Interesting People mailing list archives
Subpoena for 1 million random web searches
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:53:41 -0500
So how long before peronal info is requested djf Begin forwarded message: From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf () sethf com> Date: January 20, 2006 3:43:45 PM EST To: ip () v2 listbox comCc: David Farber <dave () farber net>, stevenstevensteven () yahoo com, sean () DONELAN COM
Subject: Re: Subpoena for 1 million random web searches [There's no personal information involved. Here's the best summary I've seen, from Gary Price writing for SearchEngineWatch.com] http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-161802 http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-060352Court Documents & Summary Of United States Versus Google Over Search Data
Earlier we reported in [79]Bush Administration Demands Search Data;
Google Says No, Yahoo & MSN Said Yes that the US Government seeks
to force Google to hand over search data. That story explains more
about the situation, and there have been a number of postscripts
from when it was first written. Along with that, we've been able
to obtain copies of the three court documents filed in the
case. Below you'll find links to each document, along with a
summary of what's in each of them.
Alberto Gonzalez, as Attorney General of the United States
vs. Google [80]Notice of Motion to Compel Compliance (PDF File) Two
quick points. Remember, that this brief was filed by the
Government and does not offer a response to their claims. I'm sure
that will be coming. Second, I'm not an attorney and haven't played
one on tv. My purpose was to summarize what was presented in the
document.
* The motions requests that Google comply with a subpoena filed
by the Attorney General and "produce" for inspection and
copying the materials the Government is asking for.
* After the lead government attorney conferred with Google,
Google has chosen not to comply with subpoena.
* Google is asking the court to make Google comply
* The filing then goes into a background explanation about the
Children's Online Protection Act (COPA) and how the government
is developing its defense of the constitutionality of
COPA. They believe that COPA is, "more effective than filtering
software in protecting from harmful exposure to harmful
material on the Internet."
* In preparation of the case, subpoenas were issued to Google and
"other entities" that operate search engines to produce two
sets materials.
* First, the subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file
contain, "[a]ll URL's that are available to be located on your
companys' search engine as of July 31, 2005.
* However, after "lengthy negotiation" the government changed and
"narrowed" their request and asked for a "multi- stage random
sample of one million URLS from Google's database ie, a random
selection of the various databases in which those URL's are
stored, and a random sample of the URL's held in those selected
databases.
* Second, Google was asked to "produce an electronic file
containing [a]ll queries entered into the Google engine between
July 1 and July 31 inclusive.
* Again, after lengthy negotiations the government the government
changed their request and asked for an electronic file
"containing the text of any search string entered into Google's
search engine for a one week period (absent any personal
information identifying the person who entered the query).
* Google has still refused to comply with these requests in any
way.
* The Government says that access to this information would be of
"significant significance" in the preoperation of the their
case. Specifically why?
* "The production set of queries entered into Google's search
engine would assist the Government in its efforts to understand
the behavior of current web users, to estimate how often web
users encounter harmful-to-minors material in the course of
their searches, and to measure the effectiveness of filtering
in screening that material."
* This information would also help the Government understand
what, "web sites people find through the use of search engines,
to determine the character of those sites, to estimate the
prevalence of harmful-to-minors material on those sites, and to
measure the effectiveness of filtering software on that harmful
to minors material.
* The document continues into a discussion with plenty of
legalese and citations and again points out the Google has
failed to comply and lists some of the reason Google objects to
this.
* Google first objects to this on the grounds of relevancy.
* Google also objects on the grounds that if they would provide
what the government asks for, they would be required to produce
information identifying the users of its search engines.
* The Government claims that this is "illusory" since they have
specifically asked for a random sample containing no personally
identifying information to any search string.
* The Government said that it has received compliance from search
entities with files containing no personally identifying
information.
* Google also contends that the information they're being asked
to produce is "redundant" since the Government has asked other
engines to produce similar files. The Government argues that
this "misunderstands" what's being requested. "The production
set of queries from Google's database, in combination with
similar productions from other search engine operators will
assist the Government in developing a sample of the overall
universe of search engines queries, while accounting for the
potential of any variations in the type of queries that are
entered into different search engines."
* The Government says that since Google is the market leader, its
response, "would be of value" in developing the Governments
overall sample of queries.
* Google says that complying would also force Google to share
trade secrets because the total number of queries receives in a
day is a trade secret. The Government adds that if this was
the case, a district court has said that these numbers would
not be disclosed.
* Finally, according to the filing, Google says that it will be
subject to an "undue burden" in complying. The Government
claims that this is not the case whatsoever. The Government
adds that they would be "willing to work" with Google to
specify a multistage sample. They are also willing to
compensate Google for its work and complying with the subpoena.
* The filing ends with the Government saying that, "This court
should require Google to comply with the subpoena on the same
terms it's competitors have."
[81]Declaration Of Joel McElvain (PDF File)
The second filing is a declaration by Government attorney, Joel
McElvain, who I believe the lead attorney for the U.S. Department
of Justice in this matter. It also helps produce a timeline of
events to this point. It includes:
* A copy of the original subpoena, originally signed on August
25, 2005
* Detailed info and definitions about Google was to submit to the
Government.
* A several page letter, dated October 25, 2005, from Ashok
Ramani, Commercial Litigation Counsel, Google sent to Joel
McElvain with his objection to the subpoena. THIS IS A MUST
READ!!! Key Quotes and Passages from the Letter
* "It is against Google's competitive interest to be viewed as
reflecting the whole world wide web."
* Worth noting that Google says that the government tried to use
Archive.org/Wayback Machine and found the results
unsatisfactory. From the letter, "...given the
[82]www.archive.org's stated purpose, one would expect them --
with an appropriate consulting relationship to create the
results the DEFENDANT wanted.
* The Governments request is seen as redundant because they
already has URLs from at least one other engine
* From the letter, "Though the search engines doubtlessly have
some differences in the URLS, they store, what distinguishes
Google from it's competitors is the sophistication of Google's
search engine in locating and ordering relevant results."
* On the burden to Google. "Google would have to spend a
disproportionate amount of engineering time and resources to
(i) number (even in rough terms) in real time the URLs
contained in its search database and (ii) extract based on that
initial numbering the URLs selected by Professor Stark.
* Google also objects because it could "endanger" its
"crown-jewel trade secrets." Specficially, they would have to
disclose the approximate number of URLs in its database and
"some" details on how it crawls URLs, "such as the number of
servers, server distribution, and how often Google crawls the
World Wide Web."
* More objections. "Google objects to the Defendant's view of
Google's highly proprietary queries database as a free resource
that Defendant can use, some levels removed, to formulate its
own defense."
* "Moreover, Google's acceeding to the Request would suggest that
it is willing to reveal information about those who use its
services. This is not a perception Google is willing to
accept. And one can envision scenarios where queries alone
could reveal identifying information about a specific Google
user, which is another outcome we cannot accept. Next, we find
another letter. This time it's from DOJ's McElvain to Google's
Ramani. This later is dated December 23, 2005.
* The letter discusses how the Government is willing to narrow
what's asked for in the subpeona This is summarized in the
Alberto Gonzalez, as Attorney General of the United States
vs. Google section of this post.
* McElvain discusses how Google asked for and was granted two
extensions to serve their objections to the subpeona until
October 10, 2005. He then writes, "In our several discussions
prior to the service of those objections we had offered to
limit the scope of of the requests for production, and you had
indicated Google's willingness to consider compliance with the
subpeona along with the narrowed terms that we had
suggested. Your written objection also reiterated your hope to
reach a resolution regarding Google's compliance with the
subpeona. However, shortly after the service of your
objections, you telephoned me to inform me that Google would
decline to comply with the subpeona.
* More conversations between the Government and Google take place
on December 12th and December 21st to discuss the technical
aspects of the request. Finally, on December 21st, MacElvain
was informed that Google would not comply with the subpeona.
* The final document is a protective order in the ACLU v. U.S.
case.
[83]Declaration Of Philip B Stark (PDF File)
This document is a declaration by [84]Philipp Stark, Ph.D who was
the person to work on the project. Dr. Stark is a Professor of
Statistics at the University of California, Berkeley.
* Stark explains how he has had conversations with the USDOJ,
Google and other search providers, "to develop practical
approaches to sampling their databases or URLs and search
queries."
* He adds that he has started to analyze the samples produced by
search providers other than Google.
* He writes, "Reviewing user queries to search engines will help
us understand the search behavior of current web users, to
estimate how often web users encounter HTM materials through
searches, and to measure the effectiveness of filters in
screening those materials.
Stark goes on to add more about his approach while including Google
results are directly relevant.
Posted by [85]Gary Price on Jan. 19, 2006 | [86]Permalink
See related stories in these categories! (available to
[87]SEW
members) [88]Legal: Privacy _________________________________________________________________ References Visible links 79. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-06035280. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/pdf/ Google_motiontocompel.pdf 81. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/pdf/ Google_McElvainDeclaration.pdf
82. http://www.archive.org/83. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/pdf/ Google_NoticeofStarkDeclaration.pdf
84. http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/ 85. http://searchenginewatch.com/about/article.php/3411711. 86. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-16180287. http://searchenginewatch.com/benefits/article.php? source=searchtopics
88. http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/topics/legal_privacy -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- Subpoena for 1 million random web searches David Farber (Jan 20)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Subpoena for 1 million random web searches David Farber (Jan 20)