[Article] U.S. Limits Demands on Google
- From: Paul B <lamewolf2004@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:17:02 -0600
From :http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/technology/15google.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1142471627-lmoYKufbJqp6NEOUryiMCg
SAN JOSE, Calif., March 14 — After the Justice Department drastically
reduced its request for information from Google, a federal judge said
on Tuesday that he intended to approve at least part of that request.
The government first subpoenaed Web data from Google last August, as
part of its defense of an online pornography law.
At a hearing in Federal District Court here, Judge James Ware said
that in supporting the government's more limited request, he would
nonetheless pay attention to Google's concerns about its trade secrets
and the privacy of its users.
The government is now requesting a sample of 50,000 Web site addresses
in Google's index instead of a million, which it was demanding until
recently. And it is asking for just 5,000 search queries, compared
with an earlier demand for an entire week of queries, which could
amount to billions of search terms.
A Justice Department lawyer said at the hearing that the government
would review just 10,000 Web sites and 1,000 search queries out of
those turned over.
It intends to use the data in a study to measure the effectiveness of
software that filters out pornographic Web sites. The government says
it is not seeking information that would "personally identify"
individuals.
"It is my intent to grant some relief to the government," Judge Ware
said, "given the narrowing that has taken place with the request and
its willingness to compensate Google for whatever burden that
imposes."
He said, however, that he was well aware that the request for
individual search terms from Google had raised privacy concerns. He
appeared to be less troubled about the release of Web site addresses.
He said he was particularly concerned about perceptions by the public
that Web searches could be subject to government scrutiny, "so I'll
pay particular attention to that part of it." The judge said that he
would issue a full decision shortly, but did not give a date.
Google stock closed at $351.16, up $14.10, or 4.2 percent.
Three of Google's competitors in Internet search technology — the
America Online unit of Time Warner, Yahoo and MSN, Microsoft's online
service — have complied with subpoenas in the case. None of those
companies have indicated how much data was turned over to the
government.
Albert Gidari, a lawyer representing Google at the hearing, said in an
interview afterward that he had been surprised by the large reduction
in the number of Web site addresses, or U.R.L.'s, and search queries
the government was requesting.
The revised request appeared in a footnote to a declaration filed with
the court on Feb. 24 by Philip B. Stark, a statistician the Justice
Department had hired to study search engine data.
The reduced data request had not come up in direct discussions between
Google and the Justice Department. But it appears that Google's
well-publicized resistance forced the department to modify its
position.
The new request substantially mitigates Google's concerns over trade
secrets, Mr. Gidari said, adding that "99.99 percent of Google is
unexposed, and this teeny sliver will tell them nothing."
"This would have been a very different case if the government walked
in the door and said, 'We need 50,000 U.R.L.'s and a thousand
searches,' " Mr. Gidari said. "It's doubtful we would have been in
court. We got to where we wanted."
The Web data study is part of a continuing lawsuit in which the
government is defending the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law
under which it is a crime to make "material that is harmful to minors"
commercially available on the Web. The lawsuit was brought by the
American Civil Liberties Union, among others.
The act has faced repeated legal challenges. Opponents contend that
filtering software could protect minors effectively enough to make the
law unnecessary.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction blocking the
law's enforcement and returned the case to a district court for
further examination of Internet-filtering technology that might be
another way to achieve the law's aims. At a trial scheduled to begin
in October, the government will try to prove that filters are
ineffective.
"Given the slight amount of information now sought by the government,
Google's burden arguments seem less persuasive than they might be,"
said Susan P. Crawford, a professor at the Cardozo School of Law at
Yeshiva University.
At one point in the hearing, Judge Ware asked Joel McElvain, the
lawyer for the government, why the Justice Department needed the
Google data when it already had information from three other
companies. Mr. McElvain said that although the government had enough
information to do its study, it "would be substantially improved if we
had the data from Google" because Google commands nearly half the
search market.
Judge Ware appeared to sympathize with Google's concern that it could
become entangled in the underlying lawsuit over the Child Online
Protection Act, although it is not a party to the suit.
The judge also sought specific assurance from Mr. McElvain that the
government would not use information contained in search queries for
other investigations.
If a search query appeared to suggest a connection between a
particular person and Osama bin Laden, the judge asked him, "are you
telling me the government would ignore that and not use it?" Mr.
McElvain assured him that the government would not.
Mr. McElvain said at the hearing that the government would pay Google
for the effort needed to put the information together.
"We're very encouraged," said Nicole Wong, associate general counsel
at Google. "At a minimum we have come a long way from the government's
initial subpoena. If it had started this way, it would have been a
very different discussion."
Still, Ms. Crawford said that even the relatively small amount of data
demanded posed a troubling prospect. "The government has been able to
commandeer private parties to assist it in its research, and the next
request may be far broader," she said.
Aden J. Fine, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, was
more optimistic.
"The mere fact that Google has stood up to the government is a
positive thing," Mr. Fine said. "The government cannot simply demand
that third parties give information without providing a sufficient
justification for why they need it, and that's the theme that will
hopefully resonate from this hearing, whichever way the judge rules."
--
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Article] U.S. Limits Demands on Google
- From: Roy Schestowitz
- Re: [Article] U.S. Limits Demands on Google
- Prev by Date: Re: What's with all these "fake" search engines
- Next by Date: Re: My site has vanished from search engines
- Previous by thread: What's with all these "fake" search engines
- Next by thread: Re: [Article] U.S. Limits Demands on Google
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
