public interest v. privacy

[Barry Shnikov]

Google have refused to comply with a subpoena from the US Attorney requiring it to handover a sample week's worth of search engine enquiries.
The US Attorney says the information is required to help in the war against terrorism (oops, sorry) the fight against pedophiles.
Google have refused.

[Piglet]

Doesn't a subpoena mean they have to comply?

I know I'm naive but what harm could come of giving the US government that info? What do Google feel they have to hide? I can't see what the problem is I'm afraid - but obviously this is cos I'm too honest for my own good and expect others to be the same.

[David Bailey]

Doesn't a subpoena mean they have to comply?
Unless they don't - and that's a matter for the courts to decide.


I know I'm naive but what harm could come of giving the US government that info? What do Google feel they have to hide? I can't see what the problem is I'm afraid - but obviously this is cos I'm too honest for my own good and expect others to be the same.
You are naive, yes ( :na: ), as the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" argument has been used as justification by totalitarian regimes for centuries to spy on citizens, just in case they might be doing something the authorities don't approve of.

The story is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4630694.stm) - it's a fairly complex tale, and I'm not sure if it's easy to summarize, but I'll give it a go...

The US government initially (in August) wanted Google to hand over a year's worth of data, showing what people entered in search terms during that time, and the results from those searches. (They now want a week's worth).

The federal government (i.e. the executive branch, the stuff Bush runs) wanted this data in its fight against the Supreme Court (judiciary branch) - the Court blocked a bill called the Child Online Protection Act, and the executive wants the data to prove it was right. And the executive also (and this is where it gets interesting) wants that data for anti-terrorist actions.

So it's not just a legal request, it's a political fight - pretty much your standard "right to privacy vs. security" argument, basically.

As the moment, my money's on the $140 billion-dollar company winning this round.

[Andy McGregor]

I believe there is as much evidence that Google posess Weapons of mass destruction as there was evidence of Iraq posessing them. I believe that the UN should be invited to vote on this matter and then, in spite of the UN coming to no worthwhile decision, the UK and USA should invade Google and tear up their runways, invade their palaces and get their smart bombs to fly through their toilet windows.

[thewacko]

invade their palaces and get their smart bombs to fly through their toilet windows.

:sick: or get Tazmanian Devil to go and blow up their toilet windows wif her smelly bombs:sick: :eek:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LMC]

In principle, Piglet is right - as 99.99% of the stuff that Google holds is bound to be of no interest to anyone.

I cannot imagine what earthly use those millions of statistics are going to be - the criminal masterminds behind terrorism, sorry, child pornography are going to be intelligent enough to ensure that they are not identifiable, so any criminals picked up through this exercise will be those near the bottom of the food chain. It would be good to get them off the streets of course, but hardly worth the enormous expenditure of examining the vast quantity of information. Not everyone uses Google that frequently - a week's worth of information will not pick up "most internet users".

I'm on Google's side. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If the US government wins this one, then it sets a precedent for further invasion of State invasion into private privacy.

Has a campaign been set up yet to convince the US government of the worthlessness of its attempts? IMO, odds are even that millions of users flooding Google with enquiries on "how to make a bomb" would show the US government's pious intentions in their true light (and being the wild optimist I am, maybe even make them give up in disgust, realising the futility of their intention?)

[philsmove]

In principle, Piglet is right - as 99.99% of the stuff that Google holds is bound to be of no interest to anyone.

?)

I beg to differ

Until I read the Goggle Story (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/glance/-/books/1405053712/026-4893658-0363600)

I did not realise how much information Goggle kept on its uses

If you use the Goggle tool bar, you really should read the term and condition thingy, before loading it

[LMC]

I did not realise how much information Goggle kept on its uses
Of course - keeping that info is to cover their a***s, as are the terms and conditions. There's a simple answer to anyone who doesn't want their information retained - don't download the toolbar (I haven't) and don't use Google search.

I find it very difficult to believe that anyone reads or reviews that information on anything like a regular basis - why would Google waste their money paying someone to do that? Unfortunately, in this day and age, everyone who acts totally legally 100% of the time is on a computer somewhere - even if you are paid in cash and pay cash for everything, the Inland Revenue will have records from your employer (if they don't, then you are acting illegally by avoiding paying tax).

An organisation has no legal power over my actions. Any information Google holds on me is worthless to Google. I can choose not to use Google. Unfortunately, I cannot choose not to be governed by the laws of the land, and unfortunately, governments can change those laws all too easily.

There was some interesting discussion on invasion of privacy on the Identity Cards thread (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5802), much of it relevant to the principles of this case.

[Barry Shnikov]

An interesting article on this:
http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/2006/01/24/internet-search-porn_cx_ckrr_0124google.html

[Paul F]

This 'invasion of privacy' thing comes up quite a lot in the media as well as on this forum :)

I am totally biased on these issues as I do not know all of the facts. Without being armed with those facts I am leaning towards the 'nothing to hide' ideology.
In my limited view ID cards, cameras on every street etc should be brought in. I am happy to be convinced otherwise but if the cost and effectiveness issues are deemed appropriate, which is of course a big hurdle, then I dont see any reason why not.
I guess at the moment what annoys me more are these people who stand against most of these proposals on the moral ground.
If the US government want google's details, be that for terrorism, child pornography or whatever, I say they should have them.
As far as I have read these will just be search terms. No problem there.

I would happily live in a town with cctv on every street corner, ID cards as a compulsory item and my phone being constantly tapped if it meant I could live in a society with little or no crime. Whether this would lead to little or no crime is hugely debatable but its the principal of it.

One of my friends who used to dance up in Leeds had a day job reading peoples text messages that had certain keywords in them. Again, an invasion of privacy. So what.

[Dreadful Scathe]

The big problem with that is, once its in place then the populace is controllable to a great degree. If this was quite a liberal society then I'd have no problem believing the altruistic reasons mentioned for ID cards, CCTV and the like but I would still object to too many intrusions into our lives. We should object even more strongly now in the current right wing climate. Theres not much to seperate the political philosophy between the Torys and Labour anymore, other than the colour. :)

It depends what you are willing to sacrifice I suppose - your freedom for less crime ? The inability to talk out against the government even in idle chat? do you want a government that tells you what to do and tries its best to make sure you do it - like Saudi Arabia or North Korea today ? I'm sure Germany in the 1930's and 40's and Russia in the cold war era could have made great use of todays technologies toward that same end ;)

[Katie]

I would happily live in a town with cctv on every street corner, ID cards as a compulsory item and my phone being constantly tapped if it meant I could live in a society with little or no crime. Whether this would lead to little or no crime is hugely debatable but its the principal of it.


It might reduce street-crime by a small percentage by acting as a greater deterrent, however I personally think that the crime would still occur as most criminals tend to act impulsively, in need, fuelled by drink or drugs, jealousy - the list is endless. The police would however have a greater medium in order to track the criminal and hopefully justice be done, but that does not prevent the victim from experiencing the trauma in the first place.

[Paul F]

.....
It depends what you are willing to sacrifice I suppose - your freedom for less crime ? The inability to talk out against the government even in idle chat? To you want a government that tells you what to do and tries its best to make sure you do it - like Saudi Arabia or North Korea today ?

Totally see where you're coming from and I am happy to take that on board as it could be a really serious point.
However I am still going to hold to the same belief as I dont believe this country would slide into such a dictatorship (i think thats a word). Famous last words they may be but as you say DS its all about how much I would give before standing against it.

Good post though :cheers:

[Paul F]

.... but that does not prevent the victim from experiencing the trauma in the first place.

Agree. I would still like to have that monitoring though.

I am also a fan of mandatory DNA sampling as well :)
The news story about how so many thousands of youths have had their DNA samples taken although they were not charged - fine by me.

[TheTramp]

Why bother stopping with CCTV and identity cards Paul?

Why not have everyone with a tracking device implanted under their skin which records exactly where they've been?

Or maybe just implant everyone with some form of mental device which stops them committing crimes at all?

As a victim of car crime, which has cost me a few thousand pounds in the last few years, from inadequate home contents insurance (lost a box with 100 CDs, a radio mic, and 3 pairs of dance trainers in one break-in), excess fees, and lost no-claims bonus, I'd definitely support a lot of ways to combat crime. Provided that the privacy of the individual isn't compromised to a degree that would be intrusive on normal living (ie. I'm happy with the idea of CCTV, I don't see how much help identity cards would provide - and if I have to pay to get one, I'm definitely against it (I have to pay for a driving licence and passport already, so I guess if it replaced those, I'd live with the idea)).

Question is, once privacy is intruded on once, the next time is probably easier. And then, I submit, it's just a slippery downhill path....

[Paul F]

Why bother stopping with CCTV and identity cards Paul?

Why not have everyone with a tracking device implanted under their skin which records exactly where they've been?

Or maybe just implant everyone with some form of mental device which stops them committing crimes at all?


I seem to remember watching a film like this recently :D Cant remember what it was called now.

I would have to base my opinion on each measure as it was going to be introduced. Hopefully bio-control chips are not on the agenda yet :what:

I am not advocating total control from the state. I am looking at each measure that is proposed. I dont hold to the concept that it will inevitably slide into the extremes but if that is where society evolves to in the future then so be it. I cant predict what will happen. I can only do what I think is right for now.


Out of interest, is there anyone reading this that opposes widespread CCTV for any other reason then the possible slide into total state control in the future?

[TheTramp]

I remember watching an episode of 'Yes Prime Minister', where Hacker had just become PM, and an advisor was talking to him about when he'd push the 'button' to lauch a nuclear strike.

Link to synopsis of the episode here (http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1a.htm)

The idea was that he'd push the button when the Russians tried to invade (it's an old program). But they never would. They'd just use salami tactics, and slice off piece by piece. No single act leading to nuclear war, but overall ending up with a Russian take-over.

Can imagine the intrusion on privacy happening like that. No one big thing that causes all-out rebellion. Just lots of little things, that one day end up with control by the Government....

Am I too much of a cynic?? :rolleyes:

[Paul F]

Am I too much of a cynic?? :rolleyes:

IMO not at all. Its a genuine concern and is one which I want to have.
:flower:

[killingtime]

I believe there is as much evidence that Google posess Weapons of mass destruction as there was evidence of Iraq posessing them. I believe that the UN should be invited to vote on this matter and then, in spite of the UN coming to no worthwhile decision, the UK and USA should invade Google and tear up their runways, invade their palaces and get their smart bombs to fly through their toilet windows.

...and I see no richer irony than to use their own technology against them (http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=+1600+Amphitheatre+Parkway,++Mountain+View,+CA++ 94043+&btnG=Search&ll=37.42239,-122.084252&spn=0.003055,0.006781&t=h) in this. Actually I *heart* Google; mainly because their spiders will index this and they know where I live :really:.

[Msfab]

I seem to remember watching a film like this recently :D Cant remember what it was called now.


The film you are thinking of is 'Minority Reports' with Tom Cruise.

[TheTramp]

Actually I *heart* Google; mainly because their spiders will index this and they know where I live :really:.

Oh yeah. Everyone at Google is fantastic, and I love them all dearly....

[Paul F]

The film you are thinking of is 'Minority Reports' with Tom Cruise.

I cant remember now. Think you could be right :nice:

[TheTramp]

I cant remember now. Think you could be right :nice:

Film where they use psychic people to 'see' crimes happening in the future, and then send the police to stop them before they ever take place. If I remember rightly....

[Paul F]

Film where they use psychic people to 'see' crimes happening in the future, and then send the police to stop them before they ever take place. If I remember rightly....

Nope. That can't be the one i was thinking of. There was one though. Its on the tip of my tongue.

I may be thinking of that film about genetically modified people. Was it called Gattaca?

[killingtime]

Oh yeah. Everyone at Google is fantastic, and I love them all dearly....

They do seem to have a laugh there (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/im-feeling-silly.html) though.

Is it sad to subscribe to the Google Blog RSS feed?

[philsmove]

any one remember a book "Fahrenheit 451" or "1984"

[TheTramp]

I may be thinking of that film about genetically modified people. Was it called Gattaca?

Gattaca was about genetically modified (Valids) people, yes. And how they are preferred over 'normal' (In-valids) people for positions at top companies.

Another great film :D

[Dreadful Scathe]

Gattaca was about genetically modified (Valids) people, yes. And how they are preferred over 'normal' (In-valids) people for positions at top companies.

Another great film :D
"Preferred" is an understatement - invalids can only get the lowest paid unskilled jobs. The subject "ethan hawke" of the film can only manage to get a job as a janitor until he cheats by using someone elses DNA - "jude law".

I agree, a great film.

[ducasi]

Is it sad to subscribe to the Google Blog RSS feed?
Yes, but we all knew you were sad anyway, so don't worry about it... :flower:

[Barry Shnikov]

I would happily live in a town with cctv on every street corner, ID cards as a compulsory item and my phone being constantly tapped if it meant I could live in a society with little or no crime.


Can you spell G-E-O-R-G-E O-R-W-E-L-L?


In any event, you have set up a 'false dilemma'. What on earth makes you think that "cctv on every street corner, ID cards as a compulsory item and my phone being constantly tapped" will result in a society with little or no crime?

[Paul F]

Can you spell G-E-O-R-G-E O-R-W-E-L-L?


In any event, you have set up a 'false dilemma'. What on earth makes you think that "cctv on every street corner, ID cards as a compulsory item and my phone being constantly tapped" will result in a society with little or no crime?

As i said in my post I dont think that it would.
The example above that i gave refers to my accepting this supposed invasion of privacy if it was decided it would be effective. Many people are against anything like this on the sole grounds that it 'may' lead to a state controlled prison society. Im not.

[Dreadful Scathe]

You want to see this film (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/) when it comes out here - unless it has already, Ive not been paying attention to cinema listings. Its about a future britain (it was when it was written anyway) where the state watches you, a british citizen becomes a terrorist fighting for freedom. So quite topical too.

[Barry Shnikov]

An interesting turn up for the books.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2006-01-25T062422Z_01_N24218238_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-GOOGLE-CHINA.XML