By Alan Elsner
Right-to-privacy groups said on Friday an attempt by the Bush
administration to force Google Inc. to turn over a broad range of
materials from its databases set a dangerous precedent that should
worry all Americans.
"This is the camel's nose under the tent for using search engines and
all kinds of data aggregators as surveillance tools," said Jim Harper
of the libertarian Cato Institute who also runs Privacilla.org, an
Internet privacy database.
The Bush administration is already under fire from a number of rights
groups over security measures it has taken since the September 11,
2001 attacks on America, including pursuing checks on library records
and eavesdropping on some telephone calls.
In court papers filed on Wednesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose,
the Justice Department stated that Google had refused to comply with a
subpoena issued last year for one million random Web addresses from
Google's databases as well as records of all searches entered on
Google during any one-week period.
The government said it needed the information to prepare its case to
revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, which the Supreme Court
blocked from taking effect two years ago.
The law prohibited Internet companies from knowingly making available
obscene or pornographic material to minors. The Supreme Court said
there were potential constitutional problems with the law and sent the
case back to a lower court for consideration. It is expected to be
heard later this year.
The Justice Department said on Friday that America Online, Yahoo and
Microsoft had all complied with similar requests.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales rejected concerns that the subpoena
might violate individual privacy rights.
"We're not asking for the identity of Americans. We simply want to
have some subject matter information with respect to these
communications. This is important for the Department of Justice and we
will pursue this matter," he told reporters.
A Google spokesperson said the company objected to the breadth of the
government's request but did not consider it to be a privacy issue
since the search terms would not include personally identifiable
details.
BILL TO BE INTRODUCED
But others were not reassured. Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey , the
ranking Democrat on the telecommunications subcommittee of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would introduce a bill to
strengthen consumers' Internet privacy by prohibiting the storage of
personally identifiable information Internet searches beyond a
reasonable time.
"Internet search engines provide an extraordinary service, but the
preservation of that service does not rely on a bottomless, timeless
database that can do great damage despite good intentions," Markey
said.
Chris Jay Hoofnagle of the Electronic Privacy Information Center
worried that the government could follow up its initial request with a
demand for more information.
"If Google hands over the search logs and the Justice Department finds
search strings like 'child porn' or 'naked children,' could they not
then go back and ask Google for the user's Internet address?" he said.
Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology said he was
glad Google was fighting the case but the company needed to make
privacy a more fundamental part of its products. He said the case was
a wake-up call to all Internet users that information was being
collected on them all the time and was stored indefinitely.
Danny Sullivan, an Internet consultant who created Search Engine
Watch, said in a posting on his site: "Such a move absolutely should
breed some paranoia. They didn't ask for data this time, but next
time, they might."
On the other side, the Cincinnati-based National Coalition for
Protection of Children and Families, a Christian fundamentalist group,
said search companies should be willing to help the government defend
children from pornography.
"I'm disappointed Google did not want to exercise its good corporate
branding to secure the protection of youth," said Jack Samad, the
group's senior vice president.
Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited.
NOTE: For more telecom/internet/networking/computer news from the
daily media, check out our feature 'Telecom Digest Extra' each day at
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/more-news.html . Hundreds of new
articles daily. And, discuss this and other topics in our forum at
http://telecom-digest.org/forum (or)
http://telecom-digest.org/chat/index.html
For more headlines and stories from Reuters, please go to:
http://telecom-digest.org/td-extra/newstoday.html
Alan Elsner (reuters@telecom-digest.org)