STAND ON PRIVACY
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had subpoenaed Google
see MSN News
FEDERAL JUDGE "Ware ruled that the 50,000 Web addresses, or URLs, were a relevant request by the government, which wants the data for a statistical study it is doing to show the effectiveness of filtering software at issue in a separate case -- ACLU v. Gonzales -- that concerns a federal law on online child pornography.
'The expectation of privacy by some Google users may not be reasonable, but may nonetheless have an appreciable impact on the way in which Google is perceived, and consequently the frequency with which users use Google,' Ware wrote.
'This concern, combined with the prevalence of Internet searches for sexually explicit material ... gives this court pause as to whether the search queries themselves may constitute potentially sensitive information,' he said.
In his decision, Judge Ware wrote of the 'three vital interests' that needed to be weighed in the case: national interest, proprietary business information and privacy concerns.
'This Court is particularly concerned any time enforcement of a subpoena imposes an economic burden on a non-party,' he wrote in a filing made at the close of business of Friday."
see MSN News
FEDERAL JUDGE "Ware ruled that the 50,000 Web addresses, or URLs, were a relevant request by the government, which wants the data for a statistical study it is doing to show the effectiveness of filtering software at issue in a separate case -- ACLU v. Gonzales -- that concerns a federal law on online child pornography.
'The expectation of privacy by some Google users may not be reasonable, but may nonetheless have an appreciable impact on the way in which Google is perceived, and consequently the frequency with which users use Google,' Ware wrote.
'This concern, combined with the prevalence of Internet searches for sexually explicit material ... gives this court pause as to whether the search queries themselves may constitute potentially sensitive information,' he said.
In his decision, Judge Ware wrote of the 'three vital interests' that needed to be weighed in the case: national interest, proprietary business information and privacy concerns.
'This Court is particularly concerned any time enforcement of a subpoena imposes an economic burden on a non-party,' he wrote in a filing made at the close of business of Friday."
posted by Hugh W at 9:28 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home