Google vs US gov't: Court date delayed

Google's attempt to fend off the government's request for millions of search terms will move to a federal court in San Jose, California, on 13 March.

US District Judge James Ware on Thursday delayed the hearing, originally scheduled for 27 February, for an extra two weeks without giving an explanation. The outcome will determine whether the US Justice Department will prevail in its fight to force Google to help it defend an anti-pornography law in a trial in Philadelphia this autumn.

Although the Justice Department also demanded that AOL, Microsoft and Yahoo! hand over similar records, Google was the only recipient that chose to fight the subpoena in court. After the spat became public last week, attorney general Alberto Gonzales said:" This is important for the Department of Justice and we will pursue this matter."

The government's request has raised eyebrows among privacy advocates and members of Congress, some of whom fear it could open the door to future fishing expeditions. Representative Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he would introduce legislation to curb records retained by websites, and Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, has asked Gonzales for details.

Judge Ware also said Google's response to the Justice Department is now due on 17 February, and the government's reply is due on 24 February. Other organisations such as not-for-profit groups, individuals and companies that have permission to file friend-of-the-court briefs have until 24 February to do so.

Ware is no stranger to technology cases. He heard the Sex.com case in 2001, a spam lawsuit in 1998, and a legal spat between RealNetworks and Microsoft in 2004.

Prosecutors are requesting a "random sampling" of one million internet addresses accessible through Google's popular search engine, and a random sampling of one million search queries submitted to Google over a one-week period.

The request is part of the Justice Department's attempt to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. The law orders commercial websites to shield minors from materials that may be "harmful" to them - or face prison time - a requirement that the American Civil Liberties Union claims violates free expression rights.

Declan McCullagh writes for CNET News.com