Google vs the US Government
Mon, 23 Jan 2006
For the past few years privacy advocates have made a lot about the huge amounts of data search engines collect, saying these are ripe for the picking by government agencies and other companies interested in the vast amounts of personal information.
Google specifically has been a target in this debate, since the company has no policy on how long it retains data (thus it can do so indefinitely). But the search and advertising giant has repeatedly said it will not share user information, or anything for that matter. And if the proof is in the pudding, Google just dished out the flambe.
A recent filing by the U.S. Department of Justice reveals that the search company refused to comply with a subpoena last year demanding one million random URLs as well as all the search queries entered between June 1 and July 31, 2005; the company dismissed the action as the government overreaching.
Now the DOJ wants a judge in a Californian district court to order Google to play along. The data is sought after to try and revive Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a law that was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 after the ACLU fought it. COPA wants to penalise porn sites that can be accessed by minors easily, which was seen by opponents as state policing of an entertainment industry (it's worth noting that this has nothing to do with child pornography).
The new data being collected is part of an attempt to appeal the decision and get the law back in. Google has already stated that it will oppose any action. "Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches," Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel, said in a statement. "We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously."
But the DOJ doesn't share Google's point of view. "My understanding is we were seeking what keywords are put in and URLs,'' said Justice Department spokesperson Charles Miller. "Nothing personal."
That was the same thing Yahoo said when it acknowledged giving up data to the subpoena. Court documents reportedly reveal that Yahoo, MSN and AOL all gave over data to the investigators, leaving Google alone in refusing the request, since no other search engines have been named yet.
MSN was first to reveal its move, if somewhat vaguely: "MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested. Microsoft fully complies with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and United States Law as well as Microsoft's terms of use and privacy policies in working with law enforcement. It is our policy to respond to legal requests in a very responsive and timely manner in full compliance with applicable law. "MSN takes the safety of its customers very seriously and is committed to providing a safe experience for consumers. As stated in MSN’s Terms of Use and Subscription Agreements, Microsoft will comply with applicable law to edit, refuse to post, or to remove any information or materials, in whole or in part, in Microsoft's sole discretion."
All the companies state that nothing private was given up, just general data. "We're rigorous defenders of our users' privacy,'' said Yahoo spokesperson Mary Osako. "In our view, this is not a privacy issue.''
But the privacy groups don't agree. "The fact is that over the last 10 or 20 years our privacy has been at risk by the vast amounts of data that society is putting in third-party hands,'' said Lee Tien, an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, to MercuryNews.com. "That's how modern society has been architected.''
In fact, the subpoena is unprecedented, since it involves suing a data company for information that is destined for an entirely different case that isn't criminal. It also shows that governments would love to get their hands on the vast amounts of information search companies store and it's not that hard to get it from them.
"It's interesting and disappointing that other search engines would provide this material," privacy advocate Lauren Weinstein told SiliconBeat.com. "It's what we've been worried about all along. The fact that Google is refusing the subpoena... my initial reaction is three cheers for Google. But there is a sidebar to this. Part of the reason these problems come up is because this data is being retained in the first place.''
In the past few years governments have increased powers to cease data for profiling or investigative purposes. In December the European parliament ratified a law that forces telecoms companies and ISPs to retain usage data for two years. The laws were based on curbing terrorism, but privacy advocates in Europe also called it dangerous. UK Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford termed it as "green light for mass surveillance, fishing expeditions and profiling".
"Real terrorists escape detection by using foreign internet service providers like Hotmail and Yahoo, internet cafes, and pay-as-you-go phones while ordinary citizens could find details of their movement, acquaintances and favourite web sites circulating [among government officials]," she adds.
The U.S. Patriot Act extends government powers even further, including search, wiretaps and detention without a warrant. In December last year the New York Times reported that the National Security Agency is actively monitoring, tracing and analyzing large volumes of Internet and telephone traffic going in and out of the country. This has been happening with the full co-operation of the communications companies involved and without informing any of their customers.
But at least this is a massive feather in the cap of Google. Internet publications and writers have flocked to its support and attacked the government action. "Overall, I say kudos to Google for declaring the request overreaching and refusing to comply," wrote Search Engine Watch's Danny Sullivan. He also criticised the case at length, questioning why the DOJ doesn't simply do the searches themselves.
"Far better would be to do some searches that you think children and teens are actually doing, such as by doing a survey of them. Then just go start searching on Google and the other search engines yourselves. See what actually comes up, especially when the filtering protection each service offers is enabled."
He backs the assertion with the opinion of another government report, which did its own searching and found MSN the best at filtering porn. "We performed unfiltered five-minute searches for six keywords: three keywords known to be associated with pornography and three innocuous terms that juveniles would likely use (a popular teenage singer/actress, a popular cartoon, and a popular movie character)." the report read.
It remains to be seen if Google can keep the feds away, but the lines have been drawn and the internet audience and press are backing the search engine. How this will affect Yahoo and MSN's reputations, which have been having a hard time to keep up with Google's juggernaut of hype and actual delivery, is probably not going to be positive.
But the topic of data retention and just how secure privacy information is on such a service will now become an even bigger topic. Some might call the move alarmist, noting that non-personal information was requested. But if the search companies gave that up so easily, there is little preventing investigators from wanting even more — and laws exist in the U.S. and Europe to make this very possible.