Google Subpoena

[Krazyhades]

I don't know much about it, but for those of you who don't know, Google has been ordered to reveal all searches to the government. I just want to get a nice discussion going.
Here's a link to an article on it, but I'm not sure if it is biased or not, so if you are going to discuss, then first make sure you know what you're talking about (or ask on this thread).
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...roils_the_web/
So, do you think Google should comply, or resist (as they have been doing)? And was the goverment right to demand access to the searches? How can we be sure that the information will not be used for selfish means?

[Philistine]

It's not that Google has been ordered to produce searches (yet). Instead the Government, has served a subpoena in a lawsuit relating to a lawsuit over the Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court had sent it down to the lower Court for a factual determination of whether internet filters were actually effective in preventing access to pornographic sites. Google has objected to the subpoena, and a court will resolve the issue of whether Google has to comply.

The subpoena to Google seeks information which would be used to compile statistics for use at the trial. Supposedly, all identifying information would be deleted. A sampling of 1 million web sites indexed and a weeks worth of user queries is what is being sought.

AOL, MSN and Yahoo have all reportedly complied and provided the same information.

Personally--I don't have any major privacy concerns from this subpoena--but I don't like the precedent, and I don't like the (technical, legal) issue of private litigants forcing third parties who are not affiliated with a case of preforming their research for them.

--Philistine

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I wonder why AOL, MSN and Yahoo all rolled over so quickly?

Not that internet pornography isn't pervasive should be protected, but still...

On the other hand, last night I was trying to look up the US Anti-Doping website. The acronym on their paperwork is USADA. I typed in an url using "usada"

Let's just say it wasn't what I expected.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

I wonder why AOL, MSN and Yahoo all rolled over so quickly?

Not that internet pornography isn't pervasive should be protected, but still...

On the other hand, last night I was trying to look up the US Anti-Doping website. The acronym on their paperwork is USADA. I typed in an url using "usada"

Let's just say it wasn't what I expected.

Wow, I just had to try it Wuhwuwhwuwhwhat are they doing Yeah, the goverment needs to go fix that or something.

[RebelFencer]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

I wonder why AOL, MSN and Yahoo all rolled over so quickly?

Not that internet pornography isn't pervasive should be protected, but still...

On the other hand, last night I was trying to look up the US Anti-Doping website. The acronym on their paperwork is USADA. I typed in an url using "usada"

Let's just say it wasn't what I expected.

www.usada.com isn't dirty.

[Epee_Pox]

It's not a government entity, so don't look for a .gov. (Think whitehouse.com vs. whitehouse.gov)

Instead, it's a private nonprofit organization, so you'd look for a .org rather than a .com.

And remember that .org sites are notorious for having the most awkward parsing of their name. So usada.org would not be a first choice.

And what do you know, there it is at usantidoping.org.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Philistine

It's not that Google has been ordered to produce searches (yet). Instead the Government, has served a subpoena in a lawsuit relating to a lawsuit over the Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court had sent it down to the lower Court for a factual determination of whether internet filters were actually effective in preventing access to pornographic sites. Google has objected to the subpoena, and a court will resolve the issue of whether Google has to comply.

The subpoena to Google seeks information which would be used to compile statistics for use at the trial. Supposedly, all identifying information would be deleted. A sampling of 1 million web sites indexed and a weeks worth of user queries is what is being sought.

AOL, MSN and Yahoo have all reportedly complied and provided the same information.

Personally--I don't have any major privacy concerns from this subpoena--but I don't like the precedent, and I don't like the (technical, legal) issue of private litigants forcing third parties who are not affiliated with a case of preforming their research for them.

--Philistine

A subpoena is sufficient, legally, to get administrative data that does not identify users or reveal the contents of their communications.

Our privacy interests are very much protected by law. Court orders based on the same strict standards as for law enforcement wiretaps and pen registers are required for any request that reveals private info.

Not sure why Google is picking this particular fight.

[Inquartata]

From what I have heard, Google is the only search engine which uses an algorithm that makes it theoretically possible to trace an individual search back to an identifiable user. The companies which have complied, like Yahoo and AOL, are confident that their users are sufficiently protected; Google isn't sure.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I can't see the harm in providing the information, assuming it isn't traceable. On the other, why should the government be able to force the expense of this onto a private company without a good reason? ( And IMO a fishing expedition cloaked in the buzzphrase "it's for the children" isn't a good enough reason. )

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

www.usada.com isn't dirty.

but .org appears to be...

[JackOfHearts]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

but .org appears to be...

I googled "usada", without any search restrictions (or parental controls of any kind), and the only thing even remotely suggestive was the headline to a link on page 5. Somehow I doubt little johnny is going to "accidentally" stumble across porno when googling something for homework with full parental controls on and/or (preferably even) his parents standing there helping with his research.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

On the other, why should the government be able to force the expense of this onto a private company without a good reason? ( And IMO a fishing expedition cloaked in the buzzphrase "it's for the children" isn't a good enough reason. )

The cost of subpoena compliance is routinely billed to the government body issuing the subpoena.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

From what I have heard, Google is the only search engine which uses an algorithm that makes it theoretically possible to trace an individual search back to an identifiable user. The companies which have complied, like Yahoo and AOL, are confident that their users are sufficiently protected; Google isn't sure.

No. I think this goes a little beyond that. I'm not saying that Google is trying to play the White Knight of privacy advocation, they're not exactly shy about storing your search information, and if you have a Gmail account, search hashes based on the email you send and recieve. The cookie they now place apparently expires in 2032. They have been hounded by privacy advocates for years for their methods for gathering and retaining information. Good or bad? I don't know. The Google company motto is 'Don't be evil'.

This is mostly about perception. The other search engines rolled over quickly, Google is attempting to maintain the perception that they are protecting the privacy of their customers.

Log files are easily cleaned of personally identifying information. That's why we have scripts. You can easily remove any information from any number of logs in a relatively brief amount of time.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand, I can't see the harm in providing the information, assuming it isn't traceable. On the other, why should the government be able to force the expense of this onto a private company without a good reason? ( And IMO a fishing expedition cloaked in the buzzphrase "it's for the children" isn't a good enough reason. )

I think it's something that we may have to start getting used to. What level, I don't know. Are we totally prepared for a completely invasive government?
Big Brothers arrival is imminent. Prepare for a brave new world friends.

[Epee_Pox]

There actually is existing law on what is and is not okay here.

Just as with telephones, subpoenas are all that is required if the gov't seeks subscriber information (who owns this screen name), billing info (who pays for it, what is their billing address, what credit card), phone numbers used to access the internet, times of service, and the like. Anonymous ISPs like Hotmail will provide the IP addresses that the user has logged on from, which lets the investigator backtrack to find that particular computer. This is covered by 18 USC 2703(c)(2). The gov't only needs to have an ongoing investigation to do this.

Historical information beyond subscriber info, but which does not contain the contents of communications (so this means logs, activity records, etc.) require MORE than a mere subpoena. You have to get a 2703(d) order from a judge, compelling disclosure. The gov't needs to show "specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds" to believe that the information sought is "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." Slightly more than what is required for a subpoena, but not much.

Historical stored communications (the contents of old emails, etc.) are covered by ECPA, 18 USC 2701-11. Privacy interest requires more than just a subpoena, but not so strong as to require an eavesdropping warrant. There is a procedure set forth for compelling disclosure. Also, ISPs are limited in their ability to voluntarily disclose these contents. The required procedure depends on what you're trying to get.

...So, if you want emails that have already been opened, or haven't been opened yet but have been in storage more than 180 days, the law says your privacy interest isn't so great (after all, you chose to leave it on the server rather than delete it). So the gov't can do one of three things. 18 USC 2703(b). They can (1) serve a subpoena and give notice to the person whose email is searched (this notice can be delayed for 90-day periods to protect an ongoing investigation, like a wiretap). Or (2) they can get a 2703(d) order with the same notice provision. Or (3) they can get a search warrant, showing that it is more likely than not that evidence of a crime will be found by looking at that stored communication. There is no notice requirement for a search warrant.

...If you want emails that have not yet been opened, and have been in storage for 180 days or fewer, then section 2703(a) requires a search warrant, showing that it is more likely than not that evidence of a crime will be found by looking at that stored communication.

...In practicality, to avoid the notice requirement, the feds will just get the search warrant for both circumstances.


That said, I have to wonder why the feds issued a subpoena rather than getting the 2703(d) order. It's not like this is a novel procedure or anything. I wonder if they are trying to force a test case? (And yes, this is different from what I said previously. I hadn't reviewed the applicable statutes and cases when I wrote that.)

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

{snip}That said, I have to wonder why the feds issued a subpoena rather than getting the 2703(d) order.
{snip}

Probably because 2703(d) only applies where the Government seeks material which is "relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation." This case is not an actual ongoing criminal investigation, but instead is a direct challenge to the constitutionality of the statute in the context of a civil case.

--Philistine

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Philistine

It's not that Google has been ordered to produce searches (yet). Instead the Government, has served a subpoena in a lawsuit relating to a lawsuit over the Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court had sent it down to the lower Court for a factual determination of whether internet filters were actually effective in preventing access to pornographic sites. Google has objected to the subpoena, and a court will resolve the issue of whether Google has to comply.

[Smacking forehead] You already mentioned this. I forgot. Oops.

[Amadeus]

it's none of the government's damn business what i search for! if this goes through, i'll go to a search engine that doesn't tell the government what i'm doing.

what if i search for "islamic jihad?" or "terrorists are awesome" or "Bush sucks."

i realize that this is about discouraging child pornography (which i, of course, support), but our government has repeatedly shown that it really, really wants to find out who the terrorists are in this country, and that it is willing to read our emails, tap our phones, record our library books, etc., in order to do this. If they have this data, i beleive that they will use it to hunt terrorists. And why not, it's alot easier than the other methods.

[Inquartata]

Just go through an anonymizing site before using a search engine.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

it's none of the government's damn business what i search for! if this goes through, i'll go to a search engine that doesn't tell the government what i'm doing.

what if i search for "islamic jihad?" or "terrorists are awesome" or "Bush sucks."

i realize that this is about discouraging child pornography (which i, of course, support), but our government has repeatedly shown that it really, really wants to find out who the terrorists are in this country, and that it is willing to read our emails, tap our phones, record our library books, etc., in order to do this. If they have this data, i beleive that they will use it to hunt terrorists. And why not, it's alot easier than the other methods.

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

[Inquartata]

Yes, they want the information so that they can refine nanny filters. "It's for the children!" So who can object?