A federal court said Thursday that it would accelerate a lawsuit that aims to punish Google for alleged privacy violations.

The U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia agreed to a request by plaintiffs The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) to speed the review of a lawsuit the privacy group filed against the Federal Trade Commission earlier this week. In its suit, EPIC said Google’s planned privacy policy changes scheduled for March 1 will violate a settlement with the FTC.

The court on Thursday ordered the FTC to respond to EPIC’s complaint by Feb. 17. EPIC will then reply to those comments by Feb. 21.

The court case adds pressure to Google and could delay its plans to combine databases between its 60 services for account holders of Gmail and other products. The company hopes to form more complete user profiles and then tailor ads to those users’ preferences.

“The Court’s deadlines reflect Google’s imminent, substantial changes to the company’s business practices,” EPIC wrote in a blog post.

EPIC has argued that Google will violate a privacy agreement with the FTC. The company has misrepresented its intention to use combined data for behavioral advertising, EPIC wrote in its complaint. And the changes are not optional, which doesn’t allow users to give expressed permission to participate in the new program, the group said.

Google has refuted those claims. It said earlier this week that the company has taken extra steps to notify users of the changes. It notes that users can search and watch videos on YouTube, for example, without signing on to an account.

“We take privacy very seriously. We’re happy to engage in constructive conversations about our updated Privacy Policy but EPIC is wrong on the facts and the law,” the company said in a statement.

Google’s privacy policies have drawn increased scrutiny by lawmakers, who on Thursday asked the company to clarify its plans.

Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.) said in a letter to Google sent Thursday that she still has questions about the company’s potential impact on consumers. About a dozen House members attended a closed-door meeting last week with Google policy director Pablo Chavez and deputy general counsel Michael Yang, but Bono Mack said she still had some questions.

In the letter, Bono Mack asked Google for more clarification on several aspects of the policy, including what the company considers “sensitive personal information” and how the company shares personal information collected from its users. She also asked whether the company sent its privacy changes to the Federal Trade Commission before deciding to change its policy, as is required by its consent decree with the agency.

Bono Mack has asked for a response to her questions by Feb. 21. The new policy is set to go into effect on March 1.

“Privacy is something we take very seriously, and we’re happy to answer their questions,” Google said in an e-mailed statement.

Related:

FTC sued over Google privacy policy

EU asks Google to delay privacy policy changes

Few would dispute Steve Jobs’s creative genius. But for all his success as a business leader and innovator, files newly released by the FBI show that some close confidants and associates did not have an especially favorable opinion of the Apple co-founder.

As The Post’s Hayley Tsukayama reports, the FBI has made public a 191-page document on Jobs that was compiled when he was under consideration for a White House appointment during the George H.W. Bush administration.

Steve Jobs file posted on FBI site: Steve Jobs, being considered in 1991 for an appointment under President George H.W. Bush, underwent a thorough background investigation by the FBI, according to newly released files from the agency. The Washington Post reported that the FBI amassed a lengthy and often unflattering file on Apple’s co-founder, with more than 30 interviews from friends, family members and colleagues. Despite many interviewees saying that they did not personally like Jobs, many said that they would recommend him for a position in government.

The files were made public after a Freedom of Information Act request by the Wall Street Journal.

Verizon shot clock : Public interest groups and companies including Sprint, DirecTV, T-Mobile and the Rural Cellular Association have asked the Federal Communications Commission to stop its shot clock on its evaluation of a proposed agreement between Verizon and several cable companies.

The deal, a spectrum and cross-marketing proposal, is currently under consideration at the FCC, and the companies and public interest groups would like to see information about the pricing and compensation portions of the deal unredacted.

Google, Motorola: Sources “familiar with the matter” have told Bloomberg that the U.S. Justice Department is close to approving the deal between Google and Motorola Mobility. The proposed $12.5 billion acquisition was announced in August.

If approved, the merger would provide Google with Motorola’s deep portfolio of patents. The acquisition of so many patents should prove useful in case of litigation over technology used in Google’s Android operating system.

FTC lawsuit over Google privacy: Privacy advocates on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit aimed at forcing government officials to punish Google over alleged privacy violations, The Washington Post reported. In the complaint, the Electronic Privacy and Information Center said Google’s plans to tie together data of users across services beginning March 1 violates a settlement agreement the company struck with the Federal Trade Commission last summer over a separate privacy controversy.

The firm defended its privacy policy changes by saying it isn’t seeking to collect more information about users.

“Our updated privacy policy will make it easier to understand our privacy commitments, and we’ve undertaken the most extensive notification effort in Google’s history to ensure that users have many opportunities to learn about the changes,” Google said in a statement.

TV cameras in the Supreme Court: On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would allow television cameras into the Supreme Court. The bipartisan bill passed with a vote of 11-7.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said he supported the bill because it increases transparency.

“We have the power to use technology to allow greater access to public proceedings of the Government so that all Americans can witness the quality of justice in this country,” Leahy said in a statement.

Critics of the bill warned that the measure could sway some justices and lawyers to feel the need to perform for the cameras, The Hill reported.

“I do not believe that justice is better because it’s televised,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) “And I have seen actual situations where, in my view, it’s worse.”

(STEPHEN HIRD - REUTERS) A privacy advocacy group on Wednesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission that targets Google for allegedly breaching privacy rules.

The Electronic Privacy and Information Center said in its complaint that Google’s planned privacy policy changes violate a settlement the company reached with the FTC last summer. That agreement was struck after federal law enforcement found Google violated privacy laws by exposing Gmail users’ personal information when rolling out its now defunct social networking service, Google Buzz.

Amazon and Viacom: Amazon and Viacom announced Wednesday that they had entered into a rights agreement that will bring content from MTC, Nickolodeon, Comedy Central, TV Land and VH1 into Amazon’s streaming video catalog.

The deal, announced Wednesday by Amazon, will add about 2,000 titles to its Instant Video service and put more pressure on streaming services such as Netflix, especially in light of an announcement earlier in the week from Verizon and Redbox that they will launch an initiative of their own.

Cybersecurity hearing: The House subcommittee on technology held a hearing Wednesday to examine proposed broad cybersecurity legislation.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) said in the hearing that as the country relies more on the Internet for business, the government must be clear about the protocol for reporting cyber threats.