Where Should Your Privacy Stop?
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge on Friday ordered Google Inc. to give the Bush administration a peek inside its search engine, but rebuffed the government's demand for a list of people's search requests — potentially sensitive information that the company had fought to protect.
I always get torn in cases like this. This particular case stemmed from a Justice Department probe into child pornography. While I support the government’s efforts to protect its citizens I also support an individual’s right to privacy. There is no clear line drawn for how much of either should be afforded.
For instance, I believe that the president was well within not only his rights but it was his obligation the American people to authorize the wiretaps of suspected terrorists during a time of war. Some of the top legal analysts have argued in his defense. Most members of congress agree that it was necessary, but that they should have been consulted and better informed.
I also believe that Rush Limbaugh’s medical records should have been protected from the courts and investigators under doctor/patient privilege. That, like attorney/client, privilege is a sacred bond and shouldn’t be violated in any way for any reason. It’s just not right, whether Rush was guilty of doctor shopping and/or drug abuse or not.
So, should there be any presumption of privacy where the internet is concerned? Don’t people do research, purchase goods and services, and work from the privacy of their computer because there it’s more anonymous? We read everyday about how identity is stolen and network intrusions abound and warnings about an individuals lack of privacy.
I think the answer is unequivocally yes, there should be an assumption of privacy from any company that you do business with unless there is a clear disclosure that privacy will not be provided. If Google had been ordered to supply their client’s information how different would that have been from an order requiring a doctor or attorney to discuss conversations and information obtained in confidence under the guise of protection? Granted the reasons for the requested information are, I am sure, noble and relevant there is still the right to privacy.
What causes me grief about this though, is even though I support the right to privacy, I also believe something radical needs to be done about the problem. I hate that most states have implemented restraints on over the counter pseudo ephedrine, but something had to be done about the growing Methamphetamine problem. I don’t think limiting the purchase of the product by itself is going to solve any problems, but where else do you start? Similarly, requiring an internet search engine to divulge information pertinent to child pornography is not going to fix the problem, but it might deter would be patrons of such perversion.
I think a better solution would be a law prohibiting companies like Google from including information about such sites in their product. We already have laws concerning child pornography so why should it be legal to point the way to such sites? Make Google responsible and liable for the information it puts out. This may not be the “cure all” and proponents may argue that we’re infringing on the company’s freedom, but I am forced with which is the lesser of two evils? Frankly, I don’t support a company’s right to freedom when it engages in providing information about such blatant illegal perversion. I do, however, think that if we force a company to break a client’s confidence then we’re paving the road to much more personal privacy violations.
I always get torn in cases like this. This particular case stemmed from a Justice Department probe into child pornography. While I support the government’s efforts to protect its citizens I also support an individual’s right to privacy. There is no clear line drawn for how much of either should be afforded.
For instance, I believe that the president was well within not only his rights but it was his obligation the American people to authorize the wiretaps of suspected terrorists during a time of war. Some of the top legal analysts have argued in his defense. Most members of congress agree that it was necessary, but that they should have been consulted and better informed.
I also believe that Rush Limbaugh’s medical records should have been protected from the courts and investigators under doctor/patient privilege. That, like attorney/client, privilege is a sacred bond and shouldn’t be violated in any way for any reason. It’s just not right, whether Rush was guilty of doctor shopping and/or drug abuse or not.
So, should there be any presumption of privacy where the internet is concerned? Don’t people do research, purchase goods and services, and work from the privacy of their computer because there it’s more anonymous? We read everyday about how identity is stolen and network intrusions abound and warnings about an individuals lack of privacy.
I think the answer is unequivocally yes, there should be an assumption of privacy from any company that you do business with unless there is a clear disclosure that privacy will not be provided. If Google had been ordered to supply their client’s information how different would that have been from an order requiring a doctor or attorney to discuss conversations and information obtained in confidence under the guise of protection? Granted the reasons for the requested information are, I am sure, noble and relevant there is still the right to privacy.
What causes me grief about this though, is even though I support the right to privacy, I also believe something radical needs to be done about the problem. I hate that most states have implemented restraints on over the counter pseudo ephedrine, but something had to be done about the growing Methamphetamine problem. I don’t think limiting the purchase of the product by itself is going to solve any problems, but where else do you start? Similarly, requiring an internet search engine to divulge information pertinent to child pornography is not going to fix the problem, but it might deter would be patrons of such perversion.
I think a better solution would be a law prohibiting companies like Google from including information about such sites in their product. We already have laws concerning child pornography so why should it be legal to point the way to such sites? Make Google responsible and liable for the information it puts out. This may not be the “cure all” and proponents may argue that we’re infringing on the company’s freedom, but I am forced with which is the lesser of two evils? Frankly, I don’t support a company’s right to freedom when it engages in providing information about such blatant illegal perversion. I do, however, think that if we force a company to break a client’s confidence then we’re paving the road to much more personal privacy violations.
posted by Troy at 11:35 AM
3 Comments:
[Quote] I think a better solution would be a law prohibiting companies like Google from including information about such sites in their product. We already have laws concerning child pornography so why should it be legal to point the way to such sites? Make Google responsible and liable for the information it puts out.[/Quote]
…and what would be the criteria that Google would ban?
“Lolita”? I can think of legitimate uses of that search. A book and a movie and an author come to mind.
“Child pornography”? If so, your site just got banned for including that word.
“kiddy porn”? Not a term I would use (except for this example) but I can see other people using that term during just such a discussion.
The problem with making Google responsible is that their product catalogs sites and returns search results. Google could be no more responsible for those searches then Norton Anti-Virus would be for not having the newest version of a virus stopped before they had seen it. What I mean to say is this: The Internet changes much too rapidly and web sites rise and fall far too quickly for Google to be “held responsible” for their content returns. Now, they could take reasonable steps to limit most traffic to what are likely child porn sites, but they certainly could never block them all. My concern with making Google responsible is that they will not be able to remove reference to every such site and then will be open to litigation by the first person who found the loophole.
So no, I don’t believe Google should be held responsible.
As to the initial part of the post, privacy versus protection, I don’t think the government has an overriding interest to force this information and to compromise privacy in this case. If it could be established that most assassins read Catcher in the Rye, bought cases of Pepsi products from Safeway and always got their brakes fixed at Midas, it would not be acceptable for the government to snatch up records of grocery buying habits, book buying / library checkout habits, or car repair schedules citing “National Security.
Of course government should protect the people, particularly the weaker of its citizens (children presumably for this conversation). However, government must take care that it does not enact laws and policies that attempt to govern every aspect of immoral behavior. I have no problems with laws banning the existence, transmission, receipt of, etc. etc. etc. pornographic images or videos portraying children or their likeness. But the government would be going overkill if they said to every Internet user, “in the name of the children, we must search your computer’s hard drive because we know child porn is on the Internet, and we know your computer is connected to the Internet, therefore your computer is susceptible”.
I think they have overstepped their bounds, and it simply foreshadows what the government will do when there are cameras on every street corner, and in every commercial business.
-Z
Very well thought out response by Zach. Censorship in any form goes against America at it's base. Would I like a world free of child pornography and the low-lifes who propagate it? Absolutely. However, instead of invading the privacy of Americans surely there is a better way of shutting down those on the internet. Say, like investigating any website that shows up when you do a Google search for "child porn" or "kiddy porn".
This message will self destruct as soon as Troy finds the delete key ...
I'm happy to let you comment Daddy as long as you're respectful as was the case in most of your last response. Thank you for your input.
Post a Comment
<< Home