Umm, in what alternate world did this happen? What a comple mismash of recounting events!

Philipp, I think it would good to note that the article is very wrong.

Remember my guest-post?

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-01-26-n76.html

Seth, not sure what you are refering too here ?

Afterall, the US gov is asking companies to hand over surfing records of users-- for whatever purpose. Whereas Google is saying that each and every government subpoena will be overturned as the first course of action as a means to protect the privacy of the user(s).

Nevertheless, ALL entities with the borders of US or even outside of the US can be issed a subpoena to cough up user data. That is the right of every government worldwide. There is the extraterritorial regulatory instruments policy ..correct ??

EU Data Protection Directive (Directive 95/46/EC) triggered the "safe harbor" rule in early 2002, likewise there Google is trying to lead the way for Privacy Advocation..

PD, read my post – the issue of privacy is important, but the COPA study was <b>trivial</b>. The data was kept anonymous and only used for some statistical sampling. Google hyped it up, their main concern was trade secrets, not user privacy.

Ahhhh ok.. the COPA case as trivia – agreed, it was more of trade secrets , rather then user privacy..

I think the point that I am making is that google is telling the gov, that they (USDOJ) must have a good and strongmandate privacy protection .. just beacuse the gov feels theres a threat does not mean they can bark at every tree trunk!!

Anyhoot, OT – things may change DEM are in REPS are out.. so much for polictics and warmongers!! :)-

Google's Apparent Policies

In the U.S. "We'll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court"

In China: "How far may we have the pleasure of bending over for you?"

;)

While there has been a lot of hype and errors about this case (and yes, this article is one of the worst), I think Google deserves a tiny bit of credit. While they were, no doubt, largely motivated by self-interest, the approach that they took avoided the slippery slope that could have allowed the government to routinely subpoena information from search engines (eventually about user behavior) for non-critical purposes. I imagine (perhaps unfairly) that if Microsoft were in the same position, they would try to work out some backroom deal that would protect their trade secrets while yielding to the government's requests.

Jack, sigh, that didn't happen. In legal terms, this just wasn't a very important case. There's a whole set of US law about when the government can subpoena "business records". Google didn't even win much. The ruling of the case basically revolved around the fact that government didn't give much justification at all, so the court was going to be sensitive to Google concerns. No "slippery slope" was avoided, it was a routine judicial decision on the merits of a routine subpoena.

THIS HAPPENS *ALL* *THE* *TIME*!

Sadly, almost all the reporting has been pure sensationalism.

Seth, I think many people at Google believed that there were larger issues and reasons at stake besides what you mention.

I was more sad that >30 other companies didn't fight the subpoena.

Matt, I do believe that there's people at Google who care about these issues in general. But the way this case gets sold as something which it wasn't – and the very manipulative way Google PR does that – is galling exactly because these issues are so important.

You would know much better than I what goes on in terms of Google's cooperation with government data-mining. I can't back up the following with any direct evidence, but just on general principles given what has gone on throughout history, I wouldn't be surprised if Google turned over personal data every day that would be a far bigger scandal if known.

Look, I'm not holier-than-thou, I don't really expect Google to stand up to China, or even the Patriot Act. But then Google shouldn't be trying to cover itself with glory as a supposed anti-government freedom-fighter for making a fuss over a chickenfeed case.

We live in a Surveillance society and just count how many live cams you have in London ?

If Shmidt can defend this to the maximum, he may find himself with other problems. It will stay a question of acceptance and open society (who will decide the limits ?) is it Shmidt, the government or the local guys who are in question. Give Power to the people...

So if this a basically white washing what other more reliable sources can be cited?

> I wouldn't be surprised if Google turned over personal
> data every day that would be a far bigger scandal
> if known.

Even more reason to change laws which keep these gov't – IT data interactions in private, like the Patriot Act. Every single case of personal data being forced outside the company by the gov't or some other legal enforcement should be made available public for discussion and scrutiny. And we absolutely need companies to stand up for this as well, not just private persons from the outside.

Yes, but under the mandate of the Patriot Act, the DOJ has the instruments to force out data from an Entity and also the entity (company) is not permitted to divuage that they have handed over the Data to the DOJ. That should be challegened and that's what (IMHO), Google is bringing to the table

"Explicitly Clarifying that a Recipient of a Section 215 Order May Disclosure Receipt to an Attorney or Others Necessary to Comply with or Challenge the Order: Current law is silent as to whether a 215 order recipient may disclose the receipt of such an order to an attorney to comply with the order."- Debate on Act.

"While a district court subsequently found section 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act unconstitutional, the Act itself has been affirmed to be constitutional, and has since been reaffirmed by the congress." – ACLU v. Ashcroft (2004)

The sleeper movement is always active on these issues :)-

pd: Where is Google challenging the Patriot Act? Did I miss something?

Steh, no you are not missing anything :)-

the point in making is that Google is openly stating that they will challenge every subpoena which asks for user data. Indirectly moving against the grain of section215 of the of act.

Hey, the Patriot Act is all about the "Jedi Master of Information control vs Jedi Master of Information Seeking " :)-

Umm, just for the record, where did they say that? How would you know which ones they didn't challenge?

Seth, Good point!!

We will never know till after the fact. . The agency(s) may withhold information pursuant to nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute. (basically classified info)-- Albiet, Information cannot be suppressed forever and gets de-class periodically.. and when it does, it could get very nasty for Google, they have already burnt their fingers ..and know this.. so its easier to finger the government in reserve, rather then BOGU!!

When in doubt, the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (Title 5, United States Code, Section 552 and 552a), Executive Order 12958 can be mandated under the juridiscation of a court. [Grrrrrrrrrrrr-- thats a direct cut and paste]!!

FWIW – and I am not privy to all laws or statuats of the US and my opinions are solely opinions. My core research base is being worked out from Cornwell, LII :)- anyhoot, I am finding this a heathy discussions!!