Google has refused to comply with a subpoena, first served in
the summer, that seeks the text of each search string entered into
Google's search engine over a one-week period, absent any
information identifying the people who entered the search terms. It
also seeks a random sampling of one million URLs from Google's
database of websites.
Google argues that compliance would breach the privacy rights of
its users. On Wednesday, the Justice Department filed a motion with
a San Jose court, seeking to enforce the subpoena.
The dispute relates to a suit brought in 1999 by the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), on-line publishers and others over
the controversial Child Online Protection Act.
Passed in 1998, the law known as COPA creates a crime of
knowingly placing on-line for commercial purposes any material that
is "available to" and deemed harmful to minors.
Violation carries a fine of up to $50,000 and six months in
prison, although there is a defence if the web site operator
restricts access to minors by requiring use of a credit card or
other means of age verification.
According to the ACLU, however, the law is unconstitutional
because it bans material that is legal for viewing by
adults.
In June 2004 the US Supreme Court upheld an injunction against
the enforcement of the Act, but then sent the case back to a
district court, for a decision on whether advances in technology –
such as filtering software – have now provided less restrictive
means for the online protection of children than the draconian
measures detailed in the Act.
The Justice Department is therefore seeking evidence to show
that COPA is more effective in protecting minors than the
new technology. To this end it has subpoenaed records from
the four major search engines – Google, Yahoo!, MSN and AOL.
Analysis of these records should show how often internet users
encounter internet porn, and whether this can be blocked by
filters.
According to reports, Google is the only firm not to comply with
the request, citing its concern for user privacy.
In addition, Google points to the unreasonable burden that
compliance would place on Google, the proprietary nature of its
query database and the fact that many of the randomly selected
search queries would contain personal information about Google
users.
Nicole Wong, Google’s associate general counsel, said: "Google
is not a party to this lawsuit and their demand for information
overreaches. We had lengthy discussions with them to try to resolve
this, but were not able to and we intend to resist their motion
vigorously. "
Privacy groups have welcomed Google’s stand.
"This is exactly the kind of thing we have been worrying about
with search engines for some time. Google should be commended for
fighting this," Pam Dixon, Executive Director of the World Privacy
Forum told the Associated Press.
Kurt Opsahl, Staff Attorney for rights group the Electronic
Frontier Foundation (EFF) commented, "The government is
overreaching here, asking Google to do its dirty work and collect
information about the internet speech activities of Google
users".
But the EFF also highlighted concerns over Google’s retention of
data, stressing the fact that Google logs all of the searches you
make, and most if not all of those queries are personally
identifiable via cookies, IP addresses, and Google account
information.
"The only way Google can reasonably protect the privacy of its
users from such legal demands now and in the future is to stop
collecting so much information about its users, delete information
that it does collect as soon as possible, and take real steps to
minimise how much of the information it collects is traceable back
to individual Google users," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin
Bankston.
"If Google continues to gather and keep so much information
about its users, government and private attorneys will continue to
try and get it," he added.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
