Begin forwarded message: From: Daniel Weitzner <djweitzner@xxxxxx> Date: January 22, 2006 3:01:13 PM EST To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx Cc: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [IP] more on Search queries *can* contain personal information
For IP if you like...Of course it's true that the DOJ subpoena is a civil subpoena, not one premised on criminal activity. However, that doesn't mean that the permissible scope of the subpoena is more narrow or that there's any greater protection for privacy rights. Consider, for example, that in the course of the Enron investigation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission not only subpoened ALL of the email sent by ENRON employees over a period of a number of years and then made virtually the entire archive PUBLIC (It's available here: http:// www.cs.cmu.edu/~enron/)
The employees were given a limited opportunity to request that private messages be removed before disclosure but people I've spoken with about this say that very few exercised that option.
As many have pointed out, the Google dispute, together with situations like the Enron email only go to show how badily in need of revision our privacy laws are.
Danny On Jan 22, 2006, at 1:44 PM, David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message: From: Pamela Jones <pjgrok@xxxxxxx> Date: January 22, 2006 1:30:21 PM EST To: dave@xxxxxxxxxxSubject: Re: [IP] more on Search queries *can* contain personal informationRE what Henrik asked: "In the third bullet point they say that they will share it to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request. IANAL, but I thought that a legally obtained subpoena would fall into that category. If the request on top of that are search URLs and search terms from one week, all separatd from personal identifying information, then I think that they are creating a storm in teacup. If thy were to challenge the legality of this, shouldn't they (again IANAL) at least file something to that effet, rathere than just flatly refusing to comply."Obtaining a subpoena, as Henrik puts it, implies a criminal action, which this isn't. This is civil, whereby a party just mails out what it wants, and the receiving party can analyze to see if it meets with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Just because you get a civil subpoena, it doesn't mean you just hand over everything asked for without that analysis. The Federal Rules of Procedure permit objections to a subpoena. Here's Rule 26, on scope of discovery: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule26.htm You can read about protective orders here:http://lexnet.bravepages.com/Rule26.htm
[..] -- Daniel J. Weitzner +1.617.253.8036 (MIT) Principal Research Scientist +1.202.364.4750 (DC) MIT CSAIL Decentralized Information Group W3C Technology & Society Domain Leader http://www.w3.org/People/Weitzner.html blog: http://people.w3.org/~djweitzner/blog/ ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/