SAN FRANCISCO - Google Inc. is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the Internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance. Mountain View-based Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose for an order to hand over the requested records. The government wants a list all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases. In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, 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. This is kind of worring, as Google is one of the better (well, moraly and just all around service wise) things (period) in this world, and now the government is trying to force them to give up all their records for a particular search phraise? Yeah, not fun. Oh, MSN and yahoo have already given in to the demands. Link this way. So, do you think Google will sell-out to bush?
How does 'selling you out' come into play here? Google is saying no, and going to court. If the court says 'yes, you will' Google doesn't legally have a choice.
They aren't morally better...better service, yes. What is the government going to do with all that data once they get it? <lefty moonbat> If only Kerry or Gore were president this would never happen. </lefty moonbat>
Well, the thing is, if Google doesn't want to go through the expense of a court case, then they may be giving up your information (yes, what you have personally searched for can be considered as your information, who says I want the government to know?) then it would be giving itself to the government. I simply used a play on words in an effort to hopefully get more people to read and respond I understand the meaning of a "sell-out", and yes, I know that I've used it incorrectly. It is close though. Same idea, just not paid for. [EDIT].308AR, what I'm meaning by good morals, is that they've proven that they enjoy fighting for it's users, and they don't over-step the boundries of most users. There has been very little public out-cry over any of their actions, unlike almost all other type of multi-national company of exceptionaly large size. But obviously they're still a business, and still do things as a business [/EDIT]
