Privacy in the 21st Century (was "Google v. the Bush Ad

[Jnyusa]

The thing is ... if we're talking neolithic, and for sure there were wars back then, terrorism as a strategy in which primarily civilians are killed made no sense. Civilians were assets. They became the slaves and concubines of the conqueror. Scorched earth made no sense because the cattle and horses were expropriated by the conqueror and the land was put in the service of feeding of the conqueror.

There were no newspapers so disinformation was not practical.

Picture Marathon Man running to deliver fake info to the enemy. Yes, that happened. But fake info to his own people? No point to that - communities were not democratic. The leader didn't have to plant clever lies; he just told everyone what to do.

And once the enemy received the fake news, he runs back and redelivers it to its source? Not a chance, if he took it for real intelligence.

Thing is ... disinformation is an effective stragegy only in societies where information itself is critical; and that is also where it is the most deadly. Same with terrorism. You need large populations of surplus, marginalized civilians for this to work. We didn't have either of those things before the 17th century and it took time for governments to understand how the new world order could be manipulated.

Let me think ... OK ... if we want to put the earliest possible date on when some random sleezebag in government might have begun to consider disinformation as a way of leeching power away from the people, I would target the year in which a Sears Catalog began to appear in every home: 1888. That was the first it could have occurred to anyone that having all the households in the country receive a certain kind of information from the same source would be an ideal opportunity for planting The Big Lie.

So, the expansion of power in the executive branch provided by two world wars gave them the manpower and motivation they needed.

Jn

[IdylleSeethes]

This is tangentially connected to the topic of the thread.

Someone I have known for 20 years was indicted yesterday, for wire fraud, based on international electronic communication (email) evidence. At the moment, I don't know what mechanism was used to acquire the evidence. It has not been suggested her activity was connected to terrorism, but there are rumors of international criminal connections.

It makes this issue a little more personal.

The disturbing thing is that the charges don't make sense, considering who this person is. The amount of money involved is trivial to her and her family. All of the money was returned to the "defrauded" months ago. Considering her charitable past, notably helping the children caught in the Chernobyl crisis, I can't imagine anyone being suspect of her intentions in this venture.

My concern is the use of law intended for a specific purpose, as in FISA, being applied to other types of crime, as in Rico. Since no one lost money on the venture, with the possible exception of my friend, I don't know why this is still being pursued by the prosecutor. It seems it may be a federal prosecutor testing the power of his new toys. My friend's family is Ukrainian. Her husband's family is Iranian. All of them are Jewish. All of them are very kind and generous people. Her son, who spent time with mine when they were teens, was radicalized by being in a college in Israel that was bombed a few years ago. He survived, but he lost some friends. I doubt they deserve this new nightmare.

At the moment, none of this makes sense. I hope to find out more about the situation next week.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thank you for sharing that, Idylle. I think that it really does highlight the issue of privacy in the 21st century very much. I hope that things work out for your friends. That sounds terribly scary and terribly unfair.

[Jnyusa]

It seems it may be a federal prosecutor testing the power of his new toys.

I bet there's more of this going around than we hear about.

Btw, Senate hearings (or House hearings?) began today regarding the collaboration between the Chinese censors and Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, and one other company whose name I've forgotten (a router manufacturer).

We should be watching this with hawk's eyes.

One congressperson has talked about introducing legislation that would make it illegal for US companies to abet the 'criminal' activities of foreign countries. I would be very happy to see such a law because it could be put to very good use on other issues. If such a law had been in place ten years ago, for example, I don't believe that 9/11 would have happened.

Such laws have been proposed in the past, but the argument against them has always been that if US laws are extant over US companies wherever they operate, the US companies will simply incorporate under some other sovereignty, the way the shipping companies fly under a Liberian flag. I wonder if that argument will be trotted out again, and whether Congress will continue to find it convincing.

Jn

[IdylleSeethes]

Thanks V. Thanks Jnyusa.

I would welcome a law restricting US companies from participating in criminal activity abroad. Could we add a clause also restricting the US government?

[Jnyusa]

Could we add a clause also restricting the US government?



We wish!

Jn

[IdylleSeethes]

Google filed a brief containing:

"The privacy of Google users matters, and Google has promised to disclose information to the government only as required by law," the brief says. "The privacy and anonymity of the service are major factors in the attraction of users--that is, users trust Google to do right by their personal information."

I trust the Court will understand what was really requested. This seems like another political statement that has nothing to do with the request. Just an attempt to convince the rest of us that Google is protecting us from the evil government. I don't trust the Government, but it's Google's posing, lies and hypocrisy I can't take.

[nerdanel]

From the New York Times:

Federal Judge to Order Google to Release Data to Justice Dept.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 14, 2006

Filed at 2:06 p.m. ET

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- 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.

The legal showdown over how much of the Web's vast databases should be shared with the government has pitted the Bush administration against the Mountain View-based company, which resisted a subpoena to turn over any information because of user privacy and trade secret concerns.

The Justice Department downplayed Google's concerns, arguing it doesn't want any personal information nor any data that would undermine the company's thriving business.

A lawyer for the Justice Department told Ware that the government would like to have a random selection of 50,000 Web addresses and 5,000 random search requests from Google, a small fraction of the millions the government originally sought.

The government believes the requested information will help bolster its arguments in a pornography case in Pennsylvania.

The case has focused attention on just how much personal information is stored by popular Web sites like Google -- and the potential for that data to attract the interest of the government and other parties.

Although the Justice Department said it doesn't want any personal information now, the victory would likely encourage far more invasive requests in the future, said University of Connecticut law professor Paul Schiff Berman, who specializes in Internet law.

''The erosion of privacy tends to happen incrementally,'' Berman said. ''While no one intrusion may seem that big, over the course of the next decade or two, you might end up in a place as a society where you never thought you would be.''

Google seized on the case to underscore its commitment to privacy rights and differentiate itself from the Internet's other major search engines -- Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp.'s MSN and Time Warner Inc.'s America Online. All three say they complied with the Justice Department's request without revealing their users' personal information.

Cooperating with the government ''is a slippery slope and it's a path we shouldn't go down,'' Google co-founder Sergey Brin told industry analysts earlier this month.

Even as it defied the Bush administration, Google recently bowed to the demands of China's Communist government by agreeing to censor its search results in that country so it would have better access to the world's fastest growing Internet market. Google's China capitulation has been harshly criticized by some of the same people cheering the company's resistance to the Justice Department subpoena.

The Justice Department initially demanded a month of search requests from Google, but subsequently decided a week's worth of requests would be enough. In its legal briefs, the Justice Department indicated it might be willing to narrow its request even further.

Ultimately, the government planned to select a random sample of 1,000 search requests previously made at Google and re-enter them in the search engine, according to a sworn declaration by Philip Stark, a statistics professor at the University of California, Berkeley who is helping the Justice Department in the case.

The government believes the test will show how easily it is to get around filtering software that's supposed to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit material on the Web.

[wilko185]

Interesting discussion . The conversation is moving on, but another comment on google, whom I have thought for a while do get an easy ride for such a monolithic corporation. (And their pre-eminence is a little undeserved IMO, it is not the be all and end all of searching the web).

Google is about the only corporate entity I trust even half-way with my privacy.

Just because they are apparently quite transparent about their data retention doesn't really make me trust them. This page has a rant on the topic, including a point which I have not seen properly explained: "If Google was interested in privacy at all, they wouldn't indefinitely save all that data that they collect on you". This applies to gmail as much or moreso than the search engine, of course.

Incidentally, that site ( http://www.scroogle.org/ ) also allows access to google "anonymously", if anyone is really paranoid about their IP being tracked. I'm not, but I honestly can't be sure that IP addresses and certain search terms are not being matched up somewhere, or won't be in the future.

---

I don't understand what the US Government is doing. Won't eg metaspy, give them their random anonymous data? (I think that there used to be a google equivalent called google voyeur, but it seems to have disappeared).
Is it confirmeded that they are not wanting IPs? If they can use a 1000 random searches, why originally ask for a whole month's worth? What can they really do with just a 1000, except make a point or set a precedent?

---

Of the things going on in China to be outraged about, google's activities should be quite far down the list.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for your thoughts, wilko (and nice seeing you here ). I pretty much agree with everything you say.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A significant victory for Google and privacy advocates:

Google avoids surrendering search requests to government

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge on Friday ordered Google Inc. to give the Bush administration a peek inside its Internet-leading search engine, but rebuffed the goverment's demand for a list of people's search requests - potentially sensitive information that the company had fought to protect.

In his 21-page ruling, U.S. District Judge James Ware told Google to provide the U.S. Justice Department with the addresses of 50,000 randomly selected Web sites indexed by its search engine by April 3.
The government plans to use the data for a study in another case in Pennsylvania, where the Bush administration is trying to revive a law meant to shield children from online pornography.

Ware, though, decided Google won't have to disclose what people have been looking for on its widely used search engine, handing a significant victory to the company and privacy rights advocates.

"This is a clear victory for our users," Nicole Wong, Google's associate general counsel said in a statement Friday.

Attempts to reach a spokesman for the Justice Department late Friday weren't immediately successful.

The government had asked for the contents of 5,000 randomly selected search requests, dramatically scaling back its initial demands after Google's vehement protests gained widespread attention.

When the Justice Department first turned to Ware for help in January, the government wanted an entire week's worth of Google search requests - a list that would encompass queries posed by millions of people.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I am curious to hear what people think of the recent revelation that the NSA has been compiling a data base of millions of phone calls by ordinary Americans from AT&T, Verizon, and other phone companies. Apparently, Qwest was the only one to refuse the "request" for the information, which apparently came without a court order or any kind of warrant.

I think most of you can guess that I believe that this is an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of citizens who are not even suspected of committing any crimes. But I'd like to hear the arguments of others: is this a valid tool in the fight against terrorism, or does this go to far?

[The Watcher]

I am curious to hear what people think of the recent revelation that the NSA has been compiling a data base of millions of phone calls by ordinary Americans from AT&T, Verizon, and other phone companies. Apparently, Qwest was the only one to refuse the "request" for the information, which apparently came without a court order or any kind of warrant.

I think most of you can guess that I believe that this is an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of citizens who are not even suspected of committing any crimes. But I'd like to hear the arguments of others: is this a valid tool in the fight against terrorism, or does this go to far?

I guess I fail to see how stockpiling this sort of information by the NSA is really going to ultimately show anything - yes, I understand the position of the NSA that it allows them to go back and "mine" this gargantuan pile of data when new suspects or leads come up, but, aren't there more practical and legally aboveboard ways to go about it? I find the poor arguments that all of these agencies have for following the mandated procedures dictated by law lame beyond belief. The notion that everyone is potentially guilty is just not going to buy any symapthy from me at least. Does it harm me by them having that data, no, but they have no right to even HAVE it to begin with.

And, such reasoning by government today leads to what types of stockpiles of information next? It is unnecessarily intrusive, in that it is data collected under a "what if" scenario - a blatant violation of our civil rights.

"What ifs" lead into a realm of Orwellian magnitude - where even ideas, thoughts, private discussions, positing opinions, etc. now become potentially suspect.

[Frelga]

I am curious to hear what people think of the recent revelation that the NSA has been compiling a data base of millions of phone calls by ordinary Americans from AT&T, Verizon, and other phone companies.

OK, but you'd have to turn off the word filter.

What I am curious is how Qwest got away with not complying. It sounds like they just had to say no and the feds said, OK, we'll cross you off our list?

I am also curious what patterns they consider suspicious. Because... isn't it the content of the calls that matters?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What I am curious is how Qwest got away with not complying. It sounds like they just had to say no and the feds said, OK, we'll cross you off our list?

Well, unlike the Google situation (to which I do see some interesting parallels), there was no subpoena. The telephone companies were not "compelled" to provide the information; they voluntarily acceded to the NSA's "request". That is why, apparently, there is currently a lawsuit going on against AT&T (which the government is apparently trying to get dismissed on the grounds that it will lead to the revealing of national security "secrets").

[The Watcher]

What I am curious is how Qwest got away with not complying. It sounds like they just had to say no and the feds said, OK, we'll cross you off our list?

Well, unlike the Google situation (to which I do see some interesting parallels), there was no subpoena. The telephone companies were not "compelled" to provide the information; they voluntarily acceded to the NSA's "request". That is why, apparently, there is currently a lawsuit going on against AT&T (which the government is apparently trying to get dismissed on the grounds that it will lead to the revealing of national security "secrets").

Quite the case of circular logic, there, hey?

AT&T submits data to the NSA at the federal government's request because it is "just raw data," and not personally invasive. This becomes known, and a lawsuit protesting violation of privacy rights is filed, and then the government tries to quash the lawsuit because it potentially reveals national secrets?

So, is the data "just data" or is the NSA doing something more with it that the government does not want us to find out? It cannot be both ways, and I think most Americans have figured that out, given the recent polls about the matter.

Fer cryin out loud, even the branch of the Justice Department that is charged with oversight of government agencies such as the NSA could not pursue its OWN investigations on some matters concerning the NSA, because the Justice Department agents would not be granted high enough clearance BY the NSA to do their jobs.

Huh? Agency A is under investigation, and Department B is charged with investigating, but since A decides who gets to see the information being requested, employees of B are deemed not secure enough to receive it............well, ya get the point.

wanders off muttering that 2008 cannot come soon enough, shaking her head in absolute disgust....

[Jnyusa]

A class action suit was filed against Verizon as well. I hadn't heard that AT&T had also been sued.

Jn

[Ethel]

I think it goes way too far. I'm really proud of my regional telephone company, Qwest, for refusing to turn over any data. Not without a court order, they said. It would infringe on our customers' right to privacy, they said. The question is: why didn't the others refuse?

[Primula Baggins]

I'm a pleased Qwest customer, too.

We probably both ought to email someone at the company to tell them so.

[Ethel]

I'm a pleased Qwest customer, too.

We probably both ought to email someone at the company to tell them so.

We should, and I will. As it happens, I already had the opportunity to give some feedback. Was talking to my Qwest account rep just yesterday - running an IT operation involves lots of phone lines - and I told him how proud I was of Qwest for refusing to hand over customer data without a court order. He seemed really pleased and promised to pass my comments along to management.