In a move that alleviates some privacy concerns, a federal judge granted part of a Justice Department request for Google search data but said users' search queries were off-limits. The 21-page order [.pdf] issued Friday by US District Judge James Ware, represented little change from his stance at a hearing earlier this week.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-11
so much for privacy!!
Did you RTFA?
"It's a well-reasoned decision, and it does minimize privacy and civil liberties implications," said Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.
The judge said Google did not have to turn over any search results. The only thing they are asked to turn over is a random sample of 50,000 sites they index. If anything, it sets a precedent for search engines being able to refuse to give information to the feds. Your reaction just seems a little knee-jerk 
The decision is a win. If Google has the right to refuse to hand over 5000 random search results (without IPs), I don't think we have to worry too much about them being forced at a later date to hand over anything that might actually incriminate someone or compromise anyone's privacy.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-04
Lol, you moron. The judge granted the government cached web pages from Google's index. No private information, no search queries, nothing of that sort. Just a bunch of already publically available web pages from Google's index. The judge specifically said that no search queries had to be turned over due to privacy concerns. Seriously....RTFA. Christ.
EDIT: I think what is more disgusting is that some people on this site actually modded your comment up.
Edited 2006-03-20 01:20
Member since:2005-07-06
'Although the Government has only requested the text strings entered (Subpoena at 4), basic identifiable information may be found in the text strings when users search for personal information such as social security number or credit card numbers through Google in order to determine whether such information is available on the internet'
Reading the ACTUAL artical there are still alot of worrying signs here. Granted this requires user stupidity, but there is plenty of that.....
Please dont just read the CNET....
Member since:
2005-07-06
so much for privacy!!
its when thing like this happen you realise how much google hold about you..
(remember now a precedent has been set there is nothing stopping any other judge asking for data)