ShareThis Page
A search for privacy |

A search for privacy

| Sunday, January 29, 2006 12:00 a.m

The government wants to know what you have been searching for.

Typically, that darn pesky First Amendment might stop open-ended government searches of your Internet search activity. But when the official excuse is to combat child pornography, many Americans will nod in agreement — conditioned to automatically respond affirmatively to the emotional stimulus, Bill of Rights be damned.

However, there is an obscure computer program that could ensure the privacy of virtually any Web user.

Before picturing a “1984”-ish monitoring of the Internet, a little background.

A judge could force Google to do what Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL already have done — hand over records of what keywords have been searched for and a list of results. The feds are not asking for people’s names and addresses. Yet.

Google argues that turning over a week’s worth of information and about 1 million Web address would compromise trade secrets while being useless to the authorities.

Imagine government agents sifting through masses of data from last week to determine the most popular searches for, Google News and Google’s consumer-friendly Froogle. Picture government snoops discovering when and how the searches were done. Did they coincide with an election, indictment or natural or man-made disaster?

What was the most popular software• Who are the most popular retailers• What were the most popular news outlets and what kinds of patterns, trends and surprises have there been in other countries, say from Australia to Vietnam?

Many Americans would call that a monstrous Orwellian violation of privacy by Big Brother. They should call it Google Zeitgeist.

That Google information and so much more can be seen by anyone online at

That might explain why Google did not use a privacy argument when it did not honor the government’s command, according to Carnegie Mellon University alumnus Declan McCullagh, chief political correspondent for the CNET Internet media company.

“Is this just the beginning of using search engines to monitor what Americans are doing?” asks Mr. McCullagh, who suggests that those concerned about privacy should delete from their computers the so-called cookies containing personal information.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation defends free speech and privacy on the Internet. It has a little-known magic bullet that could protect every user’s search history, according to Wendy Seltzer, assistant professor of Internet law and privacy at Brooklyn Law School. She also founded the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse, online at . It’s a joint project of the foundation and universities such as Harvard, Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley.

Tor is a free anonymous Internet communications system that incrementally builds a circuit of encrypted connections through various servers, Ms. Seltzer said. This so-called “onion routing” had been funded by the Office of Naval Research. The Navy needs secure Internet communications, too.

The Tor software essentially neutralizes subpoenas demanding the identities of users because there is no record tying the function to the person, she said.

Details: .

“We hope that this Google subpoena will make more people think about their privacy,” Seltzer said.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.