BCT Editorial – 1/24/06

This page was last updated on January 24, 2006.

You’re next; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 24, 2006.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has an editorial entitled “Lily-livered weasels” on this subject. I believe the biggest difference between the Trib and the Times is this. Given that the Trib generally – but not 100% - supports many Bush administration policies, the Trib editorial appears based on core principles. I doubt we’d see the same Times editorial if the Clinton, Gore, or Kerry administrations made exactly the same request. Indeed, I believe the Times would likely praise a Democrat administration for taking action “for the children.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The government’s demand for Google’s search requests threatens your civil liberties

[RWC] Draw your own conclusion after you read this critique.

“We hate to overdo the Martin Niemoller first-they-came thing, but they are coming for you if you’re a user of Google, Yahoo and other Internet search engines.

“The Associated Press reported last week that Google, the Internet’s leading search engine, is fighting a Bush administration subpoena to supply the Justice Department with a list of all requests entered into its search engine during an unspecified single week, a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries.

“In addition, the subpoena seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases.

“The Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, The AP reported.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note Bill Clinton signed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) in 1998. I’m sure the editorial author wants us to believe this is a law enacted by President Bush.

“The Justice Department has no probable cause. It just wants to look around to see what it can find, and there is no telling how it would use that information, even if it is unrelated to online child pornography.”

[RWC] There are two points to consider in this paragraph.

First, at least one judge had to approve of the request in order to grant the subpoena. If the judge believed the request violated the U.S. Constitution or other U.S. law, he had the duty to refuse the subpoena.

Second, the editorial purposely fails to note the subpoena requests no personal information.

“What’s scary is that No. 2 Yahoo and other Internet search engines have caved and acceded to this federal government’s abuse of privacy.”

[RWC] How is supplying data stripped of personal information and obeying the law caving in?

“Google contends that submitting to the subpoena would represent a betrayal to its users, even if all personal information is stripped from the search terms sought by the government. The company isn’t motivated by idealism alone. Complying with the government request also could lead to some of the company’s trade secrets being revealed.”

[RWC] Earth to editorial author. Google’s primary problem is the trade secret issue, not idealism. The user “betrayal” issue is simply cover that sounds good.

Here’s a quote from Google’s privacy policy page: “We may share aggregated non-personal information with third parties outside of Google.”

“But the bigger issue is the Bush administration’s belief that it can strip Americans of basic civil liberties, including the right to privacy, in the belief that it can do whatever it wants.”

[RWC] Please explain how data stripped of personal information infringes on “basic civil liberties, including the right to privacy?” As noted above, Google’s own privacy policy specifically states Google “may share aggregated non-personal information with third parties outside of Google.”

Second, the “do whatever it wants” statement is BS. Subpoenas require approval of the judicial branch.

“They already have come for Yahoo’s records, and no one spoke out. They came for other search engines’ information, and no one spoke out. Now, they have come for Google’s data. If you don’t speak out now, it will be too late when they come for yours.”

[RWC] Blah, blah, blah.

Isn’t it odd how the Times can get worked up over this issue, but apparently doesn’t consider it an infringement on “basic civil liberties, including the right to privacy” when we must disclose every detail of our personal financial information when we pay income and property taxes?