.

27

Boston,

You just want a huge all-powerful government, don’t you?

You liberal you!

28

I didn’t say I wanted it – I was just pointing out that it’s not the victory for privacy one would assume from reading the headline.

29

Won’t criminals simply learn to use Google without leaving easily traceable evidence?

Once Google has been compelled to turn over search histories, and that those search histories prove succesful in convicting criminals, you can bet your bottom dollar that criminals will quickly become hip to technologies like Tor, anonymizing proxies, wardriving (using open wireless access points) and even internet cafes.

30

[quote]pookie wrote:
Won’t criminals simply learn to use Google without leaving easily traceable evidence?

Once Google has been compelled to turn over search histories, and that those search histories prove succesful in convicting criminals, you can bet your bottom dollar that criminals will quickly become hip to technologies like Tor, anonymizing proxies, wardriving (using open wireless access points) and even internet cafes.

[/quote]

I thought the case was about kids being exposed to porn when searching terms that shouldn’t kick up porn.

31

[quote]doogie wrote:
pookie wrote:
Won’t criminals simply learn to use Google without leaving easily traceable evidence?

Once Google has been compelled to turn over search histories, and that those search histories prove succesful in convicting criminals, you can bet your bottom dollar that criminals will quickly become hip to technologies like Tor, anonymizing proxies, wardriving (using open wireless access points) and even internet cafes.

I thought the case was about kids being exposed to porn when searching terms that shouldn’t kick up porn.

[/quote]

You’re right. But the same requests have been made of other search engines for prosecution of criminal cases.

In one case, a man did internet searches for methods to kill his wife and then how to dispose of a body.

32

Pookie, if they have evidence of a criminal act, on behalf of a specific person, I have no problem requesting activity records for that person, as long as it follows due process.

Going on random fishing expeditions, to show that it is possible for children to be exposed to something they might not have intended, is not the same.

The government can hire people to type in search terms and scan results if they wish to know this information. They are just trying to expand their powers – as usual.

What I would imagine, in terms of misuse, is that the government could get a huge mass of records, then look for signs of people looking for or clicking on certain types of content, and then go tracing down the person involved.

33

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
harris447 wrote:
…

A nice little reminder of how low Google has sunk in allowing the Chinese censorship rights is what happens when you search for “Tienamen Square” in China. Three guesses as to what doesn’t show up.

Disgusting.

Of course the real problem is the Chinese government. Google is just doing what they have to do to participate in the Chinese market.

Vroom makes an excellent point that it is likely better to trade with China as it will possibly force reform to come faster.

I think Google hiding the truth of the evils of the Chinese government is far worse than buying plastic toys made in China.[/quote]

TIME magazine had a big article about this.

They did make a good point- in a country of what, two billion, there are only about 40,000 censors paid by the government.

Knowledge, especially on the internet, has a way of seeping into places it shouldn’t be, kind of like when weeds come up between paver blocks. Yea, you put cement between them, but it wears away over time.

This may be the one time that I think there would be more benefit to just getting Google into China, as opposed to them standing on principle and not being in there at all.

But yes, I’m glad Google stood up to the government. What the administration is trying to pull is some bullshit, and every American should be against it, conservative or liberal.

34

[quote]vroom wrote:
In one case, a man did internet searches for methods to kill his wife and then how to dispose of a body.

Pookie, if they have evidence of a criminal act, on behalf of a specific person, I have no problem requesting activity records for that person, as long as it follows due process.

Going on random fishing expeditions, to show that it is possible for children to be exposed to something they might not have intended, is not the same.

The government can hire people to type in search terms and scan results if they wish to know this information. They are just trying to expand their powers – as usual.

What I would imagine, in terms of misuse, is that the government could get a huge mass of records, then look for signs of people looking for or clicking on certain types of content, and then go tracing down the person involved.[/quote]

Right. Trusting the government with the power of monitoring the internet…just dangerous.

35

[quote]vroom wrote:
Pookie, if they have evidence of a criminal act, on behalf of a specific person, I have no problem requesting activity records for that person, as long as it follows due process.[/quote]

Ok, next time I’ll read the whole thing instead of skimming.

Still, my point stands. On this issue, people can fight back using technology. As government abuse increases, the spread of that technology will also increase.

Unless the government eventually passes laws mandating the use of DRM on the hardware and/or backdooring all operating systems, it’s a race where “anonymizing” technology will always be a step ahead.

36

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
Pookie, if they have evidence of a criminal act, on behalf of a specific person, I have no problem requesting activity records for that person, as long as it follows due process.

Ok, next time I’ll read the whole thing instead of skimming.

Still, my point stands. On this issue, people can fight back using technology. As government abuse increases, the spread of that technology will also increase.

Unless the government eventually passes laws mandating the use of DRM on the hardware and/or backdooring all operating systems, it’s a race where “anonymizing” technology will always be a step ahead.
[/quote]

Do you really want to live in a country where this is necessary on a daily basis?

37

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Do you really want to live in a country where this is necessary on a daily basis?[/quote]

No, definitely not. But I might not have a choice, as the public’s apathy in defending their rights seems unlimited.

38

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Do you really want to live in a country where this is necessary on a daily basis?

No, definitely not. But I might not have a choice, as the public’s apathy in defending their rights seems unlimited.[/quote]

That is one thing we can agree on.

39

[quote]pookie wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Do you really want to live in a country where this is necessary on a daily basis?

No, definitely not. But I might not have a choice, as the public’s apathy in defending their rights seems unlimited.[/quote]

Uhh, guys, I think what you are missing is that they can certainly ban such tools, because the right wing will loudly clamor that if you aren’t guilty you don’t need them!

So, yeah, be happy the tools are here… today. However, know that in the name of the children they will be gone tomorrow.

40

Or they could follow GB and Aus and do something like this:

Labor will make ISPs filter porn on Net
March 21, 2006 - 12:44PM

Labor’s plan to protect children from online pornography and graphic violence has been backed by family groups, but dismissed by the government and internet industry.

Opposition Leader Kim Beazley said a Labor government would force internet service providers (ISPs) to block violent and pornographic material before it reached home computers.

Under the “clean feed” system, pioneered in Britain, users would be unable to access any content banned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) because it contained graphic sexual or violent material, rated R or higher.

Mr Beazley said all households would be included in the policy unless they opted out.

He said the current system, which required ISPs to offer all subscribers cheap or free filter software for their own computers, was not working.

“The reality is that cost and poor computer literacy mean almost two-thirds of parents don’t have internet filters on their family computers,” Mr Beazley said.

“That is not good enough when research suggests that the exposure of children and others in the community to this sickening content can lead to aggression towards women and child abuse.”

Communications Minister Helen Coonan said PC-based internet filters, which ISPs must offer to subscribers at a cheap price, were better and had been taken up by more than one in three families using the net.

“PC-based filters are more effective at blocking all manner of offensive content, provide greater control to parents of the content their children are exposed to and do not affect the performance of the internet for all users,” Senator Coonan said.

She said a recent study by internet safety body NetAlert found the kind of filtering proposed by Labor could slow connection speeds by up to 78 per cent without being as effective as a filter on a home computer.

But Family First leader Senator Steve Fielding said blocking all porn at the ISP level, then allowing adults to “opt in”, was a good solution.

“Parents feel powerless,” Senator Fielding said.

“We know we have to let our kids roam the internet for study, yet we can’t be watching over their shoulders all the time to monitor what they are seeing.”

However, Internet Industry Association executive director Peter Coroneos said the current system in Australia, which involved three enforceable codes of practice, was world-class.

“No child in Australia need be exposed to harmful and offensive content,” Mr Coroneos said.

“A family who takes advantage of (filter programs) will have a far greater degree of confidence in limiting the kind of material their children are likely to access than would occur if we adopt the limited clean feed model.”

Mr Coroneos said the problem lay in educating parents and teachers about the use of filter systems.

The ACMA is currently auditing the top 25 ISPs, which cover about 95 per cent of internet users in Australia, for compliance with the codes of practice.

Any ISPs found in breach of the codes could face fines of up to $27,500 a day.

? 2006 AAP