google on the bbc news

Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
896
Reaction score
0
See google was on the news today.

About how they keep logs on what you search and ip,etc.

So what type of information is google holding on people
 
Yeah I read about that this morning - google told the FBI where to go after requests were made for some search information. How important this is, I don't know - but I know if the US Government wanted any information google could be ordered to comply.

I doubt they'd be checking how many people searched for Britney Spears pictures or ringtones though, so who knows if it's in our (their) interests.
 
USofA FUD

michael555 said:
See google was on the news today.

About how they keep logs on what you search and ip,etc.

So what type of information is google holding on people
Everything ... every letter, keystroke, place, word ... you type it they know it. Forgive me, but so to does your ISP, IE, OE, Yahoo, MSN, gmail and a hundred more. Any email you send can be read by anybody, who has the knowledge to read it. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. Any search engine can "hold" information on your habits.

Crap, Tesco know just as much too ...

Every PC has an address, it has to, or how else we going to find you.

S**t ... I don't give a hoot what pron site they know I visited, bomb making website, satanic faction or anything I may be interested in.

The US is getting very paranoid about what it doesn't know about you.

There is no such thing as a secure connection. :D
 
Hang on ... there is two blokes in black ties knocking on my door shouting FBI or something.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/13657303.htm

" RECORDS SOUGHT IN U.S. QUEST TO REVIVE PORN LAW
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News

The Bush administration on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to turn over a broad range of material from its closely guarded databases.

The move is part of a government effort to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. The law was meant to punish online pornography sites that make their content accessible to minors. The government contends it needs the Google data to determine how often pornography shows up in online searches.

In court papers filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Justice Department lawyers revealed that Google has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year for the records, which include a request for 1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.

The Mountain View-based search and advertising giant opposes releasing the information on a variety of grounds, saying it would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets, according to court documents.

Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort ``vigorously.''

``Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Wong said.

The case worries privacy advocates, given the vast amount of information Google and other search engines know about their users.

``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''

Everett-Church, who has consulted with Internet companies facing subpoenas, said Google could argue that releasing the information causes undue harm to its users' privacy.

``The government can't even claim that it's for national security,'' Everett-Church said. ``They're just using it to get the search engines to do their research for them in a way that compromises the civil liberties of other people.''

The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.

However, the Supreme Court invited the government to either come up with a less drastic version of the law or go to trial to prove that the statute does not violate the First Amendment and is the only viable way to combat child porn.

As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn. To back that claim, the government has subpoenaed search engines to develop a factual record of how often Web users encounter online porn and how Web searches turn up material they say is ``harmful to minors.''

The government indicated that other, unspecified search engines have agreed to release the information, but not Google.

``The production of those materials would be of significant assistance to the government's preparation of its defense of the constitutionality of this important statute,'' government lawyers wrote, noting that Google is the largest search engine.

Google has the largest share of U.S. Web searches with 46 percent, according to November 2005 figures from Nielsen//NetRatings. Yahoo is second with 23 percent, and MSN third with 11 percent. "

I'm not getting this. I understand that limiting children's access to porn is (supposedly) the issue.

What I don't get is why the government thinks that getting "1 million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period" is going to prove anything, one way or the other. There's absolutley no way on earth to match the "Searches" to any given individual , "minor" or otherwise.

I do remember how the Justice Dept. is trying to force ISP's into logging everything about their customers (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5748649.html ) and making them keep those logs for some as-yet un-specified time period ( supposedly to help fight child porn) - to me, this just seems like more of the same (just approached from another direction), IOW, a power play to make sure that they get whatever they want, whenever they want it to feed the government databases).

The BBC are a little late with their news. :D
 
Yeah, i have to agree mucks, how on earth do they think tracking how much porn is viewed on the net is going to reveal how much children are exposed to?
I'm sure Mum & Dad would be up to reseting their parental filters after they've been checking out their favourite fetish sites each night or week or whatever. just cause they get their jollies doesn't mean that little Billy & Susie would be able to see the stuff on the same computer during the day.

And just how stupid do they think kids are anyway. JC, I wasn't much older than my daughter before I was reading my first 'R18' book under the covers. Didn't do me any harm. & how many out there waited until they were 18 before they checked out Dad's magazine collection? Do they think the internet invented porn? When kids are old enough to get curious they can usually manage to find the answers. And before then, for the most part, it's just "eeewww, gross!" Then on to whatever they actually are interested in.
 
muckshifter said:
Everything ... every letter, keystroke, place, word ... you type it they know it. Forgive me, but so to does your ISP, IE, OE, Yahoo, MSN, gmail and a hundred more. Any email you send can be read by anybody, who has the knowledge to read it. Google is just the tip of the iceberg. Any search engine can "hold" information on your habits.

Crap, Tesco know just as much too ...

Every PC has an address, it has to, or how else we going to find you.

S**t ... I don't give a hoot what pron site they know I visited, bomb making website, satanic faction or anything I may be interested in.

The US is getting very paranoid about what it doesn't know about you.

There is no such thing as a secure connection. :D

so if i encryption my message can they still read them.
 
michael555 said:
so if i encryption my message can they still read them.
If they have the 'key' yes ... although 128bit encryption is pretty dam good how many poeple use it? Then of course, what good is it if you give your details and reply to an email from phishing. :rolleyes:

The point I'm trying to make is ... they can find out what they want, when they want it, so don't worry unless you is a naught person. I can sit outside your house with £100 piece of equipment attached to a laptop and read everything you do on your PC ... I won't use a white van, black is the in colour today. :D

Google did good to "refuse" the FBI of any 'data' records ... the whole thing about "security" in the US is getting a little silly.

:rolleyes:
 
the problem with encryption is, however clever the guy or gal is who came up with the algorithm, theres always someone or something cleverer who can crack it!
 
Back
Top