Google Teams up with the ACLU
Friday, January 20, 2006 at 10:08PM
After climbing for a year and a half, Google shares dramatically fell 8.5 % on Friday to $399.46 a share. It was the largest one-day percentage drop for the company and the highest volume, more than 41 million trades since the search giant went public.
Competition with Yahoo search engine could be one explanation, but more than likely it was Google’s surprising refusal to comply with a Justice Department subpoena issued to Google to turn over information about it’s users Internet searches on the web.
Why the connection between the fall of Google stock and Google’s refusal to cough up user information? The Justice Department wanted Google records regarding users surfing for pornography. The government did not demand the names or personal information about the users themselves, only a list of Web queries.
The US Justice Department hopes to use to resurrect the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which the Supreme Court struck down in 2004.
The Supreme Court ruled against COPA, which Congress enacted to protect children from sexually explicit material on the Internet, two years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on the grounds that the COPA violated privacy and free speech. The high court sent it back to federal court in Pennsylvania.
The government contends that it needs the search-engine data to help prove the acts constitutionality and that it would be more effective than filtering software in protecting minors from Internet pornography and other harmful content. Queries for "porn" also lead to child pornography links, which is possibly one of the reasons for the subpoena.
During each visit to Google or any other Internet site, a visitor’s computer reveals a numerical address assigned by the user’s Internet provider. The site can store that information, along with the date and time of the visit. This information can be used by researchers, marketers, or investigators to trace the visitor’s identity.
In papers filed yesterday at a federal court in San Jose, Calif., government attorneys said that they are not seeking information about individuals. They want the search companies to provide a sample of a million websites from the billions they currently index, as well as all the search terms typed into the services during a one-week period. All information that could identify individuals is to be removed before the data is given to the government. The government could use the data to estimate how pervasive pornography is on the Internet and how often pornographic sites come up in random Internet searches.
On the surface, Google can justify it’s protection of clients surfing for pornography by a technicality claiming that compliance with the subpoena violates the privacy and security it offers to all its clients. However, every such decision has a moral implication, and Google has sided not only against the government’s attempt to keep porn away from minors, but also for the safeguarding of those who do.
Also troubling is that Google stores personal information of its users. Google could have avoided the entire scandal if it didn’t keep personal data.
The public has taken note, thus the dramatic loss in Google shares. Coincidence?
The next time you’re in the mood for some porn, at lead you know you have Google and the ACLU on your side.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/361710
Amy Proctor
This story was initially reported that users seeking child pornography were the target of the US Justice Department subpoena. That is now unclear, but what is clear is that the subpoena seeks to gather information that can analyze the availability of pornography to minors as well. More updates as needed.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (38)
You're always quick to divide everything into two camps, select one and demonise the other. That's something that is not always a natural property of what you're looking it. It's not always about sides, and it's not always adversarial.
Doesn’t the market usually react negatively to news about the Justice Department subpoenaing a company? Your assertion that investors sold their stocks because they do not agree with Google’s position may in fact just be a short-term reaction by the market based on looming legal battles and a weak technology market. Also, it was reported that Google’s stock fell due to concerns over fourth-quarter earnings.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/1310AP_Google_Stock.html
Btw, I don't have a problem with Google turning over my records to the Bush Administration, I have nothing to hide. Only terrorists and people who look at kiddie porn should be worried.
AMY -
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I would contend that Google fears a loss of business more than anything, and to their board of directors this may have seemed like a recipe for disaster, given the current outrage over anything that smacks of civil rights and privacy violation (courtesy of the Liberal Media).
I don't look at this as Google condoning child pornography, although I am curious as to whatever happened to the proposed ".xxx" extension to all adult websites!?
For myself, I agree whole-heartedly that it would be better for the public if they had willingly participated in this. And virtually ANYTHING that the ACLU gets involved in is automatically suspect in my book.
Great piece!
The point is that Google has made a decision, for whatever justifiable reason, to hinder the protection of children from porn stalkers. That's the reality no matter how you slice it. What privacy is it worth protecting that can justify not assisting the government in safeguarding children?
I think Ruth summed it up perfectly. Couldn't have said it better.
I stated in the original entry that he government did not ask for the names or personal information about the users themselves, only a list of Web queries. Ruth's explanation is correct. Also, for example, suppose a high traffic of child porn searches via Google is coming from San Diego, CA. This type of info can help the Justice Department and authorities steam line and target their search for those using/soliciting or engaging in child porn activities. Are those the people you're trying to protect? Do you think that perhaps engaging in illegal activity, which includes viewing or buying child porn, should be protected by law? How can that work, since it's a contradiction not only in terms but in legality?
Erica, good comments and glad to see you here.
For the rest of you, I wasn't necessarily offering definitive evidence about stocks and Google's stupid move to stand in the way of the government to protect chlidren from on line preditors, although the dots seem to connect that way. I believe that's the connection, but of course I cannot say absolutely. It would appear that way. I'm just offering up food for thought.
I, for one, am not using Google anymore. It's a free country. I'm Yahooing from now on.
Amy,
That sounds pretty definitive to me. To be fair, shouldn’t you have also included the fact that several analysts considered the stock overvalued and recommended selling it? The decline was also attributed to Yahoo’s disappointing fourth-quarter results (which seemed to indicate that Google’s results would also be disappointing). Even the article that you sited at the beginning of your post attributed Google’s decline to these two reasons. It never mentioned investors’ concerns about Google’s position, merely the pending legal battle. So, other than your assumption that this is the reason investors sold their stocks, what evidence do you have? Also, by that same logic, if the stock price eventually goes back up, does this mean investors agree with Google’s position?
"To be fair, shouldn’t you have also included the fact that several analysts considered the stock overvalued and recommended selling it? The decline was also attributed to Yahoo’s disappointing fourth-quarter results (which seemed to indicate that Google’s results would also be disappointing)."
I mentioned this BRIEFLY in the second paragraph. I wasn't trying to make a financial analysis... the coincidence is pretty timely, though, and that's what I was pointing out.
"So, other than your assumption that this is the reason investors sold their stocks, what evidence do you have? Also, by that same logic, if the stock price eventually goes back up, does this mean investors agree with Google’s position?"
Silke, many articles from Reuters, MSNBC and financial analyists have drawn the same conclusion I have about the connection between the stock drop and the Google decision.
Jez, why do I doubt that the child protection laws ban ALL nudity? The rubbish isn't the laws, but the attitudes that are willing to risk children to potential harm.
I understand that Google is not sympathetic to child porn (although you really cannot ASSURE me since you don't know the decision making intents of their CEO's), but the decision is the same. If I say, "I love you, Jez" and punch you in the face, I suppose it's up to you to decide which speaks louder: my actions or my words.
A few loosely linked points:
1) The online child protection law is rubbish. It bans all nudity, and not all nudity is bad (anyone like the Venus de Milo? Not online you don't -- it's got titties)
2) How would this data help the case anyway? Just because someone's slapped google with a court order, doesn't mean it's necessary or useful to comply. The DOJ has a reputation for over-reaching in its demand for court materials. Sometimes it's responsible for their demands to be tested. Anyone who holds information about me would, I hope, consider carefully before releasing their files to a third party.
3) Google is not, I assure you, sympathetic to child pornographers. It's decision is purely about not setting a precedent for automatically releasing information.
4) Child porn is irrelevent, the CAPA is about whether porn etc. is accessable to minors. Child porn / abuse is not covered by this law.
5) What's next in the name of pretecting the kiddies, banning books, censoring films? There's only so much to govt can do, parents need to meter and monitor childrens' online activities.
The two sides thing doesn't surprise me, Amy, I'm just pointing out that often it interferes with a developing a full understanding of what's going on and like any habit, it can be broken.
Amy, do these articles specifically site ethical and philosophical reasons (which is what you assert) for the precipitous decline in the stock? From all the articles I’ve read any connection between Google’s decision to fight the Justice Department’s subpoena and the subsequent drop in stock price are a result of concerns over anticipated financial problems due to impending legal battles. The cause is primarily financial not philosophical.
“I mentioned this BRIEFLY in the second paragraph. I wasn't trying to make a financial analysis... the coincidence is pretty timely, though, and that's what I was pointing out.”
Yes, but if you are going to talk about the reasons for the decline in a company’s stock price, shouldn’t part (if not most) of your analysis be financial? You seem to dismiss it pretty quickly.
Sorry to dwell on this, I’m just trying to point out that it is most likely Google’s overvalued stock, combined with impending legal battles and not their particular position on the matter that accounts for the decline in the stock price. Do you concede that this could be the main reason?
Silke, forgive me but what you see as "dismissing quickly" is actually a lack of desire to argue. You could very well be right about the financial aspect of this, but I think the moral implications of what Google has done in regards to dismissing the government's subpoena is the more important issue.
:)
And that fact that they're on the same side as the ACLU is not good.
I find nothing noble what so ever in Google's position.
Notwithstanding the above, I think that Google and Yahoo and all the rest of them, should keep track of anyone searching for illegal porn, and they should have to submit that data to the police.
The wording of the law is all about "nudity", not "pornography" or "obscenity". Why should we have to rely on prosecutors' discretion, why not write a better law?
Can any of you tell me how having google's records will help the DOJ?
Perhaps Americans have more exposure to the evil ACLU than those abroad. Here's a link to my friends at Stop the ACLU. Its a site focused on stopping and exposing the nasty agenda of the ACLU.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
This site hasn't been up too long... maybe a year I think, and it's taken off like a rocket because so many people are disgusted by the ACLU. They defend pediphiles, fight against anything resembling Christianity, lobby for criminals, etc.
"The other fact is the government is not interested in names at all. It is interested in where search engines lead people. For example: 12 yr. old girl does a search on Hilary Duff and is led to a porno site or pop up. The government is not interested in who the 12 year old is. They want to identify why the poor kid was directed to porn."
Here's what I used as an example above:
"Also, for example, suppose a high traffic of child porn searches via Google is coming from San Diego, CA. This type of info can help the Justice Department and authorities steam line and target their search for those using/soliciting or engaging in child porn activities."
Jez, I know you're not an American, but why give the benefit of the doubt to Google over the Justice Department? The Justice Dept. isn't exactly a partisan organization, it's a gov. office whose whole purpose is to exact, seek and maintain justice and law to protect US citizens.
However, I can see Google's side as well. They want to protect everyone that uses their search engine.
I use Google all the time and it is rather sad that they are choosing to protect child pornography. Nope, can't deal with that. The children must be protected at all costs. Their safetly should come first before the almighty dollar.
I believe if they had just turned over the information that the justice department was seeking all would be well and would have earned the respect of its users. Most definitely mine.
Darn! I really loved Google too.
When beginning the search for the Google news, the news reports were all saying that this was a matter of the feds going after those who look at child pornography on-line. It caught my intention originally when national news outlets, to include Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., were all reporting what I wrote in my entry. While it's true the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is about protecting children from porn while on-line, the initial story was that Google refused to give up queries on child porn by users. Not until today did I see some commentary (nothing concretely in the news, but I'm still checking) suggest that Google had been given a bad rap; that they were not asked to give up info regarding child porn, but about porn in general that could be accessed by children. I'm not at all sure this is the case, but if so, I'll say so. It's possible people are confusing the COPA and the current debacle with Google.
By the way, this is what I said in my entry:
"The US Justice Department hopes to use to resurrect the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which the Supreme Court struck down in 2004.
The Supreme Court ruled against COPA, which Congress enacted to protect children from sexually explicit material on the Internet, two years ago by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on the grounds that the COPA violated privacy and free speech. The high court sent it back to federal court in Pennsylvania.
The government contends that it needs the search-engine data to help prove the acts constitutionality and that it would be more effective than filtering software in protecting minors from Internet pornography and other harmful content."
Interesting reads in the meantime:
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/news/2149029/sla-backs-google-fight-justice
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48461
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06012326.htm
I like google. I know people who work there, and I have their reports of the fellas in charge there. I think the technology is strong, it's a creative and successful firm. I don't by default trust government organisations, and I certainly don't have a problem with people challenging their requests. This is part of healthy democratic to-and-fro.
Well I have been annoyed with Google for some time now myself. There have been blatant examples where they clearly lean left. Their Ad-Sense program runs mostly Democratic or Liberally-biased ads (even on Republican or Conservative websites). They have refused to allow advertising for a few Christian and Conservative books saying they were too controversial, while readily advertising similar Liberal books. I believe that they also endorsed John Kerry for President and gave money to his election campaign as well, so what does that say?
Regards...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6030784.html
"Google said Tuesday it will launch versions of its search and news Web sites in China that censor material deemed objectionable to authorities there, reasoning that people getting limited access to content is better than none."
It's funny that they will cooperate with the communist government in China but Google refuses to help the United States of America fight Terrorism and child pornography.
Maybe Google should consider moving to China or maybe Cuba.
I seriously doubt this. Type "porn" into a search engine, and you don't get child porn (if you do, it's buried and lost in the many thousands of links to regular porn). Think about it, the police can type in "porn" just as easily as anyone else.
In fact, I'd be surprised if search engines are used extensively or at all in child porn rings. They'd have to be more private than that.
Child porn is a complete red herring.
Erica, you're crazy. If google were delivering search query information to the Chinese, you'd have a point. As things stand, they're doing what any profit-driven company anywhere does and spreading as far as possible. I'm sure they dislike the censorship, but it's an economic reality. From the article you linked: "[google] was the last of the major search engines not to have [censored subversive material]". All the others do it too -- microsoft, yahoo, all of them have specialised Chinese versions. Should they move to Cuba too?
The article also points out that Yahoo, Microsoft's MSN and America Online have all cooperated with the United States Government by giving it the web search data that it requested.
Google is more likely to sell information about Americans to the Red Chinese than to help the Bush Administration hunt down the Terrorists.
I wonder if Google has a Muslim version that censors the truth about Christianity and America. It would not surprise me.
The subpoena has what to do with Terrorists?
What sensitive American information is being sold to the Chinese?
>"The subpoena has what to do with Terrorists?"
Maybe the Terrorists are funding their anti-American jihad with funds obtained from their kiddie porn business. We all know that the most important task facing President Bush and his Administration is protecting the American people from the Terrorists and making the world safe for Democracy. American companies need to cooperate with the government which trying to protect us.
>"What sensitive American information is being sold to
>the Chinese?"
If I knew about the information then it would not be very sensitive now would it?
I didn't know there was much money to make from child porn. But leaving that question aside, what does the subpoena have to do with kiddie porn??
And what information of any kind has google sold to the Chinese?