- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
January 22nd, 2006 5:16 am
Yahoo admits it let White House access its databasesBy Jenny Booth and agencies / Times UK
Yahoo has admitted that it granted the US Government access to its search engine’s databases this summer, as a battle develops over the right to privacy in cyberspace.
Google, by contrast, promised last night to fight vigorously the Bush Administration’s demand to know what millions of people have been looking up on the internet.
It emerged this week that the White House issued subpoenas to a number of US-based search engines this summer, asking to see what information the public had accessed in a two-month period. It said that it needed the information in order to help create online child protection laws.
But Google refused to comply with its subpoena – prompting the US Attorney General this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records. Details of the confrontation emerged after the San Jose Mercury News reported seeing the court papers on Wednesday.
At the heart of the battle is the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.
Yahoo has stressed that it didn’t reveal any personal information. “We are rigorous defenders of our users’ privacy,” Yahoo spokeswoman Mary Osako said last night. “In our opinion, this is not a privacy issue.”
The Google court papers show that the US Government originally asked for a list of all requests entered into Google’s search engine between June 1 and July 31 last year. When Google argued, the request was whittled down to a week’s worth of search terms – a breakdown that could nonetheless span tens of millions of queries. In addition, the White House has asked for one million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.
Every other search engine company served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied so far, according to the court documents.
The co-operating search engines were not identified. Microsoft’s MSN, the third-most used search engine, has declined to say whether it received a subpoena. “MSN works closely with law enforcement officials worldwide to assist them when requested,” the company said in a statement.
The US Government says that it is not seeking any data that would allow it to identify which individual made which search request.
Experts say nonetheless that the subpoena raises serious privacy concerns, especially after recent revelations that the White House authorised civilian phone-taps after the September 11 attacks without obtaining court approval.
Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse charity in California, called the subpoenas “the first shoe dropping” that online privacy advocates had long feared.
“These search engines are a very tempting target for government and law enforcement,” Givens said. “Look at the millions of people who use search engines without thinking of the potential to be drawn into a government drag net.”
The subpoenas were a “classic fishing trip” by federal prosecutors, she added.
Thomas Burke, a San Francisco lawyer who has handled several prominent privacy cases, said that many people contacted Google more often than they spoke to their mother. “Just as most people would be upset if the government wanted to know how much you called your mother and what you talked about, they should be upset about this, too,” he said. Pam Dixon, executive director for the World Privacy Forum, warned that the content of search requests sometimes contain information about the person making the query, such as names, medical profiles or Social Security information.
“This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about with search engines for some time,” Dixon said. “Google should be commended for fighting this.” She warned people to be careful what personal information they entered into search engines.
The Department of Justice argues that Google’s cooperation is essential in its effort to simulate how people navigate the web. In a separate case in Pennsylvania, the Bush Administration is trying to prove that internet filters do not do an adequate job of preventing children from accessing online pornography and other objectionable destinations.
Obtaining the subpoenaed information from Google “would assist the government in its efforts to understand the behavior of current web users, (and) to estimate how often web users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of their searches,” the Justice Department wrote in its court petition.
Google issued a statement last night promising to fight the case. “Google is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information overreaches,” wrote Nicole Wong, Google’s associate general counsel. “We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion vigorously.”
But Google’s vigorous defence of privacy rights in the face of demands from the US government is apparently at odds with the search engine’s stance in China.
There, human rights activists have complained that Google collaborates with the Chinese government, which controls the activities of its 111 million web surfers with one of the most stifling internet censorship policies in the world.
Google is locked in competition for the lucrative Chinese market, along with Yahoo and MSN, and the homegrown Chinese search engine Baidu.com.
All the US companies have been criticised for censoring news sites, search engines and weblogs that China’s communist government considers subversive or obscene. For example, a web user in China who tried to search Google or Yahoo for subjects such as democracy and human rights would find nothing in his search results.
There was outrage in September when it emerged that Yahoo had supplied details to the Chinese authorities of the personal e-mail account of Shi Tao, a 37-year-old journalist. He was found guilty of “spreading state secrets” and jailed for 10 years, for forwarding to a foreign website a Chinese government circular banning the media from reporting the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
I can’t believe Yahoo let those guys into there database! This is why Google owns all and why everyone dislikes The Bush Admin.
I just like the fact that when you type in “miserable failure” in Google, the first result is George W Bush’s biography.
Kevin1980 wrote:I just like the fact that when you type in “miserable failure” in Google, the first result is George W Bush’s biography.While i think its really funny as well, it also concerns me from an seo point of view since “miserable” and “failure” don’t appear anywhere in the text of that page. Why is the bush bio ranked first for that phrase. I guess Google only knows.
First off, the title of the piece is a bunch of political bs.
Yahoo admits it let White House access its databases
Yahoo did not admit that the White House requested access to its database. They said the Department of Justice did. They are not one and the same. This is liberal journalism which is fodder for another time.
This is not a Republican or Democratic problem that will correct itself with the next administration. This is a battle for power and control that goes beyond party lines. The opponent will use everything available to them to gain that power. They will claim justification via laws that do not exist, they will enforce these laws with legal entanglements that are designed to drain the resources of any who engage in battle. They will utilize government tools like the IRS and the court system and the ugliest thing about all of this is they are paid to do this with our tax dollars.
This isn’t going to go away no matter who is elected next term. We’re in serious trouble here. We need a hero.
Andre wrote:While i think its really funny as well, it also concerns me from an seo point of view since “miserable” and “failure” don’t appear anywhere in the text of that page. Why is the bush bio ranked first for that phrase. I guess Google only knows.Ok, i found the answer to my own question on the same google search page.
“A ‘Google bombing’ effort has tied the phrase ‘miserable failure’ to President Bush’s biography in the Google search engine” – from the following page:
xhttp://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/google.asp
I wish someone would Google bomb my page, i’ll supply the relevant key words though.
Last I looked the Patriot Act (and similar legislation), which opens the door for these actions, was passed by both Democrats and Republicans.
This is what happens in a representative democracy. Perhaps next time we have an attack or a little adversity, we won’t fold our liberties like a cheap suit.
One more civil liberty being trampled on, just another stepping stone on the way to loosing rights to privacy in the US. Just wait until the DOJ subpenas the major ISPs to find out who has been gambling online.
The interesting contradiction is the Government doing this in the name of child safety, but Yahoo claiming they gave no personal information (I guess that means IP addresses). So how exactly is the Government supposed to be matching up access to pornography with underage users? Even with an IP address, how do you know the user is underage? Smells like they are really looking for something else. Surprised they didn’t use the “we need this to fight terrorism” defense.
