Sometimes I feel like I define "freedom" differently than everyone else.  The media and online world are in the midst of a big hissy-fit over the government's request for data from the largest internet search engines.  They ordered Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft to hand over portions of their deep archives of search records.  Google has refused to comply, setting up a legal battle which should be interesting to follow.

As the San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"'If the government wins, it will continue pushing for more information from Google, and so will private parties,' said Kurt Opsahl, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an organization that advocates online privacy.  'People could be deterred from seeking out information that they need because of the fear of Big Brother looking over their shoulder.'"

This type of alarmist "what if" logic holds no fucking water whatsoever.  Right now, they've simply asked for lists of search queries, not identifiable information about who performed the searches.  The privacy advocates are worried about what might come next.  What they believe to be the inevitable next request.  Well, until they actually make that request, can't we leave this shit alone?  Besides, let's say the government gets everything.  Let's say they get it all: the search queries with your personal IP address attached, your name and address, your children's names, your wife's mother's maiden name, what you ate for breakfast, and the notes you passed to the tall redhead in 10th grade.  Let's say they get all that and more.  So what?

What's the big fucking deal?  Why should that affect the way you use the internet?  Unless you're doing something illegal and have cause to worry, what do you care if the Department of Justice knows you searched for "my butt stinks what can I do about it," or "do huge tits make the world go round?"  Right now, large companies like Microsoft and Yahoo! and Google and Ask Jeeves and AllTheWeb already know all that information, they're storing it in databases.  Why is it more scary when a public organization knows about it than when private ones do?  All things equal, I just don't see how people's behavior would change because of this.

If you want to change people's behavior, that's easy.  Charge them money for each search.  $1 per search query and people would really tighten up on what they search for.  Or even more effectively, charge internet users based on the bandwidth they use.  In that sense, it's the privatization of the internet that is more likely to change actual behavior.

The internet as we know it is a public place, and anything done in a public place can't be considered private.  It's the reason celebrities can't do anything about paparazzi who take their photograph in public places; once you expose yourself in public, you are fair game.  And that's what the internet is, a public place, albeit confounded with seeming anonymity.

If you ask me, that's what the internet needs more than anything ... a way for users to be identifiable to other users, for men to be known as men, not pretending to be 12-year old girls; for 14-year old boys to be 14-year old boys, not wannabe poseurs of worldly experience with vast knowledge and insight into anything and everything (as they would have you believe).  In the absence of anonymity, I suspect people would behave better (as I've said before) regardless of who was tracking the data.  As it is, it's kind of like going to a library dressed like a ninja and then ninja-kicking one of the other patrons and running away.  That's pretty cowardly but you can get away with it, unless that person complains to the librarian, because you showed her your library card to check out a book.

Mark Morford, also from the San Francisco Chronicle writes:

"Is it not just pleasing to your core to know that your government is right now trying to track your behavior in a whole new and unsettling way, using the vague excuse that they're trying to 'protect' children from online porn (an effort, by the way, to reinstate nasty anti-porn laws that were blocked by the Supreme Court two years ago)?  Are we now utterly charmed to death that this is the most invasive and appallingly mistrustful administration since Nixon secretly beat himself with nails?"

I'm interested in his use of the terms "unsettling," "vague excuse," and "invasive."  What's unsettling about it?  It's unsettling simply because Morford says it is?  That's hardly a reason I can get behind.  And how does he know it's a vague excuse?  Can we not at least sometimes assume the government has good intentions?  Once in a while?  That, just maybe, they really ARE interested in combating children accidentally stumbling upon pornography?  And what's invasive about it?  Both Yahoo! and Microsoft managed to turn over data without attaching personally identifiable information, so what's Google's problem?  How can it be invasive if the search terms are anonymous?

More to my point, why is it only unsettling when it's the government looking at the records, but not unsettling, not invasive, when it's a private business looking at the data?  Enron, Tyco, and numerous other companies have proven we can't trust them to be upstanding any more than we can trust anyone else.  So why all the hypocritical heat when the government gets involved?  I didn't hear any squawking about invasion of privacy when we all knew damn well that these companies stash all the information they can get their hands on.  If people are truly interested in privacy, why aren't they boycotting these search engines in an attempt to force them to stop storing all that data?  And if you go after the search engines, you must go after the ISPs too, and God forbid you surf at work, where your employer is likely tracking all your moves too.  You've never really been anonymous on the internet, you just felt like you were because other users couldn't identify you.  Tangentially, Nixon beat himself with nails?  Huh ... didn't know that.

I'm in agreement that the Child Online Protection Act would not be effective if implemented, because it only affects U.S. based companies, and too much porn is served from foreign services; it would be a futile effort.  Did you know online gambling is illegal in the U.S.?  It is, but it's still readily and widely available.  The inability to prevent online gambling is proof that regulating porn would be a waste of time.  But still, why begrudge them their chance to try?  These things need to be fought out in the courts, and we hope that the courts make the right decisions, we don't try to prevent it from reaching the courts in the first place.

Morford continues in an attempt to convince (and scare) us further by lumping this particular request for information with all the other Bush administration follies which have been revealed (so far).  I'm not in any way going to attempt to defend Bush on those counts, but come on, what does torturing prisoners have to do with requesting anonymous search queries?  Just blindly adding this to the Bush shit list because, you know, whatever the government does MUST be evil, is ludicrous.  I guess the government needs to just shut down then?  Is that the point he's making?  Because if one thing is evil, if two things is evil, if fifty things is evil, then everything must be evil.  I guess Bush might as well hang a "closed" sign on the white house door, and sit around for two years staring at the glare off Dick Cheney's head.

The Chronicle also reports:

"As part of their privacy policies, virtually all search engines tell users that search histories will be turned over to law enforcement as required.  However, privacy advocates noted that few people actually read the policies and are therefore unaware that their queries could be scrutinized."

Too fucking bad!  I thought ignorance was no excuse when it came to the law?  If you get pulled over for speeding and tell the officer you don't know the speed limit, do you think he will let you off?  Or do you think he will chastise you for not knowing what you are supposed to know?  We can't go around protecting people from themselves.  If they're ignorant of the fact that their actions on the internet are recorded and may be handed over to authorities on request, that's their own problem.  And just like with everything else in America, they can choose to not use the internet, or use it only for email, or use it fully, or whatever they hell they choose to do.  And that, my friends, is the definition of freedom.  Don't like that radio station?  You can change the channel, or turn it off, nobody is forcing you to listen.  Don't like that search engine?  Use a different one, or don't use one at all, nobody is forcing you.  You are free to do whatever damn thing you please.  And it's your responsibility to be aware of what costs are associated with your decisions.

"But crocoPuffs," I hear you saying, "if there are costs, then it's not free!  That's not freedom!"  Nice try, rookie!  How wrong you are.  Freedom refers to your ability to CHOOSE what you want to do without outside influence, it does not refer to things being cost-free.  You are free to do anything your heart desires, but you can bet your ass there will be costs involved.  Sure, it might be nice - in a utopian society kind of way - to have no costs associated with your choices, but that's simply not realistic.

Come and get me when you are not free to make choices.  Wake me up when the government is forcing your hand, when you have no alternatives available, then I'll be willing to listen to how our freedoms are being violated.  Until then, enjoy living in (still, despite its faults) the greatest country on the planet.