The Bush Administration wants these as evidence in a
dispute over the constitutionality of a law that aims to protect
children from viewing internet porn.
In August it served Google with a subpoena, seeking 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 sought a random sampling of one
million URLs from Google's database of websites.
Google refused to comply, arguing that to do so would breach the
privacy rights of its users, and in January the Justice Department
filed a motion with a San Jose court, seeking to enforce the
subpoena.
The case came to court yesterday and, while he has not yet given
his ruling, Judge James Ware made it clear that he was in favour of
ordering Google to produce some of the search records, particularly
as the Justice Department had drastically reduced the number of
records sought.
The Department is now seeking only 50,000 web addresses, of
which it says it will look at 10,000. It has also reduced the
number of search queries sought – down to 5,000 from one million.
Of these, the Department says it will only look at 1,000.
But the Judge also made it clear that he would not grant all of
the Department’s requests, expressing concern that the public could
come to believe that typing search terms into Google was “subject
to government scrutiny”.
According to the latimes.com, the Judge was also sceptical that
the Justice Department would really keep the Google records
confidential, asking whether, if a search query linked a web user
with Osama bin Laden “the government would ignore it and not use
it?"
Google appears to be comfortable with the position.
"We're very encouraged," Nicole Wong, associate general counsel
at Google told the New York Times. "At a minimum we have come a
long way from the government's initial subpoena. If it had started
this way, it would have been a very different discussion."
Background
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 website 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.
