Does the government have the right to order private internet companies to provide user’s search records?
Lately both Yahoo and Google where served a court ordered to hand over to the government some search records regarding porn
The difference here is that the government is asking a third party to show your own records.
It is not the same case when they come and ask you personal info that you hold.
When I put my data in a third party, I trust that it is well guarded. When someone can get access to my stored record, it might cause me not to use that place again. In this case, Yahoo and Google might suffer user lost because it might seems as they have betrayed them by failing to protect their data.
Some good answers here. I’ll take a stab at it myself, though I don’t know anything about the incidents other than what the original poster included in his question.
First, we’re talking about illegal pornography. "Regular" porn, the kind that isn’t illegal depending on whoever’s standards we’re using, isn’t going to be subject to a search warrant because it isn’t a crime…and search warrants can only be issued when they seek to provide evidence of a public offense (a crime). So whatever porn we’re talking about, it’s evidently illegal according to whatever legal standard is being used (and this varies, but things like kiddy porn are illegal everywhere in the US). Once the illegality has been established, then I don’t think there’s much left to talk about…you cannot hide behind a right to privacy if you are engaging in criminal behavior. That’s not to say you give up your right to privacy, it’s to say that if you’re engaging in criminal acts, the government has the right to ask a judge for a search warrant to gather evidence of those acts, and I would argue that you cannot complain about your privacy being "invaded" when they do.
And a word about search warrants; they are not rubber-stamped documents that sail through the justice system to your front door. Law enforcement agents must prepare an application for them, outlining reasons to believe a particular place holds evidence of a particular crime. They must swear the things they’ve said in that document are true, and then they must present the document to a neutral party – a magistrate (or a judge). That magistrate (or judge) then reviews the information provided by the agent, and decides on his/her own if there is a more than likely chance (i.e., "probable cause") that the things the agents are looking for are in the places the agents say they are. Despite the rare news to the contrary, magistrates and law enforcement alike take this process seriously.
About the "third party" argument made by the original poster: again – if you’re engaging in criminal behavior, you cannot expect to hide behind the right to privacy just because you’ve given the evidence of your guilt to a third party. The government has the right under our system of law to gather evidence of your criminal behavior, no matter where you have left it.
If you want to deliver evidence of your involvement in criminal acts to a third party, press on…and you do so at your own risk, obviously. The original poster’s comment is well taken; if your third party is going to comply with an order of a court to disclose certain information relative to criminal acts, then perhaps you need to find another third party – one who will become a criminal themselves if they fail to comply with a lawful court order.
Yahoo and Google have not betrayed anyone’s trust…although it’s been a while since I’ve seen them, I’m fairly certain both corporations have privacy policies, and I’m equally certain both of them talk about safeguarding your information except when ordered to release it pursuant to a court order. If the third party thing bothers you, don’t use a third party…there’s a saying: "three can keep a secret, if two are dead."
Don’t want anybody to know what you’re doing? Don’t tell anybody.
Other articles you might like;
Filed under: Government Records
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
It depends. As long as the government can get a warrant, they can demand any information they want. But in order to get a warrant, they have to prove to a judge that they have probable cause that a crime has been committed, AND it has to be a specific crime.
A judge won’t give them a warrant to go on a "fishing expedition" to look and see IF a crime has been committed. The only way that they could get a warrant to look at a person’s search records is if they had probable cause that THAT PARTICULAR PERSON has downloaded porn.
One note: the government doesn’t have to know the name of the person — they can get a warrant based on some other sort of identification, such as a user id.
None of this applies to Bush’s illegal wiretapping, of course. That was just plain wrong (and illegal).
References :
Absolutely. Law enforcement agencies are able to ask me what I have been doing during a certain period and I have to explain everything I can. Basically, if it’s stored in my memory I have to hand it over. The same does and should apply to companies. If you can help in any way, you should.
With regards to Google refusing to hand over data in a child pornography case, I see them obstructing the law and therefore aiding in the proliferation of child pornography. In fact, didn’t they refuse to remove child porn site from their index a few years back? I see a pattern emerging…
Based on the Additional information for this question, it would be like asking a witness (the 3rd party) to indicate what you have been doing. This is also legal, and perfectly okay.
References :
I just dont care. Unless you are communicating with other terrorists you dont need to worry.
References :
If the government gets a judge to believe that a crime has been committed, it can request for a search warrant to gather evidence of the crime for a possible case. Just because they are using a search warrant does not mean that the information that they gather will be of use to a case.
References :
Some good answers here. I’ll take a stab at it myself, though I don’t know anything about the incidents other than what the original poster included in his question.
First, we’re talking about illegal pornography. "Regular" porn, the kind that isn’t illegal depending on whoever’s standards we’re using, isn’t going to be subject to a search warrant because it isn’t a crime…and search warrants can only be issued when they seek to provide evidence of a public offense (a crime). So whatever porn we’re talking about, it’s evidently illegal according to whatever legal standard is being used (and this varies, but things like kiddy porn are illegal everywhere in the US). Once the illegality has been established, then I don’t think there’s much left to talk about…you cannot hide behind a right to privacy if you are engaging in criminal behavior. That’s not to say you give up your right to privacy, it’s to say that if you’re engaging in criminal acts, the government has the right to ask a judge for a search warrant to gather evidence of those acts, and I would argue that you cannot complain about your privacy being "invaded" when they do.
And a word about search warrants; they are not rubber-stamped documents that sail through the justice system to your front door. Law enforcement agents must prepare an application for them, outlining reasons to believe a particular place holds evidence of a particular crime. They must swear the things they’ve said in that document are true, and then they must present the document to a neutral party – a magistrate (or a judge). That magistrate (or judge) then reviews the information provided by the agent, and decides on his/her own if there is a more than likely chance (i.e., "probable cause") that the things the agents are looking for are in the places the agents say they are. Despite the rare news to the contrary, magistrates and law enforcement alike take this process seriously.
About the "third party" argument made by the original poster: again – if you’re engaging in criminal behavior, you cannot expect to hide behind the right to privacy just because you’ve given the evidence of your guilt to a third party. The government has the right under our system of law to gather evidence of your criminal behavior, no matter where you have left it.
If you want to deliver evidence of your involvement in criminal acts to a third party, press on…and you do so at your own risk, obviously. The original poster’s comment is well taken; if your third party is going to comply with an order of a court to disclose certain information relative to criminal acts, then perhaps you need to find another third party – one who will become a criminal themselves if they fail to comply with a lawful court order.
Yahoo and Google have not betrayed anyone’s trust…although it’s been a while since I’ve seen them, I’m fairly certain both corporations have privacy policies, and I’m equally certain both of them talk about safeguarding your information except when ordered to release it pursuant to a court order. If the third party thing bothers you, don’t use a third party…there’s a saying: "three can keep a secret, if two are dead."
Don’t want anybody to know what you’re doing? Don’t tell anybody.
References :