# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/61 "2006-01-21T02:57:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > What in holy hell are you talking about? Where did I ever come close to even implying that Google was acting illegally? That’s how I read post #53. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/62 "2006-01-21T05:26:45Z")
Well, this is kind of interesting; I wasn’t particularly thinking of the legal aspects of the thing, but simply whether I consider it right or wrong. Kind of silly, on reflection, as the argument is specifically about subpeoneas and their legal justification. So, it’s interesting in that it made me realize that I don’t have a particularly good grasp on subpoeneas. > [@treis](#): > > Thats not how subpenoas work. If I am subpenoaed to testify in a case I can’t simply say, “Nah I don’t feel like.” How do they work? I just spent a short amount of time searching, but didn’t come up with much that was useful. If what **BrainGlutton** says is correct, I’m with him; his points are not nitpicks in this aspect of the argument (which is admittedly a hijack of the OP intent). It’s nice to know that the [MecuryNews editorial](http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13669370.htm) linked to from the original story matches my opinion: > [@](#): > > The request is not an appropriate use of subpoena power. The government wants Google’s data not as evidence in a case, but rather to conduct an experiment which it hopes will show that Internet porn filters are ineffective. In short, the government wants Google to help it make its case, using the company as a research arm. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/63 "2006-01-21T05:35:12Z")
> [@CaveMike](#): > > The data that they are asking for (i.e. the search terms) may contain personal data. Like what? I ask this in all seriousness, I’m really afraid I’m being dense and not seeing something obvious… ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/64 "2006-01-21T06:59:43Z")
If the Feds win this one, GWB will have another [nickname](http://www.getlyrics.com/lyrics.php/Spike+Jones/SHOW+LYRICS/Barney+Google). ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/65 "2006-01-21T07:05:59Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Like what? I ask this in all seriousness, I’m really afraid I’m being dense and not seeing something obvious… Many examples that come to mind, and I’m sure there are more, as I’ve seen some fairly complex search terms. There are people who perform vanity searches on their name, for example. Or search to see if their phone number was previously assigned to a business, which would explain a large number of wrong number calls. They might want to see if their own web site has made the Google index, therefore entering a ton of info only available on their site. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/66 "2006-01-21T07:58:04Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > Many examples that come to mind, and I’m sure there are more, as I’ve seen some fairly complex search terms. There are people who perform vanity searches on their name, for example. “John Doe” shows up in the report, so what? > [@DMC](#): > > Or search to see if their phone number was previously assigned to a business, which would explain a large number of wrong number calls. “(453) 454-3432” shows up in the report, so what? > [@DMC](#): > > They might want to see if their own web site has made the Google index, therefore entering a ton of info only available on their site. You mean the personal data that is available to everyone that has access to the internet? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/67 "2006-01-21T08:01:21Z")
> [@treis](#): > > “John Doe” shows up in the report, so what? > > “(453) 454-3432” shows up in the report, so what? > > You mean the personal data that is available to everyone that has access to the internet? It’s personal data. That was the question that was asked and that I answered, so what? ---
**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 21, 2006, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/68 "2006-01-21T21:23:20Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Again, this is simply a needless and mildly annoying nitpick. No, it isn’t. It is a point of fact that shows that, yes, you **can** simply say “simply say, ‘Nah I don’t feel like’”, and that puts matters on hold for the time being. ---
**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 21, 2006, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/69 "2006-01-21T21:25:00Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s how I read post #53. Same here. This suggests that the problem isn’t on the readers’ end of the communication. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/70 "2006-01-22T01:29:45Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > No, it isn’t. It is a point of fact that shows that, yes, you **can** simply say “simply say, ‘Nah I don’t feel like’”, and that puts matters on hold for the time being. Well, not only is your guys reading comprehension poor your nitpicking is wrong. “I don’t feel like it” is not a defense against a subpeona. ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/71 "2006-01-22T06:09:48Z")
Dude, that’s _your_ strawman you’re whacking away at there. [Here](http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-161802) is a synopsis of the relevent events occuring. It’s not like Google threw the paperwork in the recycle bin with the last Super-Savr coupon book and isn’t answering the phone. [Here’s](http://blog.loomia.com/?p=16) a more succinct explanation of the grounds Google is using to attempt to render the subpoena void. My feelings are still that the U.S. government is perfectly capable of doing it’s own research - even if they weren’t, just because someone else has data they want, doesn’t mean they have to hand it over. IMHO the Bush administration is pretty overbearing, but just because the executive branch has nifty letterhead doesn’t mean there’s no recourse. I guess a judge issued a subpoena - Google didn’t get to argue it then, my understanding is that it gets to now. Don’t think that counts as saying “Nah I don’t feel like”. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/72 "2006-01-22T06:22:33Z")
Ok guys, reading comprehension isn’t that hard. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > if Google does not wish to sell the data (or not at the price offered), they should not have to. > [@treis](#): > > Thats not how subpenoas work. If I am subpenoaed to testify in a case I can’t simply say, “Nah I don’t feel like.” Why should Google be any different? Whats hard to understand about this? He said that if Google does not wish to sell the government this data they shoudln’t have to. To which I responded, I can’t simply say “Nah, I don’t feel like it” if subpeonaed why should Google be able to? Where in the world are you guys getting that I think Google is acting illegally? “If” denotes a hypothetical situation not one that is happening in reality. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/73 "2006-01-22T06:29:50Z")
> [@Nanoda](#): > > . My feelings are still that the U.S. government is perfectly capable of doing it’s own research In this case the U.S. government is not capable in the least bit of doing its own research. They don’t (as far as I am aware) have spiders combing the internet looking for websites. They also don’t have a search engine so they have no way of gathering data on search queries. > [@Nanoda](#): > > - even if they weren’t, just because someone else has data they want, doesn’t mean they have to hand it over. Actually it does mean that and it always has. Any party in any legal action has the right to subpeona any piece of information or witness that they feel is relevent. Sure the witness/information holder can challenge the subpeona on various grounds but if a party can show they need the information they have the right to issue a subpeona. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/74 "2006-01-22T12:41:46Z")
> [@treis](#): > > In this case the U.S. government is not capable in the least bit of doing its own research. They don’t (as far as I am aware) have spiders combing the internet looking for websites. They also don’t have a search engine so they have no way of gathering data on search queries. I don’t particularly want to argue this point, but isn’t saying “the U.S. government is not capable” in this case similar to saying any major corporation that is not (or does not own) a web-search company is also not capable? I’d agree with “is not set up for it” or “has not allocated the resources”, but “is not capable”? > [@](#): > > Actually it does mean that and it always has. Any party in any legal action has the right to subpeona any piece of information or witness that they feel is relevent. Sure the witness/information holder can challenge the subpeona on various grounds but if a party can show they need the information they have the right to issue a subpeona. I asked this before, but it was kinda buried in the middle of the post…how _do_ subpoenaes work? Could someone supply a synopsis, or a link to one? If not, I’ll start a GQ thread, but I was hoping someone in this thread could help relieve me of my ignorance. In particular, I suppose I’d like to know/get confirmation on the following: (1) Who can issue a subpoenae? (2) What are the conditions/justifications for issuing a subpoenae? (3) Under what circumstances are subpoenaes validly issued? (4) What are the conditions for refusing (or resisting) a subpoenae? (5) What are the legal considerations for (and who decides) judging whether a subpoenae is valid? (6) What are the ramifications of refusing a subpoenae? (7) Some examples of a subpoenae issued (and honored) in a case similar to this (that is, not in a case where there was no person or entity on trial). I’d like to note that I wasn’t sure how to word (7); what I’m getting at is that I can understand suboenaes in a criminal (or civil) case where the information is directly relevant to determining the guilt/innocence of a party before a judge. But this seems something different, as no one is on trial. I hope that’s clear… ---
**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 22, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/75 "2006-01-22T19:07:21Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Well, not only is your guys reading comprehension poor your nitpicking is wrong. Hokay. So, in the future when several people interpret a post in a way that the writer doesn’t wish to stand behind, the problem is with all the people who read it, not the one person who wrote it. Gotcha. ---
**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 22, 2006, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/76 "2006-01-22T19:08:43Z")
> [@treis](#): > > In this case the U.S. government is not capable in the least bit of doing its own research. They don’t (as far as I am aware) have spiders combing the internet looking for websites. They also don’t have a search engine so they have no way of gathering data on search queries. This is equivalent to asserting that because we do not have regular flights to the moon, we are not capable in the least bit of doing our own research about the lunar surface. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/77 "2006-01-22T19:23:46Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > (1) Who can issue a subpoenae? > (2) What are the conditions/justifications for issuing a subpoenae? > (3) Under what circumstances are subpoenaes validly issued? > (4) What are the conditions for refusing (or resisting) a subpoenae? > (5) What are the legal considerations for (and who decides) judging whether a subpoenae is valid? > (6) What are the ramifications of refusing a subpoenae? > (7) Some examples of a subpoenae issued (and honored) in a case similar to this (that is, not in a case where there was no person or entity on trial). This is a damn good point. Bricker? ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/78 "2006-01-23T02:49:37Z")
Since no one has answered my questions regarding subpoenas, I’ve opened up a [GQ thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355388). Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming shortly… ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/79 "2006-01-23T05:37:12Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > I just Googled ‘jihad porn’ to fuck with them. Uh oh. You’re _royally_ screwed now. :smack: 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680/80 "2006-01-25T07:41:26Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > Since no one has answered my questions regarding subpoenas, I’ve opened up a [GQ thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=355388). Hopefully, answers will be forthcoming shortly… Sorry for taking so long to finish this (work, etc.). From what **Gfactor** has said in the GQ thread, it seems that my objections are nothing but wishful thinking on how things _ought_ to be. Dammit. I hate it when reality smacks my idealistic tendencies down. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-after-google-data/340680.md?page=3)