Google Subpoena

[Epee_Pox]

And even the NY Times catches on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/te...pagewanted=all

=====

In Case About Google's Secrets, Yours Are Safe

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 26, 2006

The Justice Department went to court last week to try to force Google, by far the world's largest Internet search engine, to turn over an entire week's worth of searches. The move, which Google is fighting, has alarmed its users, enraged privacy advocates, changed some people's Internet search habits and set off a debate about how much privacy one can expect on the Web.

But the case itself, according to people involved in it and scholars who are following it, has almost nothing to do with privacy. It will turn, instead, on serious but relatively routine questions about trade secrets and civil procedure.

...

And even in ordinary criminal prosecutions and in civil lawsuits, Internet companies including Google routinely turn over authentically private information in response to focused warrants and subpoenas from prosecutors and litigants.

But "this particular subpoena does not raise serious privacy issues," said Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia. "These records are completely disconnected. They're just strings of words."

In its only extended discussion of its reasons for fighting the subpoena, a Google lawyer told the Justice Department in October that complying would be bad for business. "Google objects," the lawyer, Ashok Ramani, wrote, "because to comply with the request could endanger its crown-jewel trade secrets."

Mr. Ramani's five-page letter mentioned privacy only once, at the bottom of the fourth page, and then primarily in the context of perception rather than reality.

"Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services," he wrote. "This is not a perception that Google can accept."

...

=====

A bit of a change from their editorial position yesterday. But, as I prefer accuracy to consistency, kudos to the Times.

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

You're missing the point. They are not seeking any information that would identify who searched for what.

Ah. that's actually pretty obvious now that i think about it.


never mind...

[Gav]

I thought you guys might want to read this comment - originally from SecurityFocus and lifted onto the Reg.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01...us_government/