U.S. Obtains Internet Users' Search Records
- From: alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Alan)
- Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 19:31 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0120-06.htm
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
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.' "
Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0120-06.htm
Alan
"Can't you see we're still here,
Can't you see we're still here,
Singing loud; Singing clear,
We shall not go under,
We're still here."
Nemesis Peace Centre
http://www.veloceraptor.free-online.co.uk/protector.html
Abuse of Women and Children
http://theoriginalfirebird.blogspot.com/
Nemesis News
http://lordcerneabbas.blogspot.com/
Absolute Anarchy
http://lordcerneabbastoo.blogspot.com/
.
- Prev by Date: To the Supreme Court, the US Supreme, and the UN (1994.08(USA)-2006.01.21(JAPAN))
- Next by Date: 17/1/06:US/WHITEHOUSE:WAG THE 'WAGGABLE' DOG
- Previous by thread: To the Supreme Court, the US Supreme, and the UN (1994.08(USA)-2006.01.21(JAPAN))
- Next by thread: 17/1/06:US/WHITEHOUSE:WAG THE 'WAGGABLE' DOG
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
