Comments on: The Disciplinary Gaze of Web Search Engines http://michaelzimmer.org/2006/11/16/the-disciplinary-gaze-of-web-search-engines/ information ethics : privacy : new media : values in design : 2.0 Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:56:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Zimmer http://michaelzimmer.org/2006/11/16/the-disciplinary-gaze-of-web-search-engines/comment-page-1/#comment-23509 Michael Zimmer Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:03:52 +0000 http://michaelzimmer.org/2006/11/16/the-disciplinary-gaze-of-web-search-engines/#comment-23509 Hi Seth - Yep, I read you. I must admit that this abstract was likely written before seeing your article earlier this year, and I haven't had the time to finesse the language regarding the nature of the subpoena. Hi Seth – Yep, I read you. I must admit that this abstract was likely written before seeing your article earlier this year, and I haven’t had the time to finesse the language regarding the nature of the subpoena.

]]> By: Seth Finkelstein http://michaelzimmer.org/2006/11/16/the-disciplinary-gaze-of-web-search-engines/comment-page-1/#comment-23477 Seth Finkelstein Fri, 17 Nov 2006 08:57:54 +0000 http://michaelzimmer.org/2006/11/16/the-disciplinary-gaze-of-web-search-engines/#comment-23477 "In January 2006, the web search engine Google resisted requests from the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over a large amount of information on its users’ search behavior to help police illegal Internet pornography." *whimper* *whimper* *whimper* ... Don't you read me? So many things wrong with this .... 1) It's not about " illegal Internet pornography." - it's about minor and (adult) legal Internet pornography. 2) Calling it "users' search behavior" is very misleading, and no personal information was sought. 3) Though the original request was large, by the time it became it court case, it was a very small amount of information. 4) It really wasn't "help police" either, except in a very attenuated sense of being related to a study to justify the law. See my long article on the <a href="http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2006-01-26-n76.html" rel="nofollow">Google Subpoena</a> I do strongly agree the *issue* is very important. But the DOJ subpoena was not what so many people think it was. “In January 2006, the web search engine Google resisted requests from the U.S. Department of Justice to turn over a large amount of information on its users’ search behavior to help police illegal Internet pornography.”

*whimper* *whimper* *whimper* …

Don’t you read me?

So many things wrong with this ….

1) It’s not about ” illegal Internet pornography.” – it’s about minor and (adult) legal Internet pornography.

2) Calling it “users’ search behavior” is very misleading, and no personal information was sought.

3) Though the original request was large, by the time it became it court case, it was a very small amount of information.

4) It really wasn’t “help police” either, except in a very attenuated sense of being related to a study to justify the law.

See my long article on the Google Subpoena

I do strongly agree the *issue* is very important. But the DOJ subpoena was not what so many people think it was.

]]>