1
   

Bush Administration Demands Search Data: Google Says No

 
 
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 08:47 am
... and Yahoo and MSN said 'yes'.


Quote:
Court Documents & Summary Of United States Versus Google Over Search Data

Earlier we reported in Bush Administration Demands Search Data; Google Says No, Yahoo & MSN Said Yes at the US Government seeks to force Google to hand over search data. That story explains more about the situation, and there have been a number of postscripts from when it was first written. Along with that, we've been able to obtain copies of the three court documents filed in the case. Below you'll find links to each document, along with a summary of what's in each of them.

Alberto Gonzalez, as Attorney General of the United States vs. Google
Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance (
[...]

Declaration Of Joel McElvain
[...]
Declaration Of Philip B Stark (
[...]


Full report
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,610 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 08:49 am
Goog post, Walter, thank you . . .
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 08:51 am
Money is all that is needed.

Google sells this info to everyone else.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 09:05 am
In the first link, the AG states:

Quote:
Google also contends that the material sought in this request is redundant, given the fact that the Government has issued similar subpoenas to other search engine operators. . . . This ofjection misunderstands the nature of the Government's request. The production of a set of queries form Google's database, in combination with similar productions from other search engine operators, will assist the Government in devoloping a sample of the overall universe of search engine queries, while accounting for the potential of any variations of the types of queries that entered into different search engines.


(If this text is in error, it is because i was obliged to retype it by reading the page in the pdf format, being unable to cut and paste.)

Given that the Government had already several times stipulated a narrower range of inquiry based upon Google objections to the breadth of the request, if find it rather silly to now contend that, first, this information is crucial to constructing the Government's argument to the Supremes--were that so, they would not have been in a position to repeatedly stipulate a narrower sample; and second, that there is any basis for assuming that there would any significant variation in they types of searches requested from one search engine to another--the Government adduces no evidence that this may be the case.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 09:08 am
cjhsa wrote:
Money is all that is needed.

Google sells this info to everyone else.


Nonsense--read the pages Walter has linked--the Government are demanding millions of specific search strings. Neither Google nor anyone else sells information containing such specificity.

It helps if you read the links before you comment.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 09:15 am
Google can sell anything ever searched on through its websites. Trust me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 09:18 am
Your point is specious. The Government are requesting the specific langauage of millions of search strings as they were entered. Google sells demographic summaries of the nature of searches, not the specific language of search strings.

In this matter, given the evidence that you didn't bother to read the linked pages, i have no intention of trusting you.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 09:39 am
cjhsa wrote:
Google can sell anything ever searched on through its websites. Trust me.


Any idea, why this is all about then?
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 02:35 pm
Bush Administration
What is it all about? Bushie paranoia, that's what.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 03:27 pm
If I were the Public Relations/Advertising person for Google, I would dress the president of the company up in an orange jumpsuit with handcuffs around his wrists, and have him come out of corporate headquarters, look into the camera three feet away and say:
HELL, NO
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 03:57 pm
Another step in Bush's march to fascism.
0 Replies
 
kermit
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 04:16 pm
So much of privacy and civil liberty issues have been neglected with this administration's war on terror - isn't anyone else worried that someday this will totally backfire on us??!
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 04:34 pm
It's just another of Bush's fishing expeditions of which there are already far too many.
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 04:35 pm
Not fascism - Imperial Majesty.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 04:51 pm
kermit wrote:
isn't anyone else worried that someday this will totally backfire on us??!

Welcome to A2K, kermit. Many, many years ago, when I was in high school, I was in a government class. The teacher had been there forever and, in the course of a discussion about something, she opined that "Well. if you are not guilty of anything, what difference does it make if the police...:"
That comment on that day turned me into, I guess we could say, a liberal. (I became even more of a liberal with Vietnam and the civil rights movement). But I still remember raising my hand on that day and saying to the teacher: You are wrong.
I was reminded of this a couple of days ago when I heard a news story on local radio that included a quote from an official suggesting that "well, if you have done nothing wrong you shouldn't have a problem with the government..."
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 05:12 pm
realjohnboy
The problem is who determines the criteria of right and wrong?

The same could be said of Germany during the Nazi period.

You had nothing to worry about if you have done nothing wrong.
The problem was, it was wrong to be a Jew, It was wrong to disagree with the government policy, it was wrong to be a homosexual, it was wrong to have a mental problem and on and on.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 06:20 pm
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 06:46 pm
Thanks for posting that, Walter. Very interesting & very worrying.

bm
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 10:26 pm
One major difference between what you are talking about and comparing history to, is that the U.S. is an armed society. Can we defend ourselves against the government? No, but we don't necessarily go willingly either.

I don't see this or any other administration going after law abiding citizens.

Bin Laden says he has active cells in our country. I'd hope somebody is profiling. I am.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jan, 2006 10:52 pm
The war on masturbation won't be easy. It will be long and hard.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So I just joined Facebook.... - Discussion by DrewDad
YouTube Is Doomed - Discussion by Shapeless
Internet disinformation overload - Discussion by rosborne979
Participatory Democracy Online - Discussion by wandeljw
OpenDNS and net neutrality - Question by Butrflynet
Internet Explorer 8? - Question by Pitter
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush Administration Demands Search Data: Google Says No
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2022 at 11:46:30