WARNING: Police Ask For Entire City's Google Searches and The Court Says Yes

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

So, trivial for Google to have it voided?

a reply to: Phage

I think it is very likely. Though a third party, non-perpetrating party's position is somewhat more difficult. However, in my experience, for a case this small, Google will most likely, ignore, obfuscate, and delay until the police or DA looses steam. If a representative is actually forced into court, they will bring in big guns and blow the warrant out of the water.

For topics like this, I try to always think about the historical context of data mining efforts by law enforcement - both local and federal - since the post 9-11 era began. Some bullet points:

Congress dismantled the Total Information Awareness data mining program over privacy and potential domestic surveillance concerns (this was during the post 9-11 era of rampant warrantless wiretapping and the like.)

A program called TIPS was also explicitly prohibited by congress in 2002 because of similar concerns. They simultaneously shot down efforts at creating a National ID system.

Sorry to use CNN et al as a source, but it's what I had back then when I was tracking these developments. I offer this only to demonstrate a concerted and continual effort at data mining for law enforcement purposes has been ongoing both locally and at a national level since at least the immediate post 9-11 era.

Something new replaced TIA, called MATRIX, by 2003 www.cnn.com...

States began to pull out of MATRIX over similar concerns by 2004. www.cnn.com...

By 2005, there were civil liberties concerns over an even earlier (and then ongoing) Pentagon program called TALON monitoring and including anti-war protesters' activities.
www.washingtonpost.com...
Further elucidated here: www.aclu.org.../27050

Also in 2005, after being previously voted down, the Real ID Act was passed as part of a war on terrorism and tsunami relief bill that no one could vote against without a likely political cost. This act set new national ID standards which all states had to meet, lest people not be allowed to enter Federal buildings, banks, airlines, receive federal benefits, etc. Many states introduced biometric elements into these new ID standards. (Fingerprints, etc.) This personally identifying data was mandated to be shared on a single inter-state database.

www.cnn.com...

NSA collection of citizen phone call data revealed in 2006:
edition.cnn.com...

Defense Dpt domestic data collection in 2007: www.nytimes.com...

Real ID Act implementations across states raised privacy concerns, as the DHS prepared to begin enforcement in 2007: www.cnn.com... (The following year, DHS would urge states to comply, at one point stating, "We are not bluffing.")

Advanced domestic spying planned for gradual rollout beginning in 2008: www.washingtonpost.com...

All of this is not to promote paranoia or say, "See? The feds, cops, et al are all spying on us!" But rather simply to say... this is hardly new. And every time such a national level program gets shut down, another takes its place. It should not be at all surprising that law enforcement could do this, even though in this case it looks like (as Phage pointed out) the search was not nearly as extensive as other sources hyperbolized it to be. This kind of case is just the tip of the ice berg that is data mining, both for corporate purposes, and for intelligence and law enforcement purposes.

Privacy, anonymity, and data protection online - barring a total air gap, shielding, and no network capacity whatsoever - on computers is nonexistent for any powerful entity that desires to gain your data. And our government or entities therein (especially where corporate data collection and intelligence gathering meet) have worked relentlessly to make that so since at least just after 9-11.

Peace.

Good for sharing, similar has been happening as follows;

How the Seattle Police Secretly—and Illegally—Purchased a Tool for Tracking Your Social Media Posts

Beginning two years ago, but unbeknownst to the public—until now—intelligence officers inside the Seattle Police Department headquarters on Third Avenue acquired the ability to watch your social media posts in real time, using software that can place those posts on a digital map.

This tracking software, which the SPD purchased in October 2014 from a CIA-funded company called Geofeedia, is designed to tell officers where you posted from and what you said. It can also show hundreds of other tweets, Instagrams, and other social media posts from anyone else in the vicinity, and then file all of that information into one big database.

Source

Not just in the US:
UK 2015 Source

The Telegraph understands the new powers for the police will form part of the new bill. "In the face of such threats we have a duty to ensure that the agencies whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers they need to do the job." Theresa May

It would make it a legal requirement for communications companies to retain all the web browsing history of customers for 12 months in case the spy agencies or police need to access them. Police would be able to access specific web addresses visited by customers.

These cases sadly can become the norm if accepted.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Gosh.
You mean our cool stuff has a dark side? More than one edge?

It's not the "watchers" that are the problem. It's our ignorance in using our toys.

There's a reason people used to use something called "pay phones" for certain things. I guess people forget.

Yep, for decades I knew they had enough computing power.....also, they've had my number big time.......since the crap retrain type stuff the Air Force pulled. Rookies.....

I wouldn't do worry....just have latent fun.....stay outta their hair.....outta their way.....say yessir and mean it.....providence ....baby!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: dreamingawake

There's a reason people used to use something called "pay phones" for certain things. I guess people forget.

Until they banned it ... at least at many EU countries ...

However your view is perfectly valid. Vault7 suggest CIA tools are predominantly Windows oriented. Linux is my choice. Also I do not use my "smart" phone for nothing else but call/SMS services. Those "smart" thingies are constallation of security holes.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raxoxane

I found it. The warrant concerns a case of identity theft and the "search term" is the name of the victim.

Google declined to directly address the warrant, but suggested it was fighting it.

arstechnica.com...

Hey, thanks for being redundant, and posting something that we can already read for ourselves

Maybe Google should just make all of the city's searches public. Including all the searches by rank and file police officers, high ranking law enforcement, any searches by any federal law enforcement in the area, searches by all city councilmen and the mayor, and the families of all of the above. The list should include the names and addresses of those making the searches, because I'm sure the list to be given to law enforcement will have names and addresses.

a reply to: infolurker

Makes you want to see the world end and be void of people they like to control.

I dont want to see us progress anymore.

I want us to revert to being savages.

Cold in the winter, thirsty in drought, and entirely free of the will of others not worthy.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: infolurker

Makes you want to see the world end and be void of people they like to control.

I dont want to see us progress anymore.

I want us to revert to being savages.

Cold in the winter, thirsty in drought, and entirely free of the will of others not worthy.

Go for it, there are plenty of places where you can disappear forever and then you can live the savage life you crave.

Hows the military life treating you?

I agree with abe froman.
Slippery slope, but I wouldn't exactly call it a dragnet.
I would like to see the numbers of people that googled this woman's name during the time period in question.
If it is three people with one of them being her.... not exactly a dragnet.

a reply to: thesaneone

Is there really a live and let live attitude? Or is everything contrary to the group think treated as enemy behavior? No matter who you are not hurting...everything is someone elses business now adays.

I had to postpone it. Health issues.

a reply to: infolurker


I am going to go out on a limb, but if someone has done anything fortuitous or on purpose online I am pretty sure law enforcement knows about it and has for years and knows who to worry about. The patriot act put an end to online privacy if it ever existed to begin with. The internet is a two way mirror, whatever you do on there is most certainly logged somewhere by someone for whatever reason. And not all of them are bad ones.

a reply to: infolurker

Why just Google and not Bing or some other search engine ?

Beware if you share the info on facebook or tweet about it ...

Bout time to use that VPN full time.

I get curious about some pretty bizarre stuff occasionally.

It's not a huge violation. They may obtain this information only for this specific case.
It's not like they are going to see everyone's search history for their favorite torrent site, or the new sex toy you want, and then hand out a bunch of fines. No.

Google will only release the search results for the persons name. If you think about it for 10 seconds you will begin to see just how narow their search will become when they find the ip address of the person who searched for more information about his target, geolocate it, and then begin their search there.

This is not a huge issue as I have read statutes in my local library to find out what their approach is. This is a single case. Not a broad one. Which means all information obtained must be related to this incident. Any and all other information is deemed as not important, or doesn't relate to the case and can not be used to issue millions of tickets.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

Probable cause for a search is right there.

This person was able to mimic the victims phone number. And obviously this victim has probably given them details of the persons he knows, or has come into contact with from both his personal, and professional life.

For this perpetrator to find out the victims personal details such as the address, phone number, current pictures of the person, and all the way down to the shops they frequent; he must have used Google to search more about this person.

The probable cause for search is likely due to a dead end on the opening investigation.

The probable cause also stems from this person being able to steal the amount of money that he did from his bank account, over the phone mind you.

This information about the victims phone number can easily be found via what ever you put on facebook. Since this person obviously used a search engine to locate the victims Facebook page, it is an Avenue that can give them a huge lead to the suspect.

There is your probable cause. How do you obtain someone's personal phone number, the one they use to make calls to banks and just in general without them having to meet the person via facebook, or in real life?

Phone books have numbers for people at the time they are printed. Even I have checked the white pages for my name and found a phone number I no longer use, or even have. In fact the number is 6 years old. I have changed my number several times.

Remember that banks also allow you to use your phone to do banking. And I bet you have your most current phone number listed as a contact detail.

It all goes back to the top of this post, and it makes the most logical sense to find out who was doing Google searches for a specific persons name. Especially one who has 28k sitting in their savings account.

originally posted by: abe froman
It seems like a reasonable request.

But damn,that's the slippery slope.

I am not jumping on what you said here but, reasonable?

The concept here is that they are able to take everyone's information at will and see something that should remain private. A person pays for a service, not so that company can record everyone's data. I understand its a third party, google. Yet this is the same as requesting data from internet service providers. So wrong, on so many levels.

Bring on the private companies that start creating private browsers, with private operating systems, with private isp's along with private vpns. That is the kind of fingers up these people need.

I will make sure I soon enough make others aware how to hide from these crooks!

Soon you will be pulled out your house for not agreeing with something, just because you searched for something against the current political view and that is NOT a conspiracy, nor a jumped up idea.

Ticking....

originally posted by: GiulXainx

For this perpetrator to find out the victims personal details such as the address, phone number, current pictures of the person, and all the way down to the shops they frequent; he must have used Google to search more about this person.

Why must they have used Google? That is pure speculation. There needs to be facts particular to the case that leads one to believe that Google was not only used, but it was used by someone within that particular city.

Suppose three people in that city Googled that name, would the police then have the ability to seize each of their computers and digitally comb through them? That'd be outrageous and unAmerican in my perspective. Also unconstitutional.