Home

Judge Requires Google to Be Evil, Hand Over Data

In an emerging story, it appears Google will be forced to hand over some data:

A federal judge said Tuesday he intends to require Google Inc. to turn over some information to the Department of Justice in its quest to revive a law making it harder for children to see online pornography.

U.S. District Judge James Ware did not immediately say whether the data will include words that users entered into the Internet's leading search engine.

Well that ought to be just about the end of the user privacy and trust issues.

- Y! MyWeb

They wouldn't want it

if google didn't have it. What exactly is the point of stockpiling personal data, it has value to someone, is the gov't more "evil" than google in the use of it, we don't know the half of what google has and how they use it.

Until they make it policy to destroy it in a timely fashion that info will always be in play, be it the gov't(s), 3rd parties or roque employees.

By hardball at Mar 14 2006 - 19:56

how feasible would it be for

how feasible would it be for Google to just re-incorporate in another jurisdiction and/or move its hardware to a more feasible legal zone? this is why i dont see how enforceable legislating the internet is in the long run, if not today then at some point it will have to be pretty easy for a company to just up and move to a different place.

By kidmercury at Mar 14 2006 - 19:58

Compromise reached, shares now up $12

Reuters report

Quote:
Shares of Google rose more than $12, or 3.6 percent, to go above $349 as a door appeared to open for a compromise between the Web search company and the Justice Department.

In a surprise, the government on Tuesday reduced the number of Google searches it wanted data on to just 50,000 Web addresses and roughly 5,000 search terms from the millions or potentially billions of addresses it had initially sought.

By cornwall at Mar 14 2006 - 21:39

And

And we move closer and closer to a police state. Companies being responsible for providing our government with information is downright ridiculous.

By MrTurner at Mar 14 2006 - 22:04

that cost money

You all should not feel comforted by this outcome, because it costs a ton of money for Google to resist the original request and get the kind of judicial review that agreed they didn't need to hand over everything.

The problem remains that in this country, one lawyer can subpoena a broad swipe of computer records that may be 99.44% irrelevant to the case at hand, yet which might provide wonderful fodder for hunting expeditions. The result is serious intimidation.

By John Andrews at Mar 14 2006 - 22:10

A solution!

Shop Canadian! :)

By wheel at Mar 14 2006 - 22:13

>> law making it harder for

> law making it harder for children to see online pornography.

Well, ban children with eyes then.

By claus at Mar 15 2006 - 00:13

Slippery Slope

I don't think a lot of people have any clue how serious this case can be for freedom of speech on the net. This data is being used to lock up people for running a porn site. This is our government demanding information from a company that has no obligation to do so. I'm fairly anti-Google but with this issue, I'm completely on their side.

This case means that the government will now ask for more the next time. They've set precedent. Are instant messanger conversations fair game now? How about e-mail?

By MrTurner at Mar 15 2006 - 09:08