LISNews: Librarian News

Anonymous Patron writes "Fred von Lohmann, senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has an interesting Article On Law.com that says DOJ's subpoena of Google may lead to more intrusive examination of Internet users' online records. von Lohmann says, "Search engines should stop keeping so much information about us, and points to the The Video Privacy Protection Act, and says a similar rule has recently been proposed for search engines in legislation introduced by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. Such a rule would go a long way toward protecting our privacy online."

From The Daily News Tribune:

"Law enforcement and Newton Free Library officials were embroiled in a tense standoff last week when the city refused to let police and the FBI examine library computers without a warrant."

"Police rushed to the main library last Wednesday after it was determined that a terrorist threat to Brandeis University had been sent from a computer at the library."

"But requests to examine any of its computers were rebuffed by library Director Kathy Glick-Weil and Mayor David Cohen on the grounds that they did not have a warrant."

Google has now been taken to court in California by Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney-General. The lawsuit describes any privacy concerns as illusory, arguing that it does not want to see any additional information that would identify the person who entered the search.

The site's lawyer said: Google's acceding to the request would suggest that it is willing to reveal information about those who use its services. This is not a perception that Google can accept. This report is from Times Online UK, which also outlines how search engines in Great Britain must comply with the "Home Office Code," recommending that they seriously consider blocking weblinks that contain illegal child abuse images.

mdoneil writes "I had a nice sandwich from Subway this evening. They gave me a game piece for some promotion. I scratched the thing off and then went to the website as instructed to see if I won.
I never got around to entering the code number as I was offended by the data they wanted before I could find out if I won. Name and Address, well I guess that is OK, but birthdate... before I could even check to see if I won!
The privacy policy linked in tiny type at the bottom of the page is so full of holes it could be cheese for my sandwich. They can share the information I provide with affiliates... they note this after telling me how they will safeguard my informaiton... unless they don't.
The privacy policy even says it is less stringent than that required in companies in the EU member states. At least that is something that won't be offshored, crappy privacy policies. Then it ends with an arbitration clause so you can't sue them if they whore out your information.
The scary thing is the sheeple will fill this out hoping they win a free sandwich. We wonder why we have privacy anympre, because we freely give it away that's why.
I like Subway, but this stuff annoys me."