Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeJustice Department's efforts to monitor Web searches unjust
January 23, 2006 —
The Justice Department filed a motion on Wednesday that would require Google Inc. to disclose information about consumer Web searches. While some say access to such information is not a violation of privacy - the data would not identify specific users, just what they are searching for - Google is resisting, calling the request "overboard" and claiming the compliance would require far too many resources.
The request comes in connection with the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, designed to guard minors from accessing sexually explicit material on the Internet. The Bush administration allegedly wishes to revive the act and compare Google's information to data gathered in 1998 to measure the effectiveness of filtering software. Despite the Justice Department's apparent good intentions, Google worries that complying "would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services." And while the Feds have already modified their request in an attempt to make it easier for Google to comply, Google appears ready to stick to their guns.
For that, we say thank you.
While we will not disagree with the merit of the act, we do find fault with yet another attempt by the Federal Government to test American citizens' privacy rights. The motion comes on the heels of the National Security Agency's controversial surveillance program (which the Justice Department recently defended) and the Bush administration's desire to renew the Patriot Act.
The reasons for our disapproval have less to do with the reported reasons for trying to access such information and more to do with what such actions could lead to in the future. We certainly do not support terrorism or children accessing pornography but also cannot support a government continually trying to push the envelope in regards to spying on its own citizens.
White House adviser Karl Rove recently said that "Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world and Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world." While Rove did say that the view does not make them unpatriotic, he was quick to point out that it makes them, "deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."
Rove and his fellow Republicans' "post-9/11" world is at the heart of the controversy. They believe we live in a world vulnerable to terrorism at any time and while we do not doubt this, we also do not doubt that the "pre-9/11" world was just as susceptible to terrorist attacks. So what has changed?
Today, our government is either far more aware of the threat or much quicker to report it. Not a day passes without an update on terrorism, and the Homeland Security Advisory System's color-coded threat level looms over the country at all times. But this is what our government tells us, and certainly it has fibbed before.
We are not insinuating that the government is lying, but are afraid of what they will ask for next. If Google turns over the information the Justice Department has requested, it will simply serve as fodder to fuel the slippery slope that is invasion of privacy in this country.
If the Justice Department is allowed to monitor Web searches and activities today, they may ask for something more tomorrow. And if the trend continues, we may be faced with a far greater foe than terrorism.
The Bush administration says that terrorism is evolving and so too must the efforts to stop it. The reality, though, is that if a group or individual really has their heart set on attacking this country, they will be successful in doing so. The only chance we have of stopping all terrorist attacks is total submission to Government regulation and monitoring.
And if this does happen, a terrorist attack would have no effect anyway, since Americans would cease to have the freedom that any attack would attempt to take away.