Alberto Gonzales v. Google: the subpoena [priv]

The court documents in the case are here (scroll down):
http://news.com.com/Feds+take+porn+fight+to+Google/2100-1030_3-6028701.html

I wrote a FAQ that's up here:
http://news.com.com/2100-1029_3-6029042.html

Danny Sullivan has two good posts here:
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060119-060352
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060120-105609

Though I think he's a bit dismissive of the privacy interests of search 
engine users, which are explored in two editorials on Friday:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/20/EDGEPGPHA61.DTL
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/OPINION01/601200328/1068/OPINION

Perhaps visits to a search engine can be thought of as somewhat akin to 
thumbing through a dictionary, or an encyclopedia, or a phone book. 
You'd want privacy in those cases, especially when doing financial or 
medical research.

But because the Supreme Court has said you don't have privacy when your 
records are held by others, the virtual equivalent of thumbing-through 
information is available to curious prosecutors or divorce attorneys. 
Thanks a lot, Supremes:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/01/do_no_evil_and_1.html

-Declan
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)