[ga] Re: [ PRIVACY Forum ] Search Engines and ISPs: The Law is the Law?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Laren and all,

  I am CC'ing this along as it is a very nice review of how companies
like Yahoo and Google do not have their customers privacy OR
security in mind nor do those governments seeking this data from
them for nefarious or dubious use.  ICANN registrars and
registries are also behind the scenes selling registrants data
without their consent or even knowledge in some cases.  Hence
why many if not most of our members will not do business with
companies like Yahoo, Google, SBC, GoDaddy RegistryFly, ect.
They represent a clear and present danger in a post 9/11 world as
Richard Clark has outlined several times and very clearly.

privacy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>               Search Engines and ISPs: The Law is the Law?
>
>             ( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000226.html )
>
> Greetings.  As search engines, ISPs, and other Internet-connected
> enterprises collect and archive increasing amounts of data on our
> activities, it is inevitable that governments and other entities
> will come to view that data as ever more invaluable aids in
> accomplishing their particular agendas, for good or ill.
>
> In most cases this data is kept voluntarily by the various services,
> though around the world moves toward government-mandated data
> retention are rapidly being pushed, mainly in the name of law
> enforcement.
>
> Often people don't have a clue as to how much information is being
> kept regarding their search and browsing activities.  Google's
> announcement of a new "Web History" feature -- allowing Google users
> to track not only their Google searches but also most of their other
> Web browsing activities, will likely have the positive benefit of
> clearly demonstrating to people just how much data really is being
> collected--bringing this out into the open, as it were.
>
> A quick digression regarding Google Web History.  I've received some
> alarmed queries about it, but in my view it doesn't actually
> change the level of information being collected by Google, rather
> it makes some of that data available to users for the first time.
>
> Note that non-Google Web browsing data would only be sent to Google
> in the case of Google Toolbar users with the PageRank feature turned
> on.  This has been a standard (documented by Google in their privacy
> statement) feature of Toolbar for quite some time -- the PageRank
> toolbar feature couldn't work without it.
>
> Users who don't log in to Google accounts, who block Google cookies,
> and who don't use Google Toolbar shouldn't be tracked beyond normal
> Google search usage log entries (the subject of recent Google
> privacy policy changes aimed at taking an initial positive step
> toward anonymization of that data after a defined time period).  Of
> more concern with Google Toolbar is whether or not most users ever
> bother reading the privacy policies so as to be informed about the
> data being collected, particularly users for whom the toolbar was
> pre-installed or installed by someone other than the user.
>
> We're seeing ever more cases of various governments demanding access
> to the data collected by search engines and ISPs.  DOJ vs. Google
> was one celebrated case, and while Google fought on various grounds,
> they ended up having to turn over considerable data.  Google, Yahoo,
> and others have all been in the spotlight for providing foreign
> governments with data on particular users.  In the last few days,
> Yahoo has been sued by the family of a Chinese man being imprisoned
> for years based on data turned over by Yahoo.  The suit asserts that
> Yahoo is complicit in his arrest and claimed torture.
>
> Ultimately, all of these organizations make a demonstrably true
> statement to explain their actions -- "We must obey the laws in the
> countries where we operate."  Absolutely correct.  No question about
> it.  You want to play ball with somebody else's ball, you play by
> their rules.
>
> But in the Yahoo case, an additional comment by their spokesman
> caught my attention.  He noted that they simply hand over data when
> ordered, they don't know what it's used for, and usually never hear
> about it directly again.  In other words, they simply obey orders.
>
> That statement might have perhaps slid by if I hadn't recently been
> watching the fine old 1961 film "Judgment at Nuremberg" -- where
> characters on trial used almost the same words to describe their
> actions and rationalizations in a different context involving
> arrests, torture, and worse.
>
> This is not to directly compare the current situation with corporate
> complicity in Nazi Germany, but only to point out that actions have
> consequences, and those consequences can result in suffering, pain,
> and even death in some parts of the world, a universe away from our
> glowing screens and merrily typing fingers.
>
> Which leads us inevitably to The Questions.  When do we cross the
> threshold beyond which it is ethically inappropriate to "play ball"
> in certain locales by rules that can have repugnant effects on
> individual lives, despite our services bringing very significant
> benefits to large populations in those areas?  At what stage should
> "business as usual" take a back seat to these ethical concerns?
>
> These are not simple questions; the calculus of ethics is not
> always straightforward in the modern world, as much as we'd
> like to think it was.
>
> But I believe that we're rapidly reaching a point in the development
> of the Internet where such questions must be addressed, and it's
> inevitable that they will be -- either by the involved firms
> themselves, by government legislative and other actions, or both.
>
> When it comes to collecting and turning over data that can result in
> real harm to real people, "We were just following orders" -- even as
> the admitted cost of doing business -- seems unlikely to be a
> tenable response for much longer.
>
> I invite broad discussion and dialogue on these questions.  Humanity
> -- and the continued flowering of the Internet and its wonders --
> will depend on the answers.
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren@xxxxxxxxxx or lauren@xxxxxxxx
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
>    - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, IOIC
>    - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
> Founder, CIFIP
>    - California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> privacy mailing list
> http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827