Google vs. The Department of Justice

Google vs. The Department of Justice By Janet Hacker-Brumley & Fran Eversole-Meyer If you miss something or want to review, look for the back button in the lower left corner of each slide. Click here to begin! The Issue  August 2005 – The Department of Justice (DoJ) subpoenaed two kinds of information from the top four search engines – Google, Yahoo, AOL and MSN – looking for evidence to support the Child Online Protection Act (COPA)  The DoJ asked for Logs of search terms used by searchers A list of sites indexed by each company What happened next?  Yahoo, AOL and MSN all complied with the request within a matter of weeks Yahoo and AOL insisted that they provided only aggregate data, which presents information about groups of users, but does not pose a privacy concern for individuals MSN admitted that its standard policy is to comply with government requests in a timely manner  Only Google refused to submit this data About Google  Mission statement  “…to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” (http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/index.html)  Popularity contest  Google is the top US search site  Searches in Google account for nearly half of all US searches (2.4 billion monthly)  Google boasts 380 million unique users monthly What makes Google great?  Most people attribute Google’s indomitable success to their patented PageRank technology – Google’s top-secret algorithm that uses over 500 million variables and 2 billion terms to produce Web resources based on relevancy TM Criticism of other search tools  While many have attacked Google as being hypocritical, others have lauded their efforts to uphold the privacy rights they feel were dismissed by other search companies. Privacy Policies  Google’s privacy policy mimics those of Yahoo, MSN and AOL Personal information is collected when the user volunteers it for registration purposes Other information (i.e., which sites you visit) is collected through the use of cookies Google retains the right to share information with third parties:  In aggregate (non-personal) form  Providing they adhere to Google’s privacy policy  When complying with legal process Why did Google refuse? Protection of users’ privacy Disclosure of proprietary information (trade secrets) Time constraints Google’s case  Privacy of users is paramount “Google’s acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept.” (Google legal advisor Ashok Ramani in in an Oct. 10 letter to U.S. DoJ attorney Joel McElvain) Google’s case  Possible disclosure of proprietary information  Google expressed concern that subpoenaed information could be used to determine how Google conducts its searches (their PageRank ranking algorithm) TM  Cited legal code that protects companies from divulging proprietary information to third parties Google’s case  Complying with the request would be “unduly burdensome”  Google estimated that supplying the data requested in the subpoena would take at least a “week of engineer time to complete.” (Google Associate General Counsel Nicole Wong, posted to Google’s official blog February 17th, 2006) Effects of Google’s Refusal Criticism and debate Wall Street apprehension Legislative action Effects of Google’s Refusal  Criticism and debate  Google’s unwillingness to provide user information to the government in aggregate sharply conflicts with its compliance with censorship demands from China’s ruling Communist Party  Those who support the Child Online Protection Act see Google as defending the right for pornographers to target children Effects of Google’s Refusal  Google stocks plunged  January 2006 – Google stock was at an all-time high of $472 per share  Has since dropped to under $343 per share  Many analysts attribute this drop to the legal controversies surrounding Google, including those with China and the DoJ $ $ $ $ Effects of Google’s Refusal  Legislative action in Congress The privacy debate surrounding Google’s legal battle with the DoJ has sparked a bill in the House of Representatives that would require Web sites to delete information gleaned about visitors Responding to Google The DoJ responded to Google’s concerns on February 24, 2006 Responding to Google Privacy Privacy policy concerns unfounded “The government has not asked Google to produce any information that would personally identify its users. The government seeks this information only to perform a study, in the aggregate, of trends in the Internet.” (DoJ February 24th, 2006 rebuttal of Google’s privacy concerns) Responding to Google  Concern for trade secrets Google failed to support their claim that divulging information would disclose trade secrets “Protection of such data from unauthorized use and disclosure is necessary in order to prevent the compromise of such property right or economic interest, avoid jeopardizing the contractor’s commercial position, and preclude impairment of the Government’s ability to obtain access to or use of such data.” The Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR 27.402 Policy) Responding to Google  Time and manpower burden Because Yahoo, AOL and MSN voluntarily complied in a timely manner with the subpoenas issued them, the DoJ argued that Google should be able to acquiesce with relative ease. What do you think? Should they? or Shouldn’t they? March 14th Presiding judge James Ware forced a compromise when he ruled that Google would give up a portion of the information that the DoJ originally asked for. Although Google will be required to present the same types of information, Ware decided that fewer sites and fewer searches would be divulged. First Slide End Show