« Ecoterrorists Indicted | Main | Moonbats Hunt Down Heretics »

January 26, 2006

Google, the Gray Lady, and the Tinfoil Hat Brigade

It appears that the paranoid hysteria the Dems and their left-wing media accomplices are trying to whip up around the President is taking its toll on the psychiatrically vulnerable. The Federal Government has requested anonymous data from the major search engines for a study of online pornography. Yesterday the New York Times managed to report this take on the story without sniggering:

Kathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a "rent boy."

It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy — a young male prostitute?

Ms. Hanson, 45, immediately told her boyfriend what she had done. "I told him I'd Googled 'rent boy,' just in case I got whisked off to some Navy prison in the dead of night," she said.

Ms. Hanson's reaction arose from last week's reports that as part of its effort to uphold an online pornography law, the Justice Department had asked a federal judge to compel Google to turn over records on millions of its users' search queries. ...

Instead of seeking professional help for Ms. Hanson, the Times reporter then launched into a breathless account of this emerging menace to our privacy rights. Readers are left with the impression that black helicopters will soon be landing in their backyards if they search for terms like "Hamas" or "abortion."

"It's scary to think that it may just be a matter of time before Googling will invite an F.B.I. agent to tap your phone or interrogate you," one tinfoil-hat–wearing moonbat fretted.

"I have been known to send very unflattering things about our government and our president," muttered another. "I still do, but I am careful about using certain phrases that I once wouldn't have given a second thought."

Today, as if aware that she had once again made a fool of herself, the Gray Lady ran another article on the subject, which without mentioning the first one, tacitly admits that it was utter bunk:

[T]he case itself, according to people involved in it and scholars who are following it, has almost nothing to do with privacy. It will turn, instead, on serious but relatively routine questions about trade secrets and civil procedure. ...

"[T]his particular subpoena does not raise serious privacy issues," said Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia. "These records are completely disconnected. They're just strings of words."

That is, strings of words that cannot be traced to any individual. Google's refusal to comply with the order is not based on privacy concerns. The privacy issue is only raised when Google complains that the order may create a false perception that users' privacy has been violated — which it might, with the help of irresponsible publications like the Times. "This is not a perception that Google can accept," writes a Google lawyer.

By the end of the article, the Gray Lady has reverted to form ("Still, the current subpoena to Google, legal experts said, has given rise to an important debate, whether the facts of the case are apt or not."), but not before admitting this:

Other Internet search engine companies, including Yahoo, America Online and MSN, have complied with the same Justice Department subpoena, which also sought a random sample of a million Web addresses. The companies all said there were no privacy issues involved.

Not Google though — although Google has no problem cooperating with other governments. For example, they have been helping communist China censor the search output for terms like "democracy" and "human rights." As Fox News reports:

Google called its decision a necessary trade-off to allow Chinese users greater access to other information.

Uh huh. Ironically, Google's mantra is "Don't be evil." By the way, the cultlike company scores a perfect 100% blue on BuyBlue.org, by giving 100% of its political contributions to the Democratic Party.

If any paranoia is in order, it might be more sensible to direct it toward the ham-handed opinion-manipulators at the NY Times — or at Google.

With thanks to V the K and OpinionJournal.

Posted by Van Helsing at January 26, 2006 8:58 PM

Comments

Posted by: Anna at January 26, 2006 9:57 PM

Posted by: lance at January 26, 2006 11:23 PM

Posted by: V the K at January 27, 2006 9:04 AM

Posted by: Carrie at January 27, 2006 10:11 AM

Posted by: Anna at January 27, 2006 10:27 AM

Posted by: nikko at January 27, 2006 1:34 PM

Posted by: rightwingprof at January 27, 2006 5:13 PM

Posted by: Mike's America at January 28, 2006 5:32 AM