U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- From: KHW <KHW@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 05:37:14 -0600
Los Angeles Times
January 20, 2006
U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
Yahoo and others reveal queries from millions of people; Google
refuses. Identities aren't included, but the data trove stirs privacy
fears.
By Joseph Menn and Chris Gaither, Times Staff Writers
SAN FRANCISCO ? Federal investigators have obtained potentially
billions of Internet search requests made by users of major websites
run by Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp. and America Online Inc., raising
concerns about how the massive data trove will be used.
The information turned over to Justice Department lawyers reveals a
week's worth of online queries from millions of Americans ? the
Internet Age equivalent of eavesdropping on their inner monologues.
The subpoenaed data could, for example, include how many times people
searched online for "apple pie recipes," "movie tickets 90012" or even
"bomb instructions."
The Internet companies said Thursday that the information did not
violate their users' privacy because the data did not include names or
computer addresses. The disclosure nonetheless alarmed civil liberties
advocates, who fear that the government could seek more detailed
information later.
A Justice Department spokesman said the government was not interested
in ferreting out names ? only in search trends as part of its efforts
to regulate online pornography. But the search-engine subpoenas come
amid broader concerns over how much information the government
collects and how the data are used.
Congress is debating an extension of the Patriot Act, which
dramatically expanded the government's ability to obtain private data.
And congressional hearings are expected soon on the legality of a
National Security Agency program to track communications by U.S.
citizens without prior court approval.
Privacy advocates said the opportunity to peruse search queries
provided an unprecedented glimpse into people's private thoughts and
habits. Virtually unknown a decade ago, search engines rapidly have
become an integral part of daily life.
Search engines maintain "a massive database that reaches into the most
intimate details of your life: what you search for, what you read,
what worries you, what you enjoy," said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney
at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's critical to protect the
privacy of this information so people feel free to use modern tools to
find information without the fear of Big Brother looking over their
shoulder."
The issue came to light this week only when Google Inc., the most-used
Internet search engine, fought its subpoena. AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo
also had been subpoenaed. Government lawyers filed a brief in U.S.
District Court in San Jose seeking to force Google to comply.
Google's refusal was first reported by the San Jose Mercury News.
Search engines and e-mail providers are asked for information on
specific people in hundreds of cases yearly, both by law enforcement
and in civil lawsuits. They generally comply, and their privacy
policies warn users that data can be turned over to authorities.
Under a section of the Patriot Act expanding the use of so-called
national security letters, companies such as Google can be asked to
turn over potentially useful data ? even about people who aren't
suspected of wrongdoing ? while being barred from disclosing those
requests.
But no previous case is known to have involved such a wide range of
data.
"Their demand for information overreaches," said Nicole Wong, Google's
associate general counsel. "We had lengthy discussions with them to
try to resolve this but were not able to, and we intend to resist
their motion vigorously."
The other search engines disclosed the information after narrowing the
government's original request for two months' worth of searches to one
week's worth. The week was not specified.
"We are rigorous defenders of our users' privacy," Yahoo spokeswoman
Mary Osako said. "We did not provide any personal information in
response to the Department of Justice's subpoena. In our opinion, this
is not a privacy issue."
A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company complied with the request "in
a way that ensured we also protected the privacy of our customers. We
were able to share aggregated query data ? that did not include any
personally identifiable information."
AOL spokesman Andrew Weinstein said the Time Warner Inc. subsidiary
initially rebuffed the Justice Department's requests and eventually
provided "an aggregated and anonymous list of search terms?. What we
gave them was something that was extremely limited, didn't have any
privacy implications and is fairly common data."
Beth Givens, director of the nonprofit Privacy Rights Clearinghouse in
San Diego, said those companies should have fought.
"Google and the other search engines," she said, "represent a very
appealing honey pot for government investigators."
In some ways, Google's action echoes Verizon Communications Inc.'s
fight against the record industry two years ago. The record labels
used a provision of a digital copyright law to demand the names of
subscribers to Verizon's Internet service who were suspected of
swapping music files illegally. Verizon resisted, and a federal
appeals court eventually agreed that the labels would have to sue
individuals before forcing Verizon to turn over information on them.
The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government wanted
an overview of what people look for online as part of its effort to
restore an anti-pornography law that was struck down by the Supreme
Court.
The Child Online Protection Act was adopted in 1998 after a similar
law, the Communications Decency Act, was struck down on constitutional
grounds. The Child Online Protection Act establishes fines and jail
terms for businesses that publish sexually oriented material on the
Web that is obscene or offensive, unless they weed out minors by
demanding a credit card or other proof of age.
In 2004, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the law but
sent the case back to a lower court in Pennsylvania. A majority of the
high court wrote that the government could save the measure if it
showed that the rules were more effective than Internet content
filters at balancing the need to keep pornography from children
against the free-speech rights of website operators.
Philip Stark, a UC Berkeley statistics professor working for the
government, wrote in the San Jose court filing that the queries, along
with a list of available websites, would help show what users were
looking for and how often they found material that the government
deemed harmful to minors.
The Justice Department also asked the Internet companies for the
addresses to every website in their search-engine indexes, a request
that was negotiated down to 1 million randomly chosen addresses.
Government lawyers said they wanted that information to gauge the
prevalence of websites that were harmful to minors and to measure the
effectiveness of filtering software on those sites.
"We're not seeking any individual information regarding anybody who
entered the query terms," Miller said.
He did not respond to other questions, including whether the
department would rule out seeking such information in the future and
how the existing data would be used.
Google said, though, that the words in a single text query could lead
the government to a searcher's identity.
"One can envision scenarios where queries alone could reveal
identifying information," the company wrote in a letter objecting to
the demand.
Users often search for information about themselves.
More broadly, the company wrote, "Google's acceding to the request
would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who
use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept."
Google has tried to cast itself as an enlightened company, going so
far as to tell investors that it planned to do business under a simple
rule: "Don't be evil."
But as Google has collected increasing amounts of information about
its users, some observers have expressed concern that the company
could break that rule by letting the data fall into the wrong hands or
simply by complying with government demands.
"Google could help protect its users ? by limiting the information
that is kept and how long it is stored," said the Electronic Frontier
Foundation's Opsahl. "The easiest way to respond to a subpoena is by
saying, "We don't have it.' "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Big Brother Bush!
Where is Osama?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- From: bearclaw
- Re: U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- From: Rick S.
- Re: U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- Prev by Date: Time to tent the place again?
- Next by Date: Re: U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- Previous by thread: Time to tent the place again?
- Next by thread: Re: U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
