Colorado Supreme Court Approves Use of Google Search Data in Murder Case (bloomberg.com) 56
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that evidence gleaned from a warrant for Google's search data could be used in the prosecution of a teen who was charged with murder for a fire that killed five people in the Denver area. From a report: As police scrambled to solve the source of the 2020 blaze, they asked Alphabet's Google to provide information about people who searched for the address of the house that went up in flames, using a controversial technique known as a keyword search warrant. After some initial objections, Google provided data that enabled detectives to zero in on five accounts, leading to the arrest of three suspects in the case.
Lawyers for one of the suspects, Gavin Seymour, who was found to have Googled the home's address 14 times in the days before the fire, argued that the keyword warrant constituted an illegal search and that any evidence from it should be suppressed. His motion is the first known challenge to the constitutionality of keyword search warrants. The case is ongoing. In its 74-page decision, the court found that law enforcement had acted in good faith when it obtained the warrant for the teen's search history. Still, it stressed that the findings were specific to the facts of the case, and it refrained from weighing in about the use of Google's search data more broadly.
Lawyers for one of the suspects, Gavin Seymour, who was found to have Googled the home's address 14 times in the days before the fire, argued that the keyword warrant constituted an illegal search and that any evidence from it should be suppressed. His motion is the first known challenge to the constitutionality of keyword search warrants. The case is ongoing. In its 74-page decision, the court found that law enforcement had acted in good faith when it obtained the warrant for the teen's search history. Still, it stressed that the findings were specific to the facts of the case, and it refrained from weighing in about the use of Google's search data more broadly.
I sure hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I sure hope nothing happens to any of the people and places I ever searched for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like the right move is to delete your Google account and never identify yourself to them.
Re:I sure hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like the right move is to delete your Google account and never identify yourself to them.
It's becoming difficult. People use Android mobile devices for everything and the thing asks to create a an account, then makes it inconvenient be use it logged out.
Even on desktop... My Windows laptop asked me to login (into a MS account) the time it tried to force me into Edge/Bing, and I see colleagues are somehow logged into MS Word. Even in the free world, Firefox does not stop asking to create an account on their new Firefox View tab (which is enabled by default). The Mozilla Foundation forces you to create an account to ask any question on their forums, and the first immediate thing that happens is it synchronizes your browser private information into their cloud, before you can reach the stop button.
Re: (Score:2)
I use Android but have DuckDuckGo set up as my search engine, my expectations are that my search strings are not passed on through Google.
About the actual case, it would be interesting to know what other searches he made over the same timespan.
Even on PCs it's hard (Score:4, Interesting)
I was rather surprised when joining a video conference, that a vendor referred to me by my google account user name.
The video conferencing software had discovered that I was logged into Youtube, and used those credentials - rather than my company account - automatically, without so much as a prompt.
Even if you are vigilant, you can't control the plethora of web-driven portals which will assume that whatever Google account is currently logged in should be used for everything. The notion that someone would have separate private and professional lives is completely foreign to Google.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good reason to use Multi-Account containers.
Re:I sure hope (Score:4, Funny)
Seems like the right move is to delete your Google account
I can't. I don't have a Google account to delete.
Does not having a Google account make me a suspect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I sure hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like the right move is to delete your Google account and never identify yourself to them.
In this kind of scenario they would still have a record of the searches by IP address. You might be able to duck that with a VPN, unless of course you're already a suspect and they can tie whatever VPN service back to you with financial records, or the VPN provider is on-shore/in a friendly jurisdiction and rats you out.
Smarter thing is to not do crime. If you ignore that advice you should try really hard to do it without leaving an electronic footprint.
Re: (Score:3)
smartest thing is to just be rich, i hear that works for people not getting caught for crimes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Al Capone did essentially commit slow suicide by refusing to take a shot of penicillin.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck with that. Don't forget Google has its tentacles _everywhere_ with their ad network. You'd have to delete every account on every website you've ever visited, and never browse any affiliated website again.
Re:I sure hope (Score:4, Informative)
This is the start of the investigation, not the end of it. They look at the people who looked at the house, then see if they also searched for arson, their phone pinged in the area at the time of the arson, etc. And when they find exactly one person cased the house, recently bought gasoline, and happened to travel to the place right at the time of the fire, it becomes hare to argue that they got the wrong person who just innocently happened to hate the guy who lived there.
Re: (Score:2)
If you match all of this stuff, after all the papers, news articles, etc. basically saying "Nothing you do on-line is private." you should get caught.
Keep in mind, there was a good-faith signed warrant for the data.
I'm not 100% pro police, I'm not 100% pro privacy. I'm like most folks - there needs to be balance between the needs of law enforcement and the rights of citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the start of the investigation, not the end of it. They look at the people who looked at the house, then see if they also searched for arson, their phone pinged in the area at the time of the arson, etc. And when they find exactly one person cased the house, recently bought gasoline, and happened to travel to the place right at the time of the fire, it becomes hare to argue that they got the wrong person who just innocently happened to hate the guy who lived there.
This is the start of the investigation, not the end of it. They look at the people who looked at the house, then see if they also searched for arson, their phone pinged in the area at the time of the arson, etc. And when they find exactly one person cased the house, recently bought gasoline, and happened to travel to the place right at the time of the fire, it becomes hare to argue that they got the wrong person who just innocently happened to hate the guy who lived there.
The article is paywalled but from your description the arrest does sound legit.
But remember, if you're searching for a house address you probably have a relationship with the occupant. And depending on the occupant you might be likely to hate them as well.
And being "in the area at the time of the arson" doesn't exclude them, but it's also not very convincing depending on the size of that area and the fact they may have other legitimate reasons to be there.
Now, the things that make me think the cops got it r
Re: (Score:2)
Searching someone's home address 14 times in a few days indicates a period of unusual obsession. But the big things would be searching for arson and buying gasoline (presumably, this wasn't just a fill up at a gas station).
I often leave a browser window open for searches, if I restart the browser, that tab reloads. Search for address, forget about it, restart browser 14 times over a few days, which includes reboots, due to only having a couple of GB's of ram for example and bang, I've searched for the address 14 times. Luckily I use DDG so in theory it is not logged. Throw in an interest in a different arson case and that jug of lawnmower gasoline I bought.
Re: (Score:2)
Searching someone's home address 14 times in a few days indicates a period of unusual obsession. But the big things would be searching for arson and buying gasoline (presumably, this wasn't just a fill up at a gas station).
I often leave a browser window open for searches, if I restart the browser, that tab reloads. Search for address, forget about it, restart browser 14 times over a few days, which includes reboots, due to only having a couple of GB's of ram for example and bang, I've searched for the address 14 times. Luckily I use DDG so in theory it is not logged. Throw in an interest in a different arson case and that jug of lawnmower gasoline I bought.
It did cross the mind that there might be technical reasons for the search being resubmitted. I kind of gave them the benefit of the doubt that they'd ruled those out.
Re: (Score:2)
>But remember, if you're searching for a house address you probably
>have a relationship with the occupant. And depending on the
>occupant you might be likely to hate them as well.
"I was just trying to pay my alimony"
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with all these new technologies is that they make the cops lazy, and the cops don't understand them at first.
DNA was exactly the same. When it first became available they started out by mass testing everyone in an area. Refusal to get tested made you a suspect. Even in the 00s there were cases of the police arresting people because their DNA was found on things like letters, which it later turned out was because their envelope was mixed in with many others. The trial of an alleged Irish terroris
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I have, like when I was planning a vacation I did a lot of similar or identical searches over a few days. But if I did that, and the search target was then the victim of a crime, yeah, the police should probably look at me.
Keyword search warrants are easy to abuse, but this specific case doesn't seem to be an abuse. I wish we had way more privacy for our online presence, but this case doesn't make anything worse.
Re:I sure hope (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree with the search warrant, but this wasn't the only evidence used here. No one is getting murder charges ONLY based on search history.
Re: (Score:2)
I sure hope nothing happens to any of the people and places I ever searched for.
John Mulaney has a funny stand-up about his search history, when once in colleges his buddy got into trouble with his landlord or neighbor.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how police investigations work. The warrant led to obtaining records of who searched for that address. But that was only the start. From there, police had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime. No police department, and no jury, would convict someone of arson just for searching an address. Other corroborating evidence would have been needed.
It's all tied to a Google account (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, there's no reason you need to have a Google account.
You can use Google's search, YouTube, Android, and lots of other Google services without one.
And there are plenty of alternatives to Gmail.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, you're making legal/constituional arguments. Certainly an important part of the discussion here.
But it's also important to remember the practical things you can do regardless of what the courts rule.
If the data doesn't exist in the first place, the cops can't get it, warrant or no warrant.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
I've never seen an age-restricted YouTube video. You know it's not Pornhub, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Try to watch Golden Boy. You'll be asked to sign in to prove your age.
Re: (Score:2)
And when the next case all ties back to an IP address of the lone person assigned to the cable modem with a MAC cache history of one address, you will quickly see the alternative method of sourcing evidence without one.
Not that the average citizen could afford to even fart in the general direction of a good defense lawyer, making the weakness of that accusation quite irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Google doesn't need an account, to identify you. They have tentacles everywhere through their ad network. You'd have to never create an account on _any_ website that has a Google affiliation, you know, like Google Analytics.
Re: (Score:2)
are you saying that there are people that don't block google analytics?
Re: (Score:2)
You might not realize that website can and do send data to Google Analytics from both the front end (where you can block it) and from the back end (where you can't).
One example is this C# library for back-end GA reporting.
https://developers.google.com/... [google.com]
Unconstitutional (Score:1)
These kind of searches should be illegal.
There is no way that if you explained this to the writers of the constitution that they wouldn't have said you needed a warrent for each device.
Looking up what cell phones were in an area or who searched what, should require the police to get warrants for each individual device.
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that an overarching search should be illegal, I'd have to say that these should be broken down.
"Looking up what cell phones were in an area" should be one warrant per tower and/or carrier.
"Who searched what" should be a separate warrant for each device.
Re: (Score:2)
one warrant per tower and/or carrier
One warrant per carrier seems reasonable. Judges don't issue search warrants per box or file cabinet when searching a subject's house.
a separate warrant for each device
More like a John Doe warrant. We don't know who (or what) we are looking for. But we are searching for something that meets a set of characteristics (DNA, fingerprints, etc.). In this case the characteristic is the search string and is satisfied by locating the particular device.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't issue search warrants per box or file cabinet, but they do specify a single location and what can be searched at that location. They have to show those people are in possession of something related to a crime. They don't issue warrants to search every house in an area simply because 1 could have evidence of a crime.
Same thing with the search strings, they shouldn't be able to get a warrant that allows them to essentially search everybody's search history. They should be required to get separate w
Re: (Score:2)
Having DNA or fingerprints already directly identifies a specific person.
Not until they compare it to each person in the vicinity. Unless you are suggesting registering everyone's DNA or fingerprints at birth.
Librarians from 50 years ago (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems no different than the police asking the local librarian if anyone checked out the "Arson for Dummies" book 50 years ago after a house suspiciously burns down. And if you think its a privacy violation, then you don't understand how privacy works. Consider using Google to be about as private as interacting with any other business. Plus, there are countless ways to do anonymous queries if you don't want to be trackable. Doing queries for illegal things, while logged into an account, and while at home is begging to be caught. You might as well be stealing credit card info to buy stuff on Amazon and have it shipped to your house.
Re: (Score:3)
In no way have you told us why the police shouldn't be able to ask, if the information is available. The existence of a workaround for criminals (ie, don't check out the book) is in no way an argument for saying authorities shouldn't have the power to see what information is available (given sufficient justification and limitation of scope via a warrant)
You have made no argument here, except for possibly - and surely unintentionally - a decent argument for a publicly funded search engine unencumbered from t
Re: (Score:2)
Did I mention anything about records? I said the police could ask the local librarian whether a certain book had been or currently was checked out. There is always the possibility they they REMEMBER such an interaction. And while librarians generally value privacy, they may still be willing to divulge into to police in a murder or arson situation. Librarians aren't doctors or priests. There is no privilege between them and someone checking out a book.
Also, I find it impossible to believe that every library
Re: (Score:3)
Also, I find it impossible to believe that every library in the US purposely deletes any record of books checked out and ensures there are no backups available to be found immediately once the book is returned.
My library makes you opt out into the history feature on their system. Otherwise your record of check out is removed upon return. Your point about backups and the librarian's memory is valid though. Pretty sure they'd rat you out in a New York Minute if they recalled you checking out Assassination for Dummies the day before a high profile murder went down.
Even if they were inclined not to, Grand Jury subpoena + grant of immunity = no right to refuse to answer questions, unless you wanna try your luck
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine there are plenty of records these days since everything is done with a computer. They would have to actively not keep records.
Not like the old days where, as was mentioned, you had a card that was in the book. Card was stamped and kept with the library. When you return the book, the card goes back into the book. It helped them keep track of what books were checked out. You were also suppose to write your name on the card and the card would get replaced once it filled up.
Specious (Score:2)
I sincerely hope this isn't the only piece of evidence that the prosecution has. I mean, previous convictions of arson, directed hate towards any of the victims that can be proven something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It could be the starting piece of evidence. You find who searched for a specific address. You could cross this with who searched for arson. Then you take the results and find out about their cellphone whereabouts. Phones in the area would then be tracked to who owned the phone. You can then look for banking records on who bought gas in the past X days.
I'd say if you searched an address, searched for arson, phone was in the area (especially at the time of the fire) and you just bought gas, you should kind of
Paranoia is your friend (Score:3)
If you're going to commit a serious crime, be paranoid. Do your online research using DuckDuckGo accessed through a VPN that is outside the USA and keeps no records such as Mullvad. Also use a security oriented browser like Firefox. Maybe add Tor to all that also. Pretty easy really.
It's long been held that writing and saying are equivalent (except for some civil issues like libel and slander) and there's the problem. 14 searches for an address to which you have no connection (owner, renter, live there, your girlfriend lives there, etc.) is going to raise some some eyebrows if that address goes up in flames. It's going to grenerate some questions that you will need to answer if you don't want the police to draw a negative inference. Now, should police have access to your search history? They can use whatever you say to other people, and with a warrant they can access your mail or your email or your phone data or your bank or credit card accounts or vehicle data or CCTV or photo recognition data or travel history (plane, train, ANPR, cell tower data, etc.) so why would search history data be different?
Google is at liberty to sell your search history to anyone. In my mind that makes it semi-public data, and it's not obvious why your search history should be treated any differently from any other form of communication.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a murder committed near me around 5-6 years ago, a woman was killed in a park.
She (had?) worked in a restaurant and had loaned the restaurant owner some money, he denied having been anywhere near that park at that time (no idea if he supplied witnesses to support this).
It turned out that his mobile phone was in the immediate vicinity at the time of the crime.
It turned out that his dna was under her fingernails, the assumption being that she was trying to fight him off.
It turned out that he had som
Re: (Score:2)
Paranoia alone isn't enough to shield you from Google's tentacles. They can identify you with or without an account, and whether you search with Google or not. Heard of Google Analytics? It's everywhere, on just about every website that cares about tracking usage. Google collects a ton of data through Google Analytics.
It's kind of like DNA tests. If you refrain from being tested by one of the big DNA labs for privacy reasons, sorry, it's too late. Somebody related to you *has* been tested, and they can trac
Re: (Score:2)
Screw that kid (Score:2)
This happened just a few miles from my house. This kid and his friends burned an entire family to death over an allegedly stolen iPhone. They had the wrong address despite their use of Google. Lock them up forever.
Necron69