![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
maelorin at 09:30pm on 26/02/2006 under big brother, doj, google, internet filters, statistical analysisSaturday, February 25, 2006 [JURIST] The US
DOJ rejects Google privacy argument in search data case
Jaime Jansen at 3:24 PM ET
Department of Justice [official website] insisted in a court filing Friday that the information the search engine data government is seeking from Google as part of its effort to revive the Child Online Protection Act [text] would not be traceable to specific users. Google [corporate website] had previously refused [JURIST report] to comply with a subpoena [PDF text] to hand over internet search information, claiming [motion to oppose, PDF] that the government's demand to view Google users' internet search requests would violate privacy rights and their own trade secrets. The Justice Department submitted a declaration by researcher Philip B. Stark, who rejected Google's privacy concerns and stated that "[t]he study does not involve examining the queries in more than a cursory way."
The government hopes that information derived from the internet searches, which rival companies Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Inc. and Time Warner Inc. have made available, will show a wide variety of websites that people find through search engines and thus indicate that internet filters are not strong enough to prevent children from viewing pornography and other inappropriate material. All three rival companies said they did not reveal any of their users' personal information when they complied with the Justice Department's subpoenas. A hearing on the Justice Department's motion to compel Google to hand over search data is scheduled to begin in San Jose on March 13.
AP has more.
this is not so much about privacy as a 'witch hunt'. if the government wanted to 'revive' a piece of legislation, they just do it. or is the problem that the nanny doesn't have enough control over the people?
arguably, this isn't about 'protecting children'. no technology can protect children 100%. this is a backdoor for certain moralists to get 'control' of the internet. the only way to prevent children from accessing 'porn' or whatever is to prevent everyone from accessing it. or at least tracking everyone who does access whatever it is you disapprove of.
this whole endeavour has me hearing voices saying "screw freedom of whatever, and your adult free will. we know what is best for you."
i can't see how the doj can gain useful data about the effectiveness of filtering software by looking at search logs. surely they'd be better served by testing the filtering software themselves?
seems to me, the purpose of analysing the search logs is to see what people are searching for ... perhaps not specific individuals, but population statistics is advanced enough that they could get enough information that, integrated with detailed demographics from say - the census? - they could build quite a 'nice' picture of who's looking for what ...
mr orwell ...
pissed off