Thats becuase this objection misses the point and is irrelevent. (more on this later).
There is if you assume that the government can shut down all commercial sites that violate the law if they are located in the US.
It’s also traditional to be right before you go insulting people. The point of these subpoena’s and the factual information that they contain is to show the effectiveness of the COPA vs. client based filtering. In order to determine this you need to a) Find out how many pornographic sites are under the jurisdiction of the USA and b) Show that the COPA is more effective than filtering software.
The list of URLs will allow the government to determine what the ideal effect of the COPA would be by determing how much porn they can block. If 99% of the porn sites are operated by American based companies than theorectically the COPA could be very effective. On the other hand if 99% of the porn sites are based overseas the COPA is likely to be ineffective. This statistic does not tell the entire story though.
The second piece of information that the government is requesting completes the picture. Even if say 99% of the porn sites are operated by companies outside the jurisdiction of the United States it doesn’t mean that 99% of the porn found through the search is from these sites. It could be that the 1% of the porn companies are disproportionately represented in Google searchs for whatever reason. For example, if when Google is queried for “hot lesbian porn” out of the top 50 sites it returns 40 are based in America. Then the COPA would theoretically be effective. Conversely if the top 50 sites returned are based overseas the COPA is not likely to be effective.
Both of those pieces of information is required for the Government to be able to argue its case.
Is this actually the case? I ask because I partly agree with you – assuming this is just aggregated data, there’s no privacy risk. What bugs me about the whole thing is that data processing is Google’s business (and I mean that in at least two possible ways). If the government wishes to justify the existence of a law, they should perform (or fund) a study themselves. I cannot think of another instance where something akin to this has been done; is there one you know of?
Yes, I think that’s it (there seems to be some confusion about this). IOW, given a million searches, how many of the returned links are pornography related? There is no difference in this regard as to who performs the search.
Since my tin-foil hat seems to get a lot use of these days, I’m not in favor of this action. However, I also think it’s being mischaracterized; objections to it should have a better grounding (IMHO).
The government’s burden is to show the superior effectiveness of its preferred approach at preventing access by minors, rather than by preventing access by people in general, because it is a matter of settled Constitutional law that they simply may not do the latter. Thus, a measure directed to the latter cannot be rationally construed as relevant.
If you have a Google ID, (if you use Gmail, for instance), yes they would. I have no time to grab a cite, but it’s been well established that the data Google records about searches is tied to Google IDs.
I worked as a senior PM at a high profile federal level agency two years ago. I managed the network upgrade for them, worldwide. Part of the effort was replacing about 50% of the 3,000 + worksations for the entire organization. You would not believe the amount of porn my techs would find on many many of the computers as part of the file migration effort. Machines belonging to the lowlyest clerk up to the most senior section chiefs.
The gov’t does plenty of research on the issue. Trust me.
I’m not sure I understand your objections. While you are right about the Constitutional law matter, surely you’d grant that minors performing searches are a subset of everyone performing searches (for which Google cannot determine which searches are performed by minors). If it can be determined that, generally, there is an “issue” with the availability of porn, then there is an issue with the availability of porn to minors also.
But this is only relevant if Google supplies its ID along with the other data. If that’s a part of the data being requested, then by all means Google should fight it.
Again, I take issue with this subpoena. But not on privacy grounds (assuming that all personal information is removed; if not, then I’m down wit dat). It seems to me that privacy, according to my understanding of this matter, is an unconvincing and misdirected argument.
The government has offered to pay Google for their efforts in obtaining this data. I don’t know of a specific instince in which the government has asked for data like this but I would assume the government routinely asks private businesses for data.
Again this is not a valid objection as I have explained. The data is necessary and it is irrelevent who is making the searches.
The government specifically asked that no identifying information be transmitted with the data they are asking for.
This is equivalent to an eminent domain taking in which the government offers to pay, not the value of your house, but instead the cost of filling out the paperwork to transfer title.
I, on the other hand, make no such assumptions; in fact, I think this is where the “eminent domain” analogy is made. In all other cases that I can think of (and I will readily concede the point if examples showing otherwise are given), the government’s entitlement to information is due to a criminal case or somesuch. This, however, is Google’s business (or the government’s research that needs to be done). The offer to pay should be dictated by a customer/seller relation – if Google does not wish to sell the data (or not at the price offered), they should not have to.
It seems to me that the relevant part of the motion to compel is this:
The keys, it seems to me, are “usefulness”, “entitlement”, and “competitors”. Does “usefulness” entail “entitlement”? I think not. The government may find demographic data “useful”, but it does not entitle them to take it from a marketing company that compiles such data. Furthermore, although not used in this sense, “competitors” underscores the main issue I have with this – it is Google’s data to do with as they see fit. Their competitors may have given their data away willingly, but there is no reason (beyond entitlement) that Google should be forced to do so.
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?
Sure it does, if a party in a legal proceeding can convince a judge to issue a subpenoa then that party is entitled to that information. The fact that its the government in this case is largely irrelevent. If the other party in this case (I believe its the ACLU) wanted the information from Google they can ask for a subpenoa also.
I think handing over the data would be bad for Google business, even if the gov paid them.
People would be less likely to use Google search after this.
On the other hand, you are not automatically obliged to comply on pain of contempt. Subpoenas can be contested in court, which is what Google is doing.
I think you are confusing a subpoena with a search warrant or something. A subpoena is not issued by a judge, it is issued by an attorney, on his/her authority as an officer of the court. The attorney does not need the judge to sign off on it. If the subpoenaed party objects, the matter comes before the judge, who might, or might not, issue an order to comply.
What is the point of this statement? Its irrelevent to the discussion and does nothing to add or detract from my argument. Simply a needless and mildly annoying nitpick.
Again, this is simply a needless and mildly annoying nitpick.
The data that they are asking for (i.e. the search terms) may contain personal data. How would Google strip that information? Furthermore, how did Yahoo!, AOL, and Microsoft strip this data? Sure the government can ask that this info is not included, but what if the search vendors cannot comply?
:dubious: No, it is not a nitpick and it is not needless. The way you framed the issue, you implied Google was acting illegally by not immediatly complying with the DOJ subpoena, which is a lie.
