The politics of cryptography

[cheatercock]

Google defies US over search data

The internet search engine Google is resisting efforts by the US Department of Justice to force it to hand over data about what people are looking for.


Google was asked for information on the types of query submitted over a week, and the websites included in its index.

The department wants the data to try to show in court it has the right approach in enforcing an online pornography law.

It says the order will not violate personal privacy, but Google says it is too broad and threatens trade secrets.

Privacy groups say any sample could reveal the identities of Google users indirectly. And they say the demand is a worrying precedent, because the government also wants to make more use of internet data for fighting crime and terrorism.

However, the Department of Justice has said that several of Google's main competitors have already complied.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4630694.stm

What is your opinion

[sundaymorningstaple]

Bout the same as the total of 3 responses you got on Singapore-forum for the same cut & paste.

[Strong Eagle]

Uhhh... this is not cryptography. This is an attempt by the Bush administration to once again snoop, ignoring the fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.

[cheatercock]

Bout the same as the total of 3 responses you got on Singapore-forum for the same cut & paste.

Ooo the special creature breeds here. I liked the man dancing video on both the forums. who could beat you in posting original and popular topics.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Bout the same as the total of 3 responses you got on Singapore-forum for the same cut & paste.

Ooo the special creature breeds here. I liked the man dancing video on both the forums. who could beat you in posting original and popular topics.

Figured you would like it!

[cheatercock]

Bout the same as the total of 3 responses you got on Singapore-forum for the same cut & paste.

Ooo the special creature breeds here. I liked the man dancing video on both the forums. who could beat you in posting original and popular topics.

Figured you would like it!

Thanks for taking care. . popularman.
Any thoughts on the topic .

[Baron Greenback]

The usual arguments about the government knowing what you are doing are these:

If you are not doing anything wrong there is no need to worry
It will help catch the criminals

I do not want my personal freedom violated by 'Big Brother'


In my own opinion I do not really see a problem with the authorities knowing who is Googling "how to make a nail bomb" or "kiddy porn". But it does raise the question who decides on what the authorities are allowed to use as their criteria for flagged searches. Or to put it more simply who polices the police?

[Strong Eagle]

The usual arguments about the government knowing what you are doing are these:

If you are not doing anything wrong there is no need to worry
It will help catch the criminals

I do not want my personal freedom violated by 'Big Brother'


In my own opinion I do not really see a problem with the authorities knowing who is Googling "how to make a nail bomb" or "kiddy porn". But it does raise the question who decides on what the authorities are allowed to use as their criteria for flagged searches. Or to put it more simply who polices the police?

There is another problem here. Under most circumstances warrants for searches are issued under probable cause... there is already evidence of wrong doing that needs to be substantiated.

But this case is different. The government is not alleging that it has evidence of crime... it wants the records in orde to determine if crime is occurring.

[ringo100]

What's the problem with the police trying to proactively find crimes committed as opposed to waiting until after the event? I’m in the camp that says if you are not breaking the law why worry.

I think the same arguments apply to increasing CCTVs.

[Bremen]

What's the problem with the police trying to proactively find crimes committed as opposed to waiting until after the event? I’m in the camp that says if you are not breaking the law why worry.

I think the same arguments apply to increasing CCTVs.

No, with CCTV's you KNOW you're being watched. Do you really want the cops listening in on your calls with your wife/gf/etc? If you have a bad day at work, call your wife and say you wish you could blow up the whole building, you could have the FBI knocking on your door the next day.

It's a case of presuming guilt until proven innocent.

Benjamin Franklin said: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither".

Too bad that Bush is now stepping all over the founding fathers of the country he swore to serve.

[cheatercock]

Echo with Bremen views on the question.

[Strong Eagle]

What's the problem with the police trying to proactively find crimes committed as opposed to waiting until after the event? I’m in the camp that says if you are not breaking the law why worry.

I think the same arguments apply to increasing CCTVs.

So, I presume this means you won't mind your snail mail being opened, your email being monitored, your posts to forums being read, and your internet activity being recorded? You will of course, not mind having all of your financial records analyzed, and since you wouldn't want to tip off the bad guys, all of this will be done in secret. And it is a crime to tell you that your records have been investigated. You won't mind the government going through all your credit records databases to look for buying habits, and you won't mind them taking records from stores that you shop at. After all, big brother is benevolent, no?

As far back as the 1700's it was illegal for governments to open mail. The problem with police proactively finding crime is that all innocent citizens must be under surveillance to catch the crooks. Worse, the crooks know this and will take steps not to be found. Government has proven over and over again that it cannot be trusted with power. There will always be risk in this world, and I find it positively scary that you have no problem in living in a police state.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Actually, this has been done before, but not with google. NSA has been snooping emails for years already. My ex-FiL was a GS-18 with NSA until he retired and then went back as a consultant after he retired. They have already been able to evesdrop based on search algorithms they have developed to tag email messages for watching.

I have always been aware of their capabilities since my earlier marriage back in 76 to his daughter. Frankly, I'm behind Google on this one but at the end of the day, the gov't will have their way, albiet in a modified form hopefully.

[Plavt]

What's the problem with the police trying to proactively find crimes committed as opposed to waiting until after the event? I’m in the camp that says if you are not breaking the law why worry.

I think the same arguments apply to increasing CCTVs.

The problem with police proactively finding crime is that all innocent citizens must be under surveillance to catch the crooks.

I agree with SE watching everybody all the time simply will not work and will just result in a great deal of time and money being spent for nothing along with many erroneous results. Would it not be more sense to concentrate resources on the areas which warrant the attention of the authorities?
There is much to be debated on this topic so here's some interesting reading perhaps ironically by two Americans;

'Why America Slept, The failure to prevent 9/11. Gerald Posner.

'Beyond Fear' Bruce Schneier.

http://www.schneier.com/index.html

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1

http://www.schneier.com/essay-096.html


Plavt.

[riversandlakes]

Google has the point there on protecting trade secrets. No one knows for sure how many servers it has to serve up super-fast all those search results. Ichiban really. It's always the fastest website even when I'm surving somewhere .sg...

Interesting how this will turn up. The US Govt needs to prove it needs these sensitive samples to get that law passed but Google's very business is at stake. Though MSN/Y!/AOL's voluntary give-up of samples shouldn't be a justification?