# Feds After Google Data **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 19, 2006, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680 "2006-01-19T17:40:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/21 "2006-01-20T03:26:13Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I guess I don’t see what the big deal is. The “big deal” is that the government is abusing its investigative powers for the advancement of a political agenda (rather than for the legitimate purposes of investigating specific crimes or threats). ---
**Author:** ![A.R.Cane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@A.R.Cane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.R.Cane)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/22 "2006-01-20T03:51:05Z")
I still remember back in the mid 90’s when I first got on line. I once put “[whitehouse.com](http://whitehouse.com)” in the URL, imagine my surprise. I think NurseCarmen has the right idea, we should all google stuff like Al Qeada big tits, Taliban teens, or Osama Orgy repeatedly for a week or two, just to screw w/ them. This bobbleheaded jackass and his minions are out of control. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/23 "2006-01-20T03:52:09Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I guess I don’t see what the big deal is. Presumably IP addresses are not included with this information so I don’t see how it infringes on anyones privacy. Right. And on April 16, will you be up before dawn in hopes of catching the Easter Bunny at his work? I’m **quite** confident that if they succeed in obtaining access to this information, they’ll be seeking IP addresses as well. After all, anyone who would use Google for anything that a Congressman’s public image would not must be somehow affiliated with the Axis of Evil and/or involved with child pornography, wouldn’t you think? (And if **you** yourself wouldn’t, I can find you quite a few people who would.) ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/24 "2006-01-20T04:09:23Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > The “big deal” is that the government is abusing its investigative powers for the advancement of a political agenda (rather than for the legitimate purposes of investigating specific crimes or threats). Why isn’t “gathering information to support a law in a court case” a legitimate use of investigative powers? I’d also like to add that no one is being investigated. All these requests are for facts to support a law duly passed by an elected government. No one is being linked to any specific search nor will it be possible for the government\* to use this information against anyone. \*Again, I assume no IP addresses are going with these searches. > [@Polycarp"](#): > > I’m quite confident that if they succeed in obtaining access to this information, they’ll be seeking IP addresses as well. Why do you think that? ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/25 "2006-01-20T04:34:58Z")
**treis** : I see plenty wrong with this. First of all, there’s the ‘slippery slope’ argument, which even if _you_ don’t believe in, plenty of others will, which will badly affect the trust and goodwill Google has built up over a decade. Secondly, there’s bound to be _plenty_ of personal information in the search queries themselves that the people submitting would have thought twice about if they’d known this fishing expedition was underway. Like [alcoholics anonymous near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC](http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=alcoholics+anonymous+near+1600+Pennsylvania+Avenue+NW+Washington,+DC&btnG=Search&ll=38.89859,-77.036474&spn=0.181158,0.322037), or [nuclear power plants near wherever the hell treis lives](http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=nuclear+power+plants+near+wherever+the+hell+treis+lives&btnG=Search). Well, that last page doesn’t give me anything, and the only drinking problem I have today is that my beer isn’t cold yet. But what if that was in the bundle handed over? And lastly, why should Google be subject to some silly whim of the U.S. gov’t just because they feel like making someone else do their research for them? Tell you what, I feel like knowing more about the gas mileage of various brands of cars. You will of course hand over all your gasoline purchase records and repair history, yes? It’s a lame idea, and if Google is forced to do it I’ll have to learn Chinese and use [Baidu](http://www.baidu.com/index.html). ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/26 "2006-01-20T04:47:10Z")
> [@Nanoda](#): > > **treis** : I see plenty wrong with this. First of all, there’s the ‘slippery slope’ argument, which even if _you_ don’t believe in, plenty of others will, which will badly affect the trust and goodwill Google has built up over a decade. I don’t think the fact that some people generally overreact to this sort of stuff will really hurt Google. In the article it says that other search engines have already been asked for this information and have handed it over. > [@Nanoda](#): > > Secondly, there’s bound to be _plenty_ of personal information in the search queries themselves that the people submitting would have thought twice about if they’d known this fishing expedition was underway. Like [alcoholics anonymous near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC](http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=alcoholics+anonymous+near+1600+Pennsylvania+Avenue+NW+Washington,+DC&btnG=Search&ll=38.89859,-77.036474&spn=0.181158,0.322037), or [nuclear power plants near wherever the hell treis lives](http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=nuclear+power+plants+near+wherever+the+hell+treis+lives&btnG=Search). Well, that last page doesn’t give me anything, and the only drinking problem I have today is that my beer isn’t cold yet. But what if that was in the bundle handed over? So what? The Feds have no way of connecting the search to the person that made the search. > [@Nanoda](#): > > And lastly, why should Google be subject to some silly whim of the U.S. gov’t just because they feel like making someone else do their research for them? Tell you what, I feel like knowing more about the gas mileage of various brands of cars. You will of course hand over all your gasoline purchase records and repair history, yes? If it burdens Google so much to hand over this information I have no problem with them charging a reasonable fee. And for the record, no I would have no problem with anonymously handing over my gasoline purchase records and repair history if so asked to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/27 "2006-01-20T05:07:42Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Why isn’t “gathering information to support a law in a court case” a legitimate use of investigative powers? Does it serve to find and convict the perpetrator of a crime? No. Does it serve to find and neutralize a threat to national security? No. Q.E.D. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/28 "2006-01-20T05:10:03Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The Feds have no way of connecting the search to the person that made the search. Now that you’ve admitted that it is **impossible** for this data to have any relevance to its purported purpose (advancing an argument about a law restricting access to porn by minors), would you care to propose a theory as to what the Feds are **really** up to? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/29 "2006-01-20T05:17:28Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Does it serve to find and convict the perpetrator of a crime? > No. > Does it serve to find and neutralize a threat to national security? > No. > Q.E.D. What a joke, you completely ignored my objection and simply repeated the same thing over. > [@Steve MB](#): > > Now that you’ve admitted that it is impossible for this data to have any relevance to its purported purpose (advancing an argument about a law restricting access to porn by minors), would you care to propose a theory as to what the Feds are really up to? I think the Feds are doing exactly what they said they are doing. Attempting to gather information to support in the legal defense of a law passed by Congress. You did read the article you linked to right? ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/30 "2006-01-20T05:41:32Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I guess I don’t see what the big deal is. Presumably IP addresses are not included with this information so I don’t see how it infringes on anyones privacy. I don’t know that you can make that assumption. It’s all coming via TCP/IP so any packet of info contains your MAC and IP address. My first thought was along the lines of what A.R. Cane suggests - start a campaign to have everyone Google “George W. Bush Porn” many times each day. Heck, someone could distribute a little widget like the SETI folks that does this while the machine is idle. “One of my friends in DC knew that his phone was tapped, he used to answer it ‘Fuck Hoover, hello’” -George Carlin ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/31 "2006-01-20T06:00:38Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > I don’t know that you can make that assumption. It’s all coming via TCP/IP so any packet of info contains your MAC and IP address. Of course at some point your IP address is associated with a search but that doesn’t mean the government is going to get or is even asking for that information. ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/32 "2006-01-20T06:09:26Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Of course at some point your IP address is associated with a search but that doesn’t mean the government is going to get or is even asking for that information. And until I see some good reason to believe that the government is NOT asking for or receiving that info I reserve the right to suspect that they’d like to have their grubby little paws on it. Hell, even if GWB gets up on national TV and swears on a stack of bibles I will remain suspicious. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/33 "2006-01-20T06:19:56Z")
> [@Valgard](#): > > And until I see some good reason to believe that the government is NOT asking for or receiving that info I reserve the right to suspect that they’d like to have their grubby little paws on it. > > Hell, even if GWB gets up on national TV and swears on a stack of bibles I will remain suspicious. Gee, why don’t you put aside your outrage for a few minutes and read the link provided in the article conviently titled Gonzales v. Google motion to compel (PDF)? In there you will find exactly what they are asking for. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/34 "2006-01-20T06:20:56Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What a joke, you completely ignored my objection and simply repeated the same thing over. What else is there to do in response to the question? There are specific reasons why we sometimes permit the government to pry into out private affairs. Going down the list and showing that this ain’t on it is about as complete a response as one can possibly give. > [@](#): > > I think the Feds are doing exactly what they said they are doing. Attempting to gather information to support in the legal defense of a law passed by Congress. You did read the article you linked to right? Yes. Therein, I discovered the fact that the law in question addresses online access to porn **by minors**. You have stipulated that the data the government wants will not indicate whether the porn searches\* were conducted by 14-year-olds or 114-year-olds. Thus, it is impossible on the face of it for this data to have any legitimate relevance to the government’s asserted rationale. \*once the government sifts them out from **all the searches conducted over a week** , if Google gives them what they want ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/35 "2006-01-20T06:27:07Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Gee, why don’t you put aside your outrage for a few minutes and read the link provided in the article conviently titled Gonzales v. Google motion to compel (PDF)? Read it. If this is what passes for argument among our leaders, Cecil might as well pack it in – ignorance has won. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/36 "2006-01-20T06:35:46Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > What else is there to do in response to the question? There are specific reasons why we sometimes permit the government to pry into out private affairs. Going down the list and showing that this ain’t on it is about as complete a response as one can possibly give. Your list, as I previously noted, is not complete. Factual discovery in order to defend a law in legal proceedings is a valid function of government investigative tools. > [@Steve MB](#): > > Yes. Therein, I discovered the fact that the law in question addresses online access to porn **by minors**. You have stipulated that the data the government wants will not indicate whether the porn searches\* were conducted by 14-year-olds or 114-year-olds. Thus, it is impossible on the face of it for this data to have any legitimate relevance to the government’s asserted rationale. > > \*once the government sifts them out from **all the searches conducted over a week** , if Google gives them what they want I believe the purpose of gathering this data is to determine to what extent pornographic material is available on the internet and to gage the effectiveness of the law in question on preventing access to that material by minors. It is irrelevent whether or not minors are making the searches the Government is asking for. The only things that matter are a) the availability of pornographic material and b) the effect of the law in stopping that material from reaching minors. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/37 "2006-01-20T06:38:47Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Read it. If this is what passes for argument among our leaders, Cecil might as well pack it in – ignorance has won. Care to expand? ---
**Author:** ![Valgard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/7feea3/32.png) [@Valgard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Valgard)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/38 "2006-01-20T06:47:07Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Gee, why don’t you put aside your outrage for a few minutes and read the link provided in the article conviently titled Gonzales v. Google motion to compel (PDF)? In there you will find exactly what they are asking for. Fair enough. Did so and I agree that the DOJ amended it’s request so as to remove any information that could identify someone. However, it took them months and “lengthy discussions” to come to that agreement, which indicates to me that they sure wouldn’t have minded getting that info in their original request, and they probably would have if Google hadn’t gotten in a snit about it. The various documents do not make clear whether others such as Yahoo complied with the initial request or the amended one. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/39 "2006-01-20T06:52:31Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Care to expand? Just a few of the more obvious fallacies: 1. Nothing in the document even pretends to address the basic problem I noted above (a batch of searches with no indication of which, if any, were performed by minors clearly cannot be relevant to the effectiveness of a law (COPA) that is supposed to impose a minors-specific limitation on Internet access). 2. The document asserts that the data is sought to compare the effectiveness of filter software on the one hand and COPA on the other. I suppose they can run a batch of searches and see which results gets through filter software, but there is no mechanism by which they can run the same batch of searches and discover what they would yield if COPA were in force. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/40 "2006-01-20T06:55:20Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I believe the purpose of gathering this data is to determine to what extent pornographic material is available on the internet and to gage the effectiveness of the law in question on preventing access to that material **by minors**. **It is irrelevent whether or not minors are making the searches the Government is asking for**. It’s traditional to insert some padding between mutually exclusive assertions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680.md?page=3)