Judge Grants Search Warrant For Everyone Who Searched a Crime Victim's Name On Google (startribune.com) 101
Hennepin County District Judge Gary Larson has issued a search warrant to Edina, Minnesota police to collect information on people who searched for variations of a crime victim's name on Google from Dec. 1 through Jan. 7. Google would be required to provide Edina police with basic contact information for people targeted by the warrant, as well as Social Security numbers, account and payment information, and IP and MAC addresses. StarTribune reports: Information on the warrant first emerged through a blog post by public records researcher Tony Webster. Edina police declined to comment Thursday on the warrant, saying it is part of an ongoing investigation. Detective David Lindman outlined the case in his application for the search warrant: In early January, two account holders with SPIRE Credit Union reported to police that $28,500 had been stolen from a line of credit associated with one of their accounts, according to court documents. Edina investigators learned that the suspect or suspects provided the credit union with the account holder's name, date of birth and Social Security number. In addition, the suspect faxed a forged U.S. passport with a photo of someone who looked like the account holder but wasn't. Investigators ran an image search of the account holder's name on Google and found the photo used on the forged passport. Other search engines did not turn up the photo. According to the warrant application, Lindman said he had reason to believe the suspect used Google to find a picture of the person they believed to be the account holder. Larson signed off on the search warrant on Feb. 1. According to court documents, Lindman served it about 20 minutes later.
First and second reactions (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
So, ANYBODY who may have had access to that information regarding the victim (dr offices, creditors, accountant, family, etc...) could be served with a similar warrant because, Hey, they might have that info too... would NOT seem overly broad to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First and second reactions (Score:5, Informative)
The warrant is specifically for Google, specifically about people who searched within a specific timeframe for the specific details used in a specific crime that happened later. They have shown their work to show that Google was the only likely source for that info used in the crime. There are not likely to be any matching results that are not related to the crime, and those that are can be easily eliminated.
Just how specific do you want them to be?
Re:First and second reactions (Score:5, Insightful)
The warrant is specifically for Google, specifically about people who searched within a specific timeframe for the specific details used in a specific crime that happened later. They have shown their work to show that Google was the only likely source for that info used in the crime. There are not likely to be any matching results that are not related to the crime, and those that are can be easily eliminated.
Are you on crack? They are looking for someone that googled a person's name. There is absolutely zero, zip, nada, no requirement they searched for anything remotely related to any crime. Or that they searched for this particular individual and not just someone sharing their name. And while the police found the image on Google image search, the warrant is for everyone who used Google the search engine. It's likely the identity thief visited all pages about the victim, there's no reason to believe he used the image search directly that's just a red herring. And well over a month is hardly a specific time frame, if he lost his wallet in the morning and was cleaned out by evening I might agree but this just throwing a huge dragnet. But with bootlickers like you I understand why totalitarianism will win.
Re: (Score:2)
So in other words they used information that any intelligent facebook user / developer has access to via clever social engineering or the app itself, OR intercepted windows 10 keylogging ( "telemetry" ) possibly over a wireless connection?
If you play those 'guess your pirate name' games and their variants on Facebook or other social media that asks for seemingly innocuous information like the day of your birth or your mothers maiden name you're a sucker.
Re: (Score:2)
> So in other words they used information that any intelligent facebook user / developer has access to via clever social engineering or the app itself
No, as the article points out, it's not the actual victim's details that are at issue here. It's the fact that the perpetrator used the *wrong* photo, and that the photo they used comes up in a Google search (but not in other search engines). If they had have got the photo through Facebook or social engineering, they likely would have got the right photo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Here's a very simple rule of thumb: If the warrant contains or can be rephrased to contain "anyone who" or "anything which", it is a general search warrant and thus violates the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
those that are can be easily eliminated
How cute that you think the jack-booted thugs will voluntarily give up any opportunity to kick in some doors.
Re: (Score:2)
The warrant is for the specified data, not for people. They cannot go search the homes of everybody who did a google image search for the name, until they get another warrant for the person whose home they wish to search.
Re: (Score:3)
Google might have *some* of that data - possibly even the MAC, if it's an Android device - but even with Google's reach, expecting them to be able to produce that data on a whole bunch of essentially random Google users just based on their searches seem
Re: (Score:2)
or example my employer has given my SSN, name, salary, and medical records to Google in spite of my loud objections.
WTF? Why in the world would they do that, unless you're a Google contractor or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets, great care is taken to ensure that that data cannot be mined or accessed by anyone in Google, except with a specific customer need and with customer authorization -- and all such exceptional accesses are logged and audited. Google has some unique and rather cool infrastructure that ensures that this happens. I wish I could go into detail.
Re: (Score:3)
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets
How cute! Now all you have to do is get people to believe that. I know, I know, "Trust us - we can't tell you why you can trust us, but yeah - we're really trustworthy!"
Re: (Score:2)
Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.
I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets
How cute! Now all you have to do is get people to believe that. I know, I know, "Trust us - we can't tell you why you can trust us, but yeah - we're really trustworthy!"
Yeah. I think if Google were to publish the technical details of how the data is protected, at least many engineers would be convinced (and, actually, impressed). But there's really no way to convince those who find the "big brother" narrative more compelling.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I think if Google were to publish the technical details of how the data is protected, at least many engineers would be convinced (and, actually, impressed). But there's really no way to convince those who find the "big brother" narrative more compelling.
It isn't a big brother narrative, its just data and detective work. I don't see why a person has to be either "the Guvmint is watching you!" or "Nothing to see here folks - move along." Shit's real man.
I'm all over the internet. I just don't care, because I don't put anything private there. Others might. Anything I would need to be kept private, I keep it private. As in physical possession. Precious little of that though.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a big brother narrative, its just data and detective work.
What data and detective work?
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a big brother narrative, its just data and detective work.
What data and detective work?
The data exists. People want the data. The detective work shohuld be obvious.
Yeah, it's secure. I gues all of those leaks are just shit someone made up. And the internet is inherentlly 100 percent secure by it's very design.
But I get it, wink wink. You have convinced me totally, I was wrong, and stand corrected. Once Google has it, wink, wink, it is 100 percent never to be leaked - perfect security has been achieved.
From your lips to God's ear.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a big brother narrative, its just data and detective work.
What data and detective work?
The data exists. People want the data. The detective work shohuld be obvious.
I'm still not sure what you're talking about. You seem to be implying that some data and/or detective work tells you that Google mines Google docs & sheets. But based on my inside knowledge of how the systems work I have an extremely high level of confidence that it's not true, so I'm wondering what data and detective work you're talking about.
Yeah, it's secure. I gues all of those leaks are just shit someone made up. And the internet is inherentlly 100 percent secure by it's very design.
What leaks? I'm not aware of any leaks of user data from Google. Ever. Do you know of some?
But I get it, wink wink. You have convinced me totally, I was wrong, and stand corrected. Once Google has it, wink, wink, it is 100 percent never to be leaked - perfect security has been achieved.
From your lips to God's ear.
Nothing is foolproof, and only a fool would claim it could be. But Goog
Re: (Score:2)
What leaks? I'm not aware of any leaks of user data from Google. Ever. Do you know of some?
Actually, as soon as I hit "submit", I thought of one: Snowden revealed that the NSA was tapping fiber between Google data centers. That is the only one that I'm aware of, though, and I don't really think of it as a "leak" because none of the data made it to the public. And, of course, that particular hole has been sealed (though it's certainly not impossible that the NSA or similarly-capable organizations have inserted other sorts of covert access into Google data systems).
Re: (Score:1)
Google might have *some* of that data - possibly even the MAC, if it's an Android device - but even with Google's reach, expecting them to be able to produce that data on a whole bunch of essentially random Google users just based on their searches seems a bit of a stretch. Am I missing something here, or is it just those involved in writing and granting the warrant badly need to run a few Google searches of their own?
Google is in the business of marketing, and they are among the best at it. If anyone has it (and they do) Google is among the people who do.
Re: (Score:2)
At first I was excited that maybe Gary Larson was creating another comic strip... then I fully parsed the sentence and realized it was just about a county district judge...
Oh well,
Bummer of a birthmark, Hal.
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly does seem unreasonable. I have done searches on people's names before, and quite often I find results for people of that name who are not the same as the one I am looking for. For example, what if I had searched for the judge's name? Am I am criminal looking to defraud him, or am I looking for a cartoon to have a laugh at made by as different person (presumably). A name is simply not a unique identifier.
I can easily imagine that Google will succeed in fighting this warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to me it seems really, really, stupid. Might sound like a good idea without thinking about the numbers but seriously a global warrant for anyone who searched for a specific name and to add even more stupid to that, variants of the name. I sure hope that name was globally unique, not many people have that though, I do and a fully appreciate how rare that is.
So goggle concedes this one, because the reward for a stupid question has always been a stupid answer. Not a unique name and taking into accounts
Re: (Score:1)
At first, I was ready to get mad about an over-broad search. But after reading the facts and background info, the warrant doesn't seem unreasonable.
It's not that the warrant is unjustified, it's that Google has that information.
WTF (Score:2, Interesting)
How does Google have our SS numbers if all we do is search? Is that legal?
Re: (Score:2)
In general, they wouldn't know SSNs. Maybe if someone was logged in while doing the search and earlier associated a SSN with their Google account for some reason. Google probably doesn't have people's MAC addresses either. It seems the police is asking for anything that would help them identify a person no matter how unlikely that Google can actually provide it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does Google have our SS numbers if all we do is search? Is that legal?
Google knows an astonishing amount about you. I chatted with one of their professional racists: the team that determines your race from all the information they have on you from searches, mail, web bugs, and so on. Gotta target them ads.
Want a registry of all Muslims in the US, or perhaps all the Jews? Google has it.
If you dislike this, you can much of these . DuckDuckGo for the win. Outlook.com doesn't suck. Ghostery or other tracking blockers. There's no total escape if you use the internet, but yo
Re: (Score:1)
Outlook.com doesn't suck.
In what sense does it not suck? I get a huge amount of spam from there. They appear to be allowing anonymous relay. It can't possibly be any more secure than Yahoo.com.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how that matters to the usability of its web client. Heck, it's the back-end technical mediocrity of Microsoft that makes me unworried about their own ability to gather demographic information on me and use it for evil.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm more worried more about their apparent inability to secure the system against spying and other types of abuse by 3rd parties.
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully a handful of the names that Google turns over are "DuckDuckGo".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Legally Google should only have SSN's for their own employees, though with the level of spying and data analysis they conduct for their advertising it's possible they can connect the dots and statistically identify an individual including their ID numbers.
The thing is, an SSN is not considered confidential information. It's merely an identifier. The fact that banks and credit companies and lenders have USED it for identification and credit ratings and such is entirely of their own volition. They're not supposed to do that. It's not meant for that purpose. But the barn door was left open long ago.
In fact, there are algorithms that can deduce your SSN with good rate of success just by knowing your DOB and place of birth. So if it's possible to figure
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does Google have our SS numbers if all we do is search? Is that legal?
--
Google might have *some* of that data - possibly even the MAC, if it's an Android device - but even with Google's reach, expecting them to be able to produce that data on a whole bunch of essentially random Google users just based on their searches seems a bit of a stretch. Am I missing something here, or is it just those involved in writing and granting the warrant badly need to run a few Google searches of their own?
--
In general, they wouldn't know SSNs. Maybe if someone was logged in while doing the search and earlier associated a SSN with their Google account for some reason. Google probably doesn't have people's MAC addresses either. It seems the police is asking for anything that would help them identify a person no matter how unlikely that Google can actually provide it.
--
Google has become the most powerful information broker on the planet. Gmail has over a billion users a month. Google scans the contents of each and every email sent and received. -- Are you sure nobody has ever discussed your SSN on that platform?
People lives their lives plugging info into google controlled mobile platforms, which google also scans, including a pretty good voice to text algorithm. --- Are you sure nobody has ever spoken, or otherwise worked with your SSN on that platform?
Google provid
Hah, joke's on them (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Investigators ran an image search of the account holder's name on Google and found the photo used on the forged passport. Other search engines did not turn up the photo.
According to the warrant application, Lindman said he had reason to believe the suspect used Google to find a picture of the person they believed to be the account holder.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, isn't the bank the one who is responsible for credit card fraud?
Banks and bankers are not held responsible for ... anything. Ever. Hell they can crash the world economy and not get punished.
Any reason to think that, or completely made it up (Score:3)
> Uh, isn't the bank the one who is responsible for credit card fraud?
Yes, in most cases the bank loses the money. That doesn't mean the thief isn't prosecuted for the crime. This story is about the police investigation to prosecute the criminal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who loses the money (thank bank). Also, this case isn't about credit card fraud, but similar enough.
> Someone stole $30k from the guy's bank.
Yeah and the cops are trying to put the thief in jail.
> I'm pretty sure th
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?!?! Do you have some *reason* to even suspect that, much less be "pretty sure" of it. ... Did I miss something, or did you completely make that up out of thin air? Did you just imagine something and you're pretty sure it's true because you were able to imagine it, or do you have some reason think that?
Hey, if the POTUS can do it, why can't Dunbal?
Proud of myself (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Proud of myself (Score:3, Funny)
I bet your one ugly mother fucker.
Re: (Score:1)
His ugly mother fucker what? You should finish your sentences.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a really attractive gal. Hmm!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I share a name with a popular TV personality in another country--the spelling even matches. (First name and last each has several common variations.)
Re: (Score:3)
Even better... (Score:2)
I share my name with :
A current well know actor
AND
A famous writer
Good luck finding me in the mass of information you'll be swamped with.
Re: (Score:2)
You sure about that? (Score:2)
For example, I don't and have never had a Facebook account but it's a well known fact they have dark profiles and my wife uploads pictures with me in them to Facebook without my consent as do other family members.
You don't sound like you're living in the woods, off the grid, in a cabin with your gruel and wood burning stove so chances are SOMEONE has a picture of you online SOMEWHERE without your knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, I don't and have never had a Facebook account but it's a well known fact they have dark profiles and my wife uploads pictures with me in them to Facebook without my consent as do other family members.
You don't sound like you're living in the woods, off the grid, in a cabin with your gruel and wood burning stove so chances are SOMEONE has a picture of you online SOMEWHERE without your knowledge.
And outside of people with a legal reason to go to great lengths to avoid any web presence, or some over the top privacy zealots, who would even care?
Just bragging about it on Slashdot makes a person very interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
30+ years of being online and not one picture of me anywhere, either under my pseudonym Dunbal (which I've used since 1986), or my real name.
Looks like you won the internet.
Re: Judge Gary Larson? (Score:1)
Why? The warrant is basically outrageous comedy already...
Re: (Score:2)
When one company has all these details on you, you're bound to get fucked.
You're thinking about Tinder, not Google.
Unite citizens! (Score:2, Funny)
We should all do a Google search for "Hillary Clinton Sex Tape", so when it gets leaked Biden will have plausible deniability.
Re: How would MAC addresses be useful? (Score:1)
Uh, yep. Imagine that you are a huge idiot....
Then put on a black robe.
Ta da!
The murder of Bigus Dickus (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time for a VPN (Score:2)
Uhh (Score:1)
I love this use of the word required.
eg. "You are required to comply."
How could one confirm or deny this claim - it's really flawless and goes hand-in-hand with 'authority' which materialises from nowhere in particular.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh is right.. wtf are you talking about?
Judges and the police are granted their authority by the state (and thus by the people, at least in principle.) That's hardly "materialis[ing] from nowhere in particular."
delegitimization (Score:2)
Once again a member of the judicial oligarchy has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to protect the rights of the people, and that their power must be severely curtailed.
Good luck with that. (Score:2)
Good luck with that.
Google doesn't keep that kind of data.
They aren't going to be able to comply with the warrant, no matter how intrusive this particular judge mistakenly believes they are.
They should ask the NSA instead. The NSA *does* keep this kind of data.