Senator demands info on search engine subpoena

TalkBack 33 of 39:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Fishing For What?

And they don't need to subpoena actual records to determine whether a search for "bambi" would turn up porn. They could do the same thing you did to determine that so it still makes no sense. And if they want to see how many times a search for "bambi" was conducted it still doesn't tell them whether it was an adult or a minor looking for porn or whether it was an adult or minor that accidentally viewed it. The subpoena is still useless as anything other than a fishing expedition.

Theoretically, they could do the same thing I did, but it would be ridiculously inefficient, compared to what they're doing, and it wouldn't be a random sample. To do it the way I did it, they'd have to hire people to sit at computers and type in inocuous search terms all day, and it still wouldn't be data as valid as what they've got with the subpoena. Now, I don't know what problem they had with the survey data they collected originally, but obviously it wasn't strong enough the first time, or they wouldn't have to be doing this appeal. (I suspect one problem they had was that the surveys were self-reported. Self-reporting would lead to a higher percentage saying that the porn viewing was inadvertent. Children and teens don't necessarily want to admit that they went where they did intentionally.)


And if they want to see how many times a search for "bambi" was conducted it still doesn't tell them whether it was an adult or a minor looking for porn or whether it was an adult or minor that accidentally viewed it. The subpoena is still useless as anything other than a fishing expedition.

Again, who did the search isn't the point. (It can't be the point, since the information isn't provided.) The point is to get inocuous search terms and line them up with the porn sites they returned as results. Who does the searching doesn't necessarily matter, anyway. If I'm a father, doing a search with my child sitting next to me, I'm just as likely to encounter this as my child is, if I'm looking for the same thing.

Think about it a minute: If there's no possible use for the information as-is, they wouldn't bother asking for it. It's useless for any nefarious purpose without the identifying information. And if they wanted the identifying information, they could've asked for it. There's nothing in Google's privacy policy that prohibits them from cooperating with the government.

Now, it might be true that the information they're gathering won't be any use to them, anyway (if, for example, the judge decides that the information doesn't have any value because you can't tell who's searching). And it might turn out that the whole thing was just a useless fishing expedition, as you put it. But that still doesn't make it a privacy issue, because no one's privacy was invaded.

For what it's worth, I still think they'll fail in court. The government has been fighting for this law since 1998 (1996, if you count the CDA). If anything, the filter technology has gotten better, which gives the courts less reason to allow this solution.

Posted by: bhartman36   Posted on: 01/28/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now