Google and Privacy

Post staff writer David A. Vise was online to discuss the possible implications of the Justice Department's request for Google to turn over its search data as part of the Bush administration's quest to ressurect an anti-pornography law.

In the recent government probe of popular Internet companies (which included AOL, MSN and Yahoo), Google was the only one to refuse the request citing both competitive and privacy issues.

According to Larry Page, Google's co-founder, the mega search firm stores all of its searches on its databases in Mountain View, Calif. in an effort to better personalize results for its users, tailoring findings on the individuals' interests.

In Vise's recent book, "The Google Story," he explores the privacy issues that have arisen from both the saving of these searches along with Google's e-mail feature, known as Gmail. Vise quotes Internet pioneer Brad Templeton who advised Google on some of these issues. "In the modern era where computers threaten privacy, we are as afraid of outside computers knowing all about our lives as much as we are outside people," Templeton said. "You should have no more expectiation of privacy in an e-mail than you have in a postcard, or worse, a postcard you hand to a third party to carry."

As the government attempts to reach its hand into Google's coveted database, what does this mean for the privacy rights of its users?

To listen to comments by Vise from Jan. 19 on the Justice Department's probe, click here .

Also on washingtonpost.com: tech columnist Leslie Walker shares her thoughts on the matter.

A transcript follows.

____________________

David A. Vise: Welcome to this chat on Google and privacy. I have a few opening thoughts. The subpoena from Justice to Google search records comes at a fascinating moment since the firm not only is dealing with these issues in Washington but also will soon be addressing them in China, where Dr. Kai Fu Lee has been recruiting for the company and where myy sense is that a Google search site based in China will soon be launched. With computer servers based in China to provide fast search results, Google will be dealing with the issues of Chinese government censorship and possible requests for data about users.

Unlike Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL, Google, with a focus on users, is refusing to turn over records of searches to the Justice Department in the U.S. despite a broad-based subpoena ultimately aimed at fighting child pornography on the Web. Just as Google is taking a distinct stance from competitors in the U.S., I anticipate it will do the same in China to protect and inform users there. While Google must abide by the law of the land in the U.S. and China if it wants to do business here and there, it has control over how it does business. In China, I expect Google to launch a search engine but to move much more slowly with blogging software, gmail and other personally-identifiable user services that require registration and could lead the Chinese government to seek information about what people are saying and searching for online.

Similarly, I think Google is more likely than not when searches of web sites are censored by law to do the same kind of thing it does in Germany where there is censorship on Holocaust and hate-crime related sites: post something telling users that material has been blocked or removed.

I mention all of this because having written "The Google Story," I can tell that the context of Google vs. Justice over the pornography subpoena gets back to core issues of what it means to adhere to the mantra of "Don't Be Evil' and be a super-competitive company too, that is interested in the long-term best interest of shareholders.

Google is extremely reluctant to comply with the broad Justice request for every search done on Google in a week because it doesn't want its competitors to know who is using Google, what they are searching and how they are utilizing the free search results and ads too. This motivation is every bit as important as its worries about privacy and trust that may be eroded among its users if it turns over the data.

To understand Google best, watch what it does more than listening to what it says. The company has put Don't Be Evil on display, and that leads to carefully considered decisions and facilitates recruiting immensely, but do not let this blind you to the fact that Google is dogged competito. That explains the company's soaring stock price, global user base, growing profits and more.

Now, on to your list of excellent questions.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: This may be more of a technical question, but how much can my employer know about my personal computer use at the office? We have a big IT staff and a policy forbidding extensive use, but I wonder how much of that use can be tracked.

David A. Vise: Every keystroke can be tracked.

_______________________

San Jose, Calif.: Comment: Having a limited number of people being able to read a postcard I write and send,is a far cry from having the government having unbridled access to my and other's emails. The first instance does not violate my free speach rights and civil liberties, the second does.

David A. Vise: Thanks for sharing your views.

_______________________

Calhoun, Ga: In a search on Google, I come up with something that is questionable, porn or a foreign newspaper. I think this is a fishing operation, and should not happen.

David A. Vise: Again, thanks for sharing your opinion.

_______________________

Maryville, Mo.: I perform at least one or two Google searches a day. If the government ends up with my search history, they will be much better informed on contemporary poetry.

Thinking about it though, everyone who has ever used google . . . that would be A LOT of searches.

David A. Vise: I am sure your contemporary poetry interests and pornography don't overlap at all, but you are right, since Justice wants one week of ALL Google searches.

One argument against the broad Justice Department subpoena to Google is that the Feds would be overwhelmed with the amount of data, the company claims. A targeted and focused request might yield information that would be more readily useful, Google believes. But for now, it is opposing the subpoena completely. I think there are fears of a precedent being set here. Also, if Google turns over a database of searches, including your poetry, it will be based on a negotiated, narrower subpoena if the search engine has its way.

_______________________

Kanorado, Kan.: The Bush Administation is paranoid. We elected a Bible thumping idiot. His cronies have already stolen millions in the name of Christianity.

David A. Vise: You have a strong view that obviously goes well beyond Google here.

_______________________

Jacksonville, N.C.: Can Yahoo, MSN, AOL be sued for giving out this information? I'd like to praise Google for not giving out this information and will now only search under Google. Thanks

David A. Vise: It is easy to file a lawsuit in the U.S., but AOL, Yahoo and MSN were merely complying with a Justice Department subpoena, a legally-enforceable request for information. What they have done does not appear to make them subject to legal liability from their users and is within the bounds of their user agreements, which say they will cooperate with lawful requests for information.

_______________________

La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina: I think that we are facing once again another attempt from the US government against our privacy right as a human being. Today the US Government says that the problem is pornography. What is next? Could be the attemp to control what we read in the newspaper or maybe how much time we use Internet during a day? This means that we are going back to 1750 before the first ammendment was written.

David A. Vise: Thank you for sharing your observations.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: HOw can I reach Google to ask them to keep up the good fight?

David A. Vise: Hmmm. If you go to the Google.com web site, and click on About Google, and then click on media, you will see a list of individual email addresses of Google p.r. officials who address media issues and pass along information to Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt.

_______________________

Anonymous: I say good for Google! This is what totalitarian/state control is all about. In the name of protecting the State, there is no privacy. You must divulge all secrets and contacts. Or, you can go to jail. It seems to me the whole privacy/credit, ID stealing things are biased away from the individual. Your personal information belongs only to you unless you sell it or, specifically, grant permission to use. Individuals should be notified any time anyone tries to attempt access to their profile/personal info. and informed as to who that entity/person was. Thanks.

David A. Vise: Your views are interesting and thanks for sharing them.

_______________________

Jensen Beach, Fla.: Would you please tell me how ican get a question and a comment to the NSA that would get them to relay it to the Administration and media? When will they stop lying when they say War On Terrorism instead of War on Salafism/Wahabbism? Yesterday the pres. changed a little by calling it an ideological war. Still deceptive. A media person with integrity would wonder about the obvious misnomer.

David A. Vise: I do not have the information for you to contact NSA. If you do a Google search, perhaps you can find it. If not, you can call The White House operator to register a view at 202-456-1414.

_______________________

San Jose, Calif.: Congratulations and hats off to Google.

David A. Vise: The online support for Google's stance here is pretty consistent and strong. Thank you for sharing your opinion.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: What, exactly, is the Justice Department's justification for the court case? Google has data, they want it, therefore Google must give it? Considering that they are not investigating a crime, what exactly is their "probable cause" that would prevent this search and seizure from being unwarranted and therefore unconstitutional? Businesses are protected by the Bill of Rights just like individual people, right?

David A. Vise: Great question. Information stored on Google's computer servers is subject to subpoena by the Justice Department under certain circumstances. The legal hurdle is lower than it would be if the information was stored on your computer hard drive at home or work. That would require a warrant.

The Justice Department's rationale is clear: the Supreme Court threw out a law against child pornography as overly broad, and the Bush administration, through Justice, wants to bring a new version of that law back. To do so, it wants data about child pornography on the Web. Google is the leading search engine and more people access all kinds of information, including pornography, through Google, than any other search engine. So the Google database is a potential goldmine for an investigator who wants to gather evidence showing the extent to which children are being exploited on the Web.

_______________________

Tucson, Ariz.: The government is asking Google to turn over search records for a random week in order to obtain information on searches related to online child pornography. If they find anything else suspicious in those searches not related to child porn do they have any legal recourse or do they have to ignore non-germane data?

David A. Vise: Superb and insightful question. The answer to the question is that it depends on what type of non-child pornography material is discovered. For example, if something related or apparently related to terrorism showed up in those searches, Justice would, under the Patriot Act, have the right to use that information for purposes other than fighting porn.

_______________________

Toronto, Canada: While I think Google should be praised for showing some backbone to Big Brother Bush, I have my own concern about Google's phenomenal success.

I find it disturbing that many otherwise thoughtful people are now using Google searches as a metric to establish the importance of topics. They don't really read the references that Google searches summon up for them. They just count the number.

Everyone used to call the Tar Sands in Alberts "Tar Sands". Recently, in order to clean up the image, spin doctors have worked to get the resource referred to by the cleaner sounding name "Oil Sands". I have had correspondents tell me that "Oil Sands" has to be the correct term because Google finds five times more links for "oil sands" than it does for "tar sands".

Naive counts of the number of hits search engines produce should not be cited in public policy debates because they are subject easy manipulation and undesirable measurement artifacts.

David A. Vise: These are excellent points. Thank you for sharing them.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: To what extent can Google identify users if the user takes "reasonable" steps to guard privacy, such as (1) not having a Gmail acct, (2) not accepting cookies, and (3) turning off the search history function?

David A. Vise: Under those circumstances, Google says it cannot readily identify users. Having said that, Google still may have some IP address data. But taking the steps you describe is definitely a reasonable set of safeguards against Google, or some third party, identifying individuals based on data from the search engine.

Google, itself, has spoken of giving users the option of doing these things if they want to use the search engine but are worried about their privacy.

I believe what you are describing reflects the kind of approach Google is likely to take in China to protect the identies of individuals in the event it must comply wth a Chinese govt request for information.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Dear Mr. Vise: I know that Google is fairly cozy with USENET. Usenet HQ are located in Bismark, North Dakota, although every major US city has multiple USENET newsgroup severs. Best description is "store front mafia" for whole operation. I believe there are no authorities equiped to stop extreme invasion into all citizens life thru internet, its' well thought out. Everthing from constant "listening" to deep record searching, as well as bombardment of web advertising lets us see tip of "Titanics'"

David A. Vise: Interesting thoughts.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: How can Google maintain records of each and every search? Adding up the numbers one arrives at a huge number of bytes. If one uses as a measure that just the user ID, search query and time stamp that would be at least a hundred bytes, and to allow for a longer string maybe 250 or so. Multiply by the number per day and that adds up to a lot of storage.

From a search that where the data is 2 years old: Google 250 million February 2003 (as reported to me by Google, for queries at both Google sites and its partners)

So as a reasonable guess of at least double, and probably more and a 250 byte per record, that is something like ten to 11 power bytes. And add the multiplier for 3 years which is 1000 and then it becomes ten to 14 bytes. That is a reasonably large disk array. None of this takes into account any indexing needed to find a particular record. I know that one can make an array to hold 10 e 12 bytes, but a hundred times minimum larger? It boggles ones mind. Unless it is the complex at Ft. Meade that is watching all our calls.

These numbers are getting toward the size of the federal debt!

David A. Vise: In reporting The Google Story, I learned from Stanford President and Google board member John Hennessy that Google has the most powerful computing enterprise in the world today. Its combination of stripped down, optimized PCs and software, which I call "Googleware," gives it the capacity to store this vast and rapidly growing sea of data. It is an illustration of one of Google's less obvious competitive advantages: a hardware infrastructure that outstrips its competitors so much that it would be very costly and difficult for them to catch up.

_______________________

The Homeland, USA: Have you ever googled 'Jack Abramoff, Mohammed Atta'?

No wonder the US Government and its Corporate State Controlled Media are terrified of the American People in the information age!

David A. Vise: Thanks for your views.

_______________________

Levittown, N.Y.: Have the justice dept. monitor the enrons of our country & let the states deal with pornography. Better yet let the parents deal with it. This administration is too intrusive, & using this as a cover.

David A. Vise: Privacy advocates agree with your observations.

_______________________

Winona, Minn.: I believe the government and partically the mentality of our present admin. is wrong in their secretive spying. If this lastest move is allowed (to access to internate searches that people make), we have then established a Big Brother sociaty. When you have government doing things without a separte watch dog agency, you only have the integrety of those who have the authority. We all know that money, power and self-interest always corrupts.

The fine line can always be reasoned to be moved; once moved or altered by some justification there is no end to the process. It never works when the "left hand doesn't know what the right hand" is doing. A body with the head and other members detached is not going to accompish a dam thing, except destroy it's self and other's around.

This whole series of issue's coming forth and truths finally being adddressed, I pray will be resolved with comman sense and the history we have of nations that became self serving and failed. Lord help us!

David A. Vise: Interesting perspective.

_______________________

Atlanta, Ga.: Ok, three things I just don't understand about this story:

1. Does the Justice Dept. have the ability to simply subpoena anything they want that isn't tied to an investigation or ongoing litigation? As I understand it, COPA is dead and buried.

2. Exactly what is the point of gathering this data? Getting a list of general search queries without being able to identify which ones are performed by children or any statistical matching to children seems like it isn't going to render the information the White House is trying to get.

3. It seems to me the original COPA constitutional issue had to do with compliance cost vs. damage done and the abstract nature of the compliance requirements. Going through this whole exercise to establish constitutionality for COPA seems silly when the congress could simply establish a requirement for implementation of the international PICS standard from the W3C and apply a "V-chip" style regulation to network interface devices, pushing the cost out to the edge of the network like we do with television.

David A. Vise: Some of these issues, in the realm of the Internet, are on the legal frontier and have not been litigated and are not all specifically covered by laws on the books.

_______________________

Hollywood, Fla.: Big Brother says they are not looking for IP addresses, or anything that could identify an individual; they are only looking to see what terms are searched for. Does this mean if someone is searching for terms like "marijana cultivation", "Ku Klux Klan", "Anti-Alito", or any other terms that might catch their interest, one can expect them not to follow up by requiring google to turn over that searcher's IP address, all other searches from that IP address, all sites that IP address visited, and all e-mails (if they have a G-mail account)?

Thank you.

David A. Vise: Great question. Under certain circumstances, the Justice Dept. could definitely request further information and data, including IP addresses. This is one reason Google says that it wants the scope of the subponea is overly broad.

_______________________

Columbus, Ohio: I am dismayed by what seems to me to a general nonchalance over this unprecedented intrusion of privacy. I think its debatable whether Americans really care if they have a Bill of Rights, and whether they really deserve one.

I recall when the Patriot Act was railroaded through that its scope extended beyond terrorist related areas and specifically included pornography. No one cared. Is DOJ using the Patriot Act in going after this data?

And is anyone making noise about enacting legislation that enjoins the government compelling access to non-public communication without obtaining a search warrant and meeting the traditional standards for obtaining one, i.e. specificity and probable cause?

David A. Vise: This government request is not made under the Patriot Act. It is made under other laws. The legal hurdle for the Feds to subpoena data from Google is lower than it would be to enter your home and search your hard drive. Because Google stores the data on what the law refers to as "third party servers," a simple subpoena is all it takes to request data. A warrant would be required for the Justice Department to seek access to your pc.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: Regardless if Google is acting to avoid divulging technological secrets or out of principal, I think that it's commendable that Google is refusing to share its information.

I dread the day, however, when Google is charged with anti-trust or anti-cartel lawsuits, like AOL or Microsoft a couple of years ago. It might become to easy to give up the crown jewels (data base access) as part of a plea bargain.

As long as I use the same browser on the same computer, Google will continue to accumulate my search terms and results.

How long does Google store this kind of information? Is older information replaced by newer information, or are their databases so big that they don't need to erase old information?

David A. Vise: Google save everything. It does not erase information. And it plans to save and store the information for decades to come. Google wants to store your search results and link them to your IP address so it can improve the quality of searches.

I wrote in The Google Story that Larry Page said the quality of search today is only about 3 out of 10. To improve search, Page and Brin are convinced requires personalizing it and tailioring it more closely to your interests, based on your prior searches. In other words, the search engine gets smarter and smater the more data it accumulates about your searches.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: I strongly disagree with Mr. Templeton's comment, when I make a phone call, in which I am handing my voice communication to a third party do I not have the right to that conversation being held in secrecy?

David A. Vise: Under the Patriot Act, the federal government can access your phone records and listen to your conversations if you are suspected of engaging in terrorist-related activities. Under other laws, there is a standard process for the Justice Department to go through if it wants to tap your phone. It must receive approval from a special court to do so. So your phone calls do have greater protection than the data about searches that Google saves on its computers, since those can be subject to a subpoena from the Feds, or, if Google is a party to a lawsuit, they could be subject to subpoea for other reasons.

_______________________

Blue Part of Texas: David:

I just want to add my suport to Google and say thank you for trying to protect my rights and privacy. Not since the days of Richard Nixon's corrupt government have I been so shocked and saddened by the absolute arrogance of power. I am really frightened. I have nothing to hide, but where does it stop? These people know no bounds.

I have deleted the other search engines from my computer which is just a small thing I can do to show my dismay and disgust at their rolling over for the Bushites.

David A. Vise: The one-sided campaign favoring Google and bashing the Justice Department continues here. Thank for sharing your views. As a reporter for The Washington Post, it is my job to listen and answer questions and report and write in a manner that is fair and accurate to all parties involved.

_______________________

Austin, Tex.: What are some simple technical things that one can do to minimize how much personal data can be collected? Should I turn off cookies before I google the musical group "Barenaked Ladies"?

David A. Vise: A few simple technical things you can do, according to privacy experts, include:

1. Doing searches on Google but turning off the Google save search function and deleting the Google cookie from your hard drive.

2. Doing searches on Google but not becoming a registered user so that your searches remain anonymous.

3. Doing searches on Google but having your email account elsewhere so this information cannot be cross-referenced within Google or by a third party investigator.

_______________________

Purcellville, Va.: Is this not the same behaviour we have chided China about for some time now? Is it not but one more piece of our privacy being stripped away in the name of national security, protection of children, etc etc.?

I am not in favor of child porn but I also hope we wake up and resist this intrusion into our lives by this admin.

David A. Vise: Thanks for sharing your opinions.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Such a broad sort of request for information seems unprecedented, isn't it? It seems to me to just be a fishing operation -- let's just collect mountains of data and sift through it until we find something that supports our case. This sort of shotgun approach seems to me to be a straightforward violation of the constitutional right to privacy. If they want information on porn searches, why not just ask for that?

At the same time, it creeps me out how much of my personal information is (likely) stored in Google's databases. I just unenrolled from their "Personalized Search" program today, in fact.

David A. Vise: I understand your concerns and think that people need to be aware that if they do not take certain steps, their searches on Google are saved by the company.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Maybe the probe should first look at how much porn is viewed and downloaded by government employees, including those in Congress and in the White House. Wouldn't it be sweet irony to learn that Orrin Hatch or Alberto Gonzales were "only reading the articles" on the Playboy website.

David A. Vise: Politics and opinions are really on display here today!

_______________________

Harpers Ferry, W.V.: If yahoo, AOL and MSN have already complied with the government's request, is Google simply making a stand on principle? Are they the only company that decided it might be a bad idea? Can the government really say to a company, "now you must give me all your records about such and such," and then that company has no choice but to comply or fight it in court? Sorry for my ignorance...thank you.

David A. Vise: Google is making a stand on legal grounds but this is not merely cosmetic. Sergey Brin and Larry Page, co-presidents and co-founders of Google, both have said they view this as an invasion of privacy that is unwarranted and overly broad. Google is also worried about giving up the data for competitive reasons.

To contest the subpoena, the courtroom is the formal battleground. Google has no other choice. But having said that, this is a civil subpoena from Justice. So attorneys from Google and Justice could undertake to negotiate an agreement that drops litigation in favor of a narrower subpoena.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: With regard to Google's China servers, it'd be a lot easier if Google just used the most popular and profitable software in the local market and then assumed that it includes all the security holes that the host government wants to place on every server within its domain. Isn't it also reasonable to expect that the USA has the capability to sift through data as easily as it does phone conversations, so there really isn't that much that is not available already? Don't answer if you feel it might cause your servers to crash for the afternoon. I'm just speculating.

David A. Vise: Sifting through the data is only possible after the Justice Department has the data. I do not believe it has the information it has requested from Google. Nobody from Google has alleged illegal snooping by Justice, only that it is over-reaching in its request.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: Hello, David.

What are the chances that a politically motivated DOJ could use search results to influence election outcomes?

David A. Vise: I will leave that loaded question to your progressive imagination. I have heard talk of the role of data on the Internet being used in campaigns by incumbents. I cannot speculate on what might happen at Justice under the wrong leadership, but there is no evidence that this Justice Department would use search results improperly to influence election outcomes.

Could it happen hypothetically? Sure. Watergate on steroids.

_______________________

Devil's Advocacy Drive: The problem is that it is POSSIBLE to make the argument that, by using Google, you were tacitly consenting to have your info out there. After all, you did not HAVE to use Google. You made a choice, and now must live with ALL the consequences, known and unknown, of that choice.

(note that I am not advocating this position....)

David A. Vise: Thanks.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems to me that users of Yahoo, AOL and MSN have an action against the companies based, if on nothing else, on the violation of their right to privacy under the companies own privacy policies. I know that there are court cases against the government in the domestic spying area. Do you think that citizens have standing against the companies that have released information to the government?

David A. Vise: Based on what I have been told, Yahoo, AOL and MSN responded to the Justice Department subpoena over child pornography by providing some, but not all, of the information requested. The companies have privacy policies indicating that they will respond to lawful government requests for data and putting users on notice. So it would be novel to prevail against them in court for complying with a Justice request in a measured way that is consistent with their privacy policies. One might have to make the case, I suppose, that the privacy policies are not billboarded enough so that users are readily and easily aware of them.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: If the government gets this data, what could they potentially do with it? If I searched something in the week in question, would they be able to see my search and, if they cared to, see who I am and where I live? I am very worried about the ramifications of this situation, but as a regular joe, I don't know what all they would have access to--and how it could potentially affect an ordinary person...

David A. Vise: The answers to your questions depend on what Google provides. Justice says its request DOES NOT include identifying individual IP addresses. But Google is worried about precedent and the slippery slope. Once some data is turned over, more may be requested.

_______________________

Deerfield Beach, Fla.: Are there circumstances that would allow the government to request more information from a particular internet user, if the searches are "interesting" to them? And what other information might they request?

David A. Vise: Under the Patriot Act, the federal government has far-reaching authority to request information from individuals and organizations to combat terrorism.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Can you give the location of the site(s) where the terrorists claim credit for various acts of barabarism so that I don't have to search Google and Yahoo! for them? Thanks.

David A. Vise: Your rhetorical question makes an interesting point: How do investigators distinguishh between someone doing in-depth research on terrorism and who visits various web sites for academic purposes, and someone who does so for dangerous purposes? The answer may lie in correlating searches with emails or phone calls or other evidence of complicity in terrorist-related activities.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I'm all for protecting my privacy (I Google lots everyday) but I also think that Google is primarily acting in their own interest in this case - protecting proprietary information. I believe they even said so.

David A. Vise: You are correct. But Brin and Page also said they are taking this stand on behalf of users to protect privacy. They believe a narrower subpoena might not be as objectionable as one that seems to them like it is part of a broad fishing expedition.

_______________________

Odense, Denmark: From some of your comments on this page one might think that the U.S. Government is trying to combat child pornography, i.e. pornography in which minors are involved. Other sources lead me to believe that this only involves minors -watching- pornography on the web, which is an entirely different matter.

The Government is not trying to save innocent children from being abused, it is trying to take the role of the parents.

Another question: do you personally think a sixteen year old boy takes damage from watching some Playboy action?

David A. Vise: Thanks for your views from Denmark. They are interesting. I will leave the answer to your question about Playboy magazine and the 16-year-old boy to parents.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: When I was a kid, the sign at the McDonald's used to say, "Billions and Billions served." Now that McDonald's accepts credit cards, there will be a site that will link all burgers sold to your street address, and someone will deliver a coupon in the mail if you miss an expected visit.

David A. Vise: -:)

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You wrote, "So the Google database is a potential goldmine for an investigator who wants to gather evidence showing the extent to which children are being exploited on the Web. "

I don't get it. So the investigator could get evidence of how many people are using google to search for child pornography on the web? Don't most of these guys have their own sites etc. that they already know about anyway?

David A. Vise: The Justice Department says in court documents that it needs data from search engines to bolster its case about the most widely viewed Web sites involving child pornography.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If, for instance, they found something not child porn or terrorism-related, like a search about making a meth lab, would they have any legal recourse to find that person and/or do ANYTHING about it?

David A. Vise: Great question. It depends on what they found. And it also depends on the context surrounding it.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: I'm actually quite shocked that the other online companies went along so willingly with these requests by the government. I wonder if their respective legal counsels really considered what they were doing.

I really see this as just the beginning. If they gave in so easily once, what's to stop the feds from going one step further next time?

That said, is there a complete list of those that did go along with the requests. (I want to know where I should avoid visiting if any record of my search or purchase or visit or what-have-you is potentially going to be turned over to the feds for one reason or another.)

David A. Vise: Yahoo, MSN and AOL responded to the Justice Department subpoena, but spokesman for all three say they did not respond in full by providing all of the data requested.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I have an actual question; how does a search on Google differ from, say, Yahoo!? What distinguishes Google from other search engines?Thanks.

David A. Vise: Google and Yahoo use different methods to rank search results. They also use different methods to improve search results through personalization. And they have different kinds of experts addressing how they will deliver search results in various forms in the future.

Google is regarded as the leader and the only new mega-brand created on the Internet in the past decade. The Google Story includes a discussion of the importance of branding. Google has established an extraordinary brand-name recognition and relationship with its users globally. Yahoo trails in second place but delivers sold searcch results too.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: "The government is asking Google to turn over search records for a random week in order to obtain information on searches related to online child pornography."

This is different from what I read. I thought the government wanted data on porn site ads that appear on the right side of the search results even when parental control blocking software is used.

They want to see who is advertising adult material to kids by circumventing the site blocking software's search keywords. So they want to know who is targeting their Google ads with juvenile porn slang, which is a vastly different issue than obscene content. It could yet be a gargantuan issue though.

David A. Vise: Justice wants a lot of data. That is for sure.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: Google's stock took a 3% plunge the other day... but it was when all stocks seemed to take a hit. The talking heads on the cable news channels tied the stock's drop to the fight with DOJ, but I want to know if that's true.

I could be wrong (and probably am), but I find Google's argument for fighting persuasive, and I would think other investors in the company would as well. I certainly wouldn't start selling on this news. As for stock in any of the companies that did turn over the data DOJ wants, well, I would personally drop those in protest. I guess you know where I stand on this now.

David A. Vise: Google stock has rallied this week after the sell-off on Friday.

_______________________

Va.: Does anyone at the Washington Post have privacy? How it is different between anonymous sources and law enforcement officials looking for a Post person?

David A. Vise: A different set of laws apply. The First Amendment comes into play. The Bill of Rights and case law are developed in this area.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: I understand why the JD wants the data. I understand it's a goldmine of data. I don't undertand the legal justification of why they think they are entitled to it. You say the burden is lower than if it were my personal hard drive. Why? How much lower? And is it because of business vs. actual person, or some other reason?

David A. Vise: The answer to your question is that the way the laws are written, access is easier to get from third party servers at Google than from your hard drive. These federal statutes carry weight, whether they seem logical or not.

_______________________

Minneapolis, Minn.: David,

What are the broader, long term implications of this request? Could a politically motivated Justice Department use search results to determine the most likly candidates in an election, perhaps? Could they influence who will be elected President?

David A. Vise: Speculation on this subject could be a great topic for another chat. I have no reason to think this Justice Department would do anything like what you are claiming. We have seen abuses in the past by politically motivated prosecutors and courts, but we are in new territory here.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: What I don't understand about this issue, is under what right does the government claim to be allowed this information?

They are using this to do research to present a case that the web is heavily used for porn.

David A. Vise: The Justice Department wants a law against child pornorgraphy thrown out by the Supreme Court to be reinstated.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The Supreme Court ruled that COPA violated the First Amendment, and said that such a law could only stand if the government could enforce it without violating Americans' constitutional rights. Now, the Justice Department is using this subpoena to violate our Fourth Amendment rights to have our private information remain private. How can the DOJ claim that they can enforce COPA without violating the Constitution when they have to impinge on the Fourth Amendment in order to get the evidence that they hope will prove their case?

David A. Vise: Great legal minds will debate the questions you raise. You are obviously an expert on some of this material. And it is impossible to say how courts would rule, if it ever came to that.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Odense, Denmark was correct. The law that this google subpoena pertains to is COPA. They are trying to find out how many legitimate search terms, like "Barbie" or "Toys" are leading to adult content-related sites. Why are you muddling the facts and stating that the search pertains to child pornography and not easy access to adult pornography?

David A. Vise: Thank you for offering your views and thanks to everybody for the extraordinary questions on this hot topic.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.