Privacy in the 21st Century (was "Google v. the Bush Ad

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It has been very interesting to watch Google develop from a small start-up in 1998 (when I first started using it on a tip from a friend, before the company even officially existed) to the international powerhouse that it is today. It is refreshing to see the young business fearlessly take on the Microsoft behemoth with a reaonable chance of emerging victorious.

Well, now Google is standing up to an even bigger entity - the government of the United States. The Justice Department has subpoenaed information about web searches for a discreet period of time from all of the major search engines in order to supposed draw conclusions about how often people search for pornography, in its attempt to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. Google is the only one to refuse to comply with the subpoena. Good for them. Google claims that its first guiding principle is "Don't be evil." I am glad to see them living up to that claim.

[Here's a link to a good editorial on the issue in the San Jose Mercury News.]

[Jnyusa]

We read about that yesterday in USA Today - front page, interestingly enough.

I was also proud of Google and I'm wondering how far the gov't will go to force the information.

Jn

[Whistler]

The owners of Google are known to despise the current administration, so I'm by no means convinced that they're acting entirely on what they perceive as principle.

[nerdanel]

I too am a long-time Google user, also since 1998. I remember introducing a lot of high school acquaintances to Google for the first time that year.

I've spoken on and off enough about Internet privacy issues that my beliefs on this issue are probably apparent. Certainly it is always interesting to see a company take a stand based on principle - or at the very least, based on the principle that they believe it is in their long-term financial interest to pretend to espouse. In any case, Google has rolled the dice, and the outcome will be of major significance to every one of us who uses their services incessantly.

I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't realize this was going on until Wednesday's filings in federal district court and the resulting media attention. I only just glanced at the docket info and skimmed the government's filings today, and having done so, I'll say nothing further than that I will be very interested to see how the judge rules on the government's motion.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As expected, Google's stock has experienced its largest drop since it went public since the news became public. They really are putting ethics above profits. I hope (and expect) that they hold on.

Since the request was made in civil case in which Google is not a party, the steps that the government can take to compel compliance are fairly limited. The justice department has filed a motion to compel Google to comply with the subpena, and Google will respond to the motion. A judge in the San Jose Division of the District Court for the Northern District of California will decide whether to grant that motion. That decision can then be appealled to the Ninth District Court of Appeal (which contrary to Whistler's belief does not consist of only wild-eyed radical liberals ), and then possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are HUGE privacy issues at the edges of this issue, and I think that this is just going to be the tip of the iceberg.

[Whistler]

We shall see, then!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Whistler, I'm glad to see you participate in this thread. I think your point if worth taking into consideration. But I doubt that Google is taking this frankly risky action purely out of a desire to spite the Bush administration. I don't think that it can be disputed that there are important privacy issues that are raised by this case, privacy issues that will likely be disputed long after the Bush administration is no longer in power.

[Whistler]

No, I don't think they're willing to commit suicide just to spite Bush. Further, I am also concerned about the privacy issues involved. It's just that I'm reluctant to scatter rose petals in their path at this point. I can't help but think that if the Clinton administration had made similar requests, some accommodation would have been made.

Or not. What do I know?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I can't help but think that if the Clinton administration had made similar requests, some accommodation would have been made.

Could be. But of course, that statement could reflect on both Google and the Bush administration. In any event, there are some really interesting legal issues here that I haven't really wrapped my brain around. The government's need for the information and whether it outweighs the privacy rights that are potentially infringed is big part of the question. I'm going to need to read through the government's filings rather then rely on the media reports regarding what they actually want to do with the material. I don't trust the media to get it right (not out of maliciousness, or even incompetence, but simply because the legal issues are too complicated to boil down into soundbites.

[Frelga]

Google is about the only corporate entity I trust even half-way with my privacy. For instance, when you download their toolbar (which I adore because it lets me spell-check my posts right in the eidt box), they step you through the privacy policy with a big header in red letters: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY, THIS IS NOT THE USUAL YADA-YADA. They proceed to explain that the software includes certain advanced features that sends information back to their servers, and allow you to disable them.

Quite a refreshing change from most websites, whose Privacy Policy usually goes like "We value your privacy and will not release any personally identifiable information unless someone pays us for it."

Whistler, I'm curious. Setting aside the purity of Google's motives, do you think the government, under any administration, should have access to this information?

Voronwë, I'd be interested in your take on the filing.

[Whistler]

No, Frelga, I do not.

[vison]

An interesting situation.

We have a similar, but not so grand, situation right here in British Columbia, Canada, right now.

British Columbia has a 7% sales tax. Alberta has no sales tax. Many people living in BC but close to the Alberta border do their shopping in Alberta. Those shoppers are "required" by law to self-tax themselves and remit sales tax to BC. (Just imagine how many do it!!!)

Costco has been asked by the BC government to provide a list of Costco members who live in BC but shop in Alberta, the list to include the amount of goods purchased. Costco has refused.

I side with Costco on this. First, Costco is the only major retailer that has a membership list and to "pick on" Costco hardly seems fair given the fact that Sears and Walmart and Safeway and Canadian Tire, etc., also get plenty of this cross-border business. Second, it's not Costco's job to police its customers or provide a government with this information. Third, it's an invasion of privacy, at least in my mind.

Good luck to Google, and good luck to Costco.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for posting that, vison. I have changed the thread title to reflect the more broad subject that I had in mind (of which the Google case was only one example). As information becomes more and more voluminous, how this issue gets addressed will be a critical issue in determining the course of the human race, in my not so humble (:roll:) opinion.

P.S., vison, thanks also for changing the quote in your signature, as the very concept of people not listening to the beat of the drums was driving me crazy.

[vison]

Oh, Voronwë, I'm sorry! I never meant to drive you mad, mad, mad. I will never do so again, I promise.

Well, maybe once in a while..................

Doncha think my new signature line is classy? Eh? Doncha?

Sorta sums life up tersely and wittily.

Sorta.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I do like it, and I do agree that it sorta sums life up tersely and wittily.

Sorta.

[elfshadow]

Good for Google for standing up to the administration. I certainly do not believe that the government has the authority to subpoena search engine hits. I'm glad that even with the stock hits, Google still held firm and refused to divulge this private information.

[BrianIsSmilingAtYou]

The stock hit against google was more closely related to the earnings report by Yahoo, and what that implicated for the search engine business category.

Here's an example story:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busi ... oogle.html

I do not doubt that they took a bit of a hit for their privacy stance as well, but one must keep these things in perspective.

That said, I fully support google's action.

BrianIs AtYou

[IdylleSeethes]

So that I don't get misunderstood later, let me first say that no one should provide personal information to Justice without a subpoena.

Justice is not asking Google for personal information. It is looking for statistical data to study issues related to the Clinton era Child Online Protection Act. This isn't an insidious invasion of privacy. Law enforcement frequently commissions studies. I've participated in a few myself and we never forced anyone to cooperate, so I don't know why Justice feels the need to with Google.

I think Yahoo and others have already supplied information. You might recall that Yahoo agreed to cooperate with the Chinese government on more personal information, alleged to have contributed to the imprisonment of a journalist.

Google should have the right to refuse a general request. I understand this request is related to a specific case. It is difficult to assess, without more information, why Justice considers Google's cooperation essential and if the Court will agree. If the Court agrees, or Google relents, no one's privacy will be compromised.

I'm surprised that research related to protecting children is drawing such fire. I'm no fan of Bush's Justice, especially when it was under Ashcroft, but this sounds like Google/Gore playing politics to me. It's pretty well timed to coincide with the current NSA controversy which has real privacy issues and the view expressed by some Democrats that Alito is a threat to our privacy.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Great to see you here, Idylle.

[Whistler]

Playing politics? What a ghastly charge!