The US Government has requested Google supply broad information on search terms to help reverse a Supreme Court decision against a 1998 Child Pornography Act. They do this at a time when the media is particularly focused on the apparent expansion of Child Pornography and the equally apparent increase in Pedophiles. Both Yahoo and Microsoft complied with the request for information placing Google in the uncomfortable position of standing alone with a “right to privacy” defense.

With regard to child pornography privacy rights haven’t been holding up particularly well as few want to be perceived as even indirectly supporting pedophiles. This comes down to picking your fights and Google doesn’t have a good record here. Recall that when CNET did a story on Google providing too much private information and supported the story with personal information about their CEO Google had a hissy fit and refused to talk to CNET for a year to punish that publication. On a list of stupid things to do to a media company that probably comes right after calling them names in public as a really foolish idea.

On the other hand once you let investigators in it often is very hard to prevent them from seeing things they aren’t supposed to see or keeping them limited. Once batch of information could lead to a subpoena looking for something more invasive until the privacy line is clearly crossed. Some argue, and the argument is compelling, that it is easiest, and best, to block right at the start because that is when your ability to say “no” is the strongest.

With a market valuation in the stratosphere it wouldn’t take a lot to cause their stock to fall a great deal and this kind of a fight could result in a series of events that could be particularly painful. The odds favor the government in this and it is doubtful the California Governor will want to move to protect them; particularly given the reason behind the request (in fact it is hard to believe any politician will move to help). If they lose they could be made an example of and the fallout from that would be particularly painful.

The real danger here is that Google now seems less then genuine. In the case of China, where human rights were an issue, they folded fast in favor of revenue. In this instance, were children’s lives were at risk they moved to protect their intellectual property under the guise of protecting privacy.

While both instances have solid revenue foundations they could also be seen as “evil” behavior trading off doing what is right for cash. This just goes to show that it is easy for many to be “moral” when you don’t have a great deal of cash to protect and once it becomes hard your true values come out.

Much like the politician who says he or she won’t be a crook, saying you won’t be “evil” has very little to do with who you actually are.