Google is Giving Data To Police Based on Search Keywords, Court Docs Show (cnet.com) 72
There are few things as revealing as a person's search history, and police typically need a warrant on a known suspect to demand that sensitive information. But a recently unsealed court document found that investigators can request such data in reverse order by asking Google to disclose everyone who searched a keyword rather than for information on a known suspect. From a report: In August, police arrested Michael Williams, an associate of singer and accused sex offender R. Kelly, for allegedly setting fire to a witness' car in Florida. Investigators linked Williams to the arson, as well as witness tampering, after sending a search warrant to Google that requested information on "users who had searched the address of the residence close in time to the arson."
The July court filing was unsealed on Tuesday. Detroit News reporter Robert Snell tweeted about the filing after it was unsealed. Court documents showed that Google provided the IP addresses of people who searched for the arson victim's address, which investigators tied to a phone number belonging to Williams. Police then used the phone number records to pinpoint the location of Williams' device near the arson, according to court documents. The original warrant sent to Google is still sealed, but the report provides another example of a growing trend of data requests to the search engine giant in which investigators demand data on a large group of users rather than a specific request on a single suspect. "This 'keyword warrant' evades the Fourth Amendment checks on police surveillance," said Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. "When a court authorizes a data dump of every person who searched for a specific term or address, it's likely unconstitutional."
The July court filing was unsealed on Tuesday. Detroit News reporter Robert Snell tweeted about the filing after it was unsealed. Court documents showed that Google provided the IP addresses of people who searched for the arson victim's address, which investigators tied to a phone number belonging to Williams. Police then used the phone number records to pinpoint the location of Williams' device near the arson, according to court documents. The original warrant sent to Google is still sealed, but the report provides another example of a growing trend of data requests to the search engine giant in which investigators demand data on a large group of users rather than a specific request on a single suspect. "This 'keyword warrant' evades the Fourth Amendment checks on police surveillance," said Albert Fox Cahn, the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project. "When a court authorizes a data dump of every person who searched for a specific term or address, it's likely unconstitutional."
And nobody with a clue is surprised (Score:1)
Of course Google will do that. They already have this data and much more on their users. And Google is not one to defend privacy against other either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The creation of mass surveillance databases needs to be bluntly illegal, or we will forever be fighting, and losing, to their abusers.
Furthermore, this was a pure fishing expedition which didn't particularly describe the persons they were seeking.
Re: (Score:2)
The creation of mass surveillance databases needs to be bluntly illegal, or we will forever be fighting, and losing, to their abusers.
Furthermore, this was a pure fishing expedition which didn't particularly describe the persons they were seeking.
Welcome to the new fascism. Last time they tried to take the world fast. That failed. Now basically the same people try to creep in under that radar and that seems to work nicely.
Re: (Score:1)
The creation of mass surveillance databases needs to be bluntly illegal, or we will forever be fighting, and losing, to their abusers.
Easiest way to combat mass surveillance databases is to not feed them.
Of course, that's about as easy as telling a stupid person to stop being stupid. It's kind of in people's nature to defend their abusers now. Psychologists would refer to that as addiction.
Furthermore, this was a pure fishing expedition which didn't particularly describe the persons they were seeking.
Well, the government isn't violating your Constitutional rights. No, they're merely outsourcing those illegal actions, so nothing to see here.
And besides, even if there was something to see here (like blatant FISA court abuses), exactly what the fu
Almost there. (Score:3)
The more garbage data one has to process, the less feasible it becomes, resulting in a lack of confidence from bureaucrats, which ultimately results in nation states reverting back to targeted surveillance methods.
For example, it would be a good idea for everyone to run a Tor exit node and let others pseudora
Re: (Score:2)
For example, it would be a good idea for everyone to run a Tor exit node
You go first. I'm all for contaminating as much metadata as possible, but not to the point of self flagellation.
Re:And nobody with a clue is surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Will do what? Comply with a warrant? Uh, yeah. So will you if you want to remain unincarcerated.
Re: (Score:2)
You can fight a warrant. Or you can just quietly comply. Google does the second.
Re: (Score:2)
Google probably gets enough warrants that the cost of fighting them would be prohibitive. Google DOES fight SOME search warrants [arstechnica.com], though.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"after sending a search warrant to Google" (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI, the fine summary says "after sending a search warrant to Google ...".
So yeah,they got a warrant. It would be interesting to see the details of the warrant application and the warrant actually issued.
The Dept of Justice and ABA standards say that the degree and the probability that the evidence would aid the investigation should be balanced against how private that class of information is. That is, suppose CCTV shows that a murderer was wearing a bright purple shirt during the murder. A third party has a record of what color shirt the victim's ex-husband was wearing that day. The information should be sought and approved because "what color shirt did you wear on Monday" isn't significant breach of privacy, and it would definitely provide evidence very helpful to the investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
What crime are you going to charge them with?
Re: (Score:2)
What's your address? I'll stop by on Saturday. The cops and I will share a coffee while we laugh at the Internet "tough guy" who's too afraid to even post a fake user name.
Re: (Score:2)
The government you trust today might be totally different in 10 years and the laws they enforce you might not readily agree with. Imagine those insurgents get into power in your state. Do you want them sending warrants to Google asking who searched for dirt on Antifa? Or better yet, you travel to Portland. Do you want the people in charge of Portland right now to have the power to fish your Google searches as you drive through town?
Re: (Score:2)
In August, police arrested Michael Williams, an associate of singer and accused sex offender R. Kelly, for allegedly setting fire to a witness' car in Florida. Investigators linked Williams to the arson, as well as witness tampering, after sending a search warrant to Google that requested information on "users who had searched the address of the residence close in time to the arson."
Good.
Re: (Score:2)
In August, police arrested Michael Williams, an associate of singer and accused sex offender R. Kelly, for allegedly setting fire to a witness' car in Florida. Investigators linked Williams to the arson, as well as witness tampering, after sending a search warrant to Google that requested information on "users who had searched the address of the residence close in time to the arson."
Good.
You have no clue what you are talking about. Do you think they deleted the data of anybody else found? Or do you believe they will continue to do this with a query this specific? Then you are a fool.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Duly noted Random Internet Guy,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
American courts have already ruled that third party information (stuff you give to someone else) has no privacy protection. So yes, the police can just ask for that info. Given that Google isn't fighting I assume they get paid too.
Well, to be fair the US has no domestic experience with full blown fascism and how it creeps in. Or the courts would rule very differently.
Good luck defending against false positives (Score:4, Interesting)
Often when social media is blowing up over a controversial issue such as ch**d p**n or trafficking or murder conspiracies or whatever, I'll get on Google® and search for details in order to understand the situation better.
Never again. If I do searches on keywords that could get me a visit from the feds, it will be an anonymized search from a public location.
Re:Good luck defending against false positives (Score:5, Funny)
If I do searches on keywords that could get me a visit from the feds, it will be an anonymized search from a public location.
Eh, just do it on the neighbor's public WiFi. That way you'll find out quickly if the cops think you're the one who did it!
Re:Good luck defending against false positives (Score:5, Informative)
It is worse than that. Sarcasm and Hyperbolic speech, is no longer considered safe use of speech, because there will be some idiot out there saying such things seriously, or others hearing you will take it seriously. This was a problem post 9/11 where Airline passengers joked about bombs in an attempt to mildly protest the increase security.
Our internet searches are basically a bunch of stuff that may spark our interest at the time. If a friend of mine decides he wants to go hunting. I may want to see the prices of Guns and what to use, if I would to decide to join him or not. Now if there is a murder in my area, I am now a suspect even if I didn't buy a gun. Just because I may have hit a mass search result.
We also have dark sides to us, that we sometimes would like to indulge in. This doesn't mean we will act on it, except for an off fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. I already posted above and have mod points.
I'll still search for things like thermite, home-brew stills, and rocket fuels though, just because they're interesting topics.
Re: (Score:2)
I think another lesson here is, if you're going to be doing a crime, don't enter the details into some private company's web service
Should search tters be admissible? (Score:5, Interesting)
There are a lot of reasons someone might search for a particular phrase, and I could see a jury being biased based on those terms.
Someone might search for "how to manufacture sarin" because they are thinking of committing a nerve gas attack, or simply because they are in a discussion with people about how easy it would be for a terrorist group to fabricate a nerve agent. The search is harmless, but when combined with an accusation of committing a terrorist act, it can look extremely suspicious.
Similarly I recently did a bunch of searches about the accuracy of rifles at long range. Harmless as is, but if a govt official were shot in a sniper-like attack in my area, that would show up. If I had also made political posts complaining about that official, I could find myself on the suspect list.
Re: (Score:2)
False positives. False negatives.
Some false positives may occur. But as long as police do their jobs and continue to build a case, most if not all will be thrown out before a suspect is identified. Needless to say, your (hypothetical) statements would also put you on a 'motive' list.
False negative. The cops would have to be nuts to look for people Googling for long range sniper equipment and techniques. Part of the 'means' test would have to involve doing months of practice at the target range to acquire
Is this close to "Parallel Construction"? (Score:5, Insightful)
The way that the OP and the linked article describe this, what the police did in this case was essentially go on a fishing expedition. They guessed - without direct knowledge - that the perpetrator of the arson attack on the car had used Google to search for an address - and then used the results provided by Google to match up with their suspect.
This is a particularly interesting case because it seems to paint this practice in a flattering light: "tech-savvy police detective cracks case with the help of Google!"
The real challenge comes when you think about this as a form of "dragnet-based" policing. In a court room - and technically in the eyes of the law at all times - individuals are "innocent until proven guilty". But when the police are granted permission to perform dragnet searches of this nature, they are in essence treating a potentially significant part of the population as suspects.
In legal terms this is very similar to the use of IMSI Capture Devices (Stingrays) by Law Enforcement: although the agency deploying a Stingray might have one or two specific suspects in mind, the dragnet nature of the technology means that anyone with a smartphone in range of the Stingray will be caught up in the dragnet.
Although, sadly, this might not get much news coverage, this is the sort of case that needs to have a much more public debate about it. Without public visibility, scrutiny and approval, this sort of practice can quickly become a "de-facto" operational technique. It may well be that in 99% of cases it's efficient and harmless. It may well be that when it identifies an individual, it does so with 100% accuracy.
But we don't know that. What we do know is that it most definitely moves the needle on the "innocent until proven guilty" gauge. And not in the right direction.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not certain it really is. It could be a legitimate tool in whittling down a pool of suspects. As long as they honestly represent it as such in court.
They have to demonstrate means, motive and opportunity. 'Means' includes (but is not limited to) finding people searching for the scene of the subsequent crime. Sure, they will get a lot of false positives. But that's OK as long as they continue on with the motive and opportunity parts.
According to TFS, investigators obtained a search warrant. So Google i
Re: (Score:2)
No, they have to particularly describe the persons.
Fishing is unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Fishing is unconstitutional.
Well then I suggest you find the judge that signed that warrant and straighten him out on the legal subtleties involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone with standing should. He should be disbarred and charged.
Re: (Score:2)
In legal terms this is very similar to the use of IMSI Capture Devices (Stingrays) by Law Enforcement: although the agency deploying a Stingray might have one or two specific suspects in mind, the dragnet nature of the technology means that anyone with a smartphone in range of the Stingray will be caught up in the dragnet.
A Stingray would be used to build an initial suspect list. Not so much when they have one or two suspects in mind. They also use things like ANPRs [wikipedia.org] near certain areas of interest.
Two anecdotes:
#1: I have been known to frequent a few strip clubs. One time, I remarked to one of the dancers "There seems to be quite a few people sitting at tables fiddling with their phones instead of watching the stage show.
"Yeah. They are making drug connections."
In fact, one of the primary targets of Seattle vice is the dr
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI is tasked with investigating possible threats against high value targets. People with sensitive security clearances. I asked an agent if that box at the end of the street contained their camera. "It's a plate reader. We build a list of people who cruise the neighborhood for no apparent reason." Most of the entries will amount to nothing. But I suspect that a few people might lose out on certain jobs or rental background checks if their name comes up in an active investigation list.
What kind of corporate job, much less rental background check, has access to query any databases of "active investigation lists"?
I went through the full process for a security clearance, and, probably half my neighbors have "sensitive security clearances", and we didn't get a box at the end of our street, and the official clearance investigator didn't go around asking every law enforcement organization in the state about active investigation lists.
And rental background checks? Even more cursory.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering I've worked with the people that receive the types of requests you talk about, I'm inclined to say you've read too much wikipedia.
A regular warrant sounds something much more akin to, "give me footage of all cameras pointed at the road (where the body was found) on Tuesday night between the hours of x to y". I imagine the warrant issued in this case was probably narrow in scope and constructed in a manner similar to that.
Consider that the companies that receive these warrants tend to hire former
Well, "Do No Evil" was a bit wordy... (Score:4, Insightful)
So they dropped a word. It's nicely pithy, now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Note that the courts are approving subpoenas by police to do this, Google isn't showing up and handing out data arbitrarily.
And? At least Apple puts forth some effort to tell courts to kindly fuck off every now and then when it comes to abuses of privacy.
Oh, and how exactly do you know for certain Google hasn't turned this into a nice profitable law-enforcement "enhancement service"? What, you think whoring out THIS data for profit is somehow above them, but the rest of your digital soul is for sale all day? Give me a break. We'll probably find out soon that Google themselves taught a Mass Surveillance for Dummies class to l
Re: (Score:2)
At least Apple puts forth some effort to tell courts to kindly fuck off every now and then when it comes to abuses of privacy.
Only because it would cost more and be harder to maintain a back door to their phone. Encryption is still not an option for your iCloud data, and they hand that over all the time.
Re: (Score:1)
Encryption is still not an option for your iCloud data, and they hand that over all the time.
So, I can't encrypt files myself and put them in iCloud?
(If default settings were meant to be the only settings in life, your TV would come with a single channel, and there would be one ringtone for the planet.)
Re: (Score:2)
A responsible company with Google's means would seek to quash the subpoenas for the information. It's not as if there aren't perfectly accessible mechanisms to avoid this sort of thing, and once the practice has been shot down a few times in any given area prosecutors will be risking abuse of process suits if they keep it up.
Google this! (Score:3)
https://googlethatforyou.com?q=ACAB [googlethatforyou.com]
Just a sec. There's someone pounding on my front door ....
I Almost Forgot Fellow Babies, (Score:2)
DuckDuckGo anyone? (Score:2)
While I am reluctant to place too many constraints on law enforcement if they are willing to sift thru the data, shouldn't this be one more reason to use a search engine like DuckDuckGo?
The tools to create at least a little privacy are widely available. Ultimately, you can't fully hide, but, if the tools are there and you choose not to use them, you shoulder some of the responsibility for your data.
OTOH, we need clearer and more comprehensive laws protecting our legitimate privacy concerns. I wonder if that
Re: (Score:2)
I'm using DuckDuckGo about 85 - 90% of the time now. For the most part, it is fine. However, when I'm not finding the results I think I should be finding, I do revert to google. For instance, I was just looking for an odd fact about Bruce Lee that I learned from a book I have about him. It did not turn up at all on DuckDuckGo even though I went quite a ways down. Swapped to google and found it instantly. It wasn't even in the top links, they had a special box at the top of the results that just told me what
Re: (Score:3)
I tried DuckDuckGo for 90 days -- the overall quality of results is poor. Someone advised me to use Qwant instead -- I trialed it against DuckDuckGo (browser 1), Google (browser 2), Qwant (browser 3). Qwant's results are much better than DuckDuckGo, and a lot less ad-influenced than Google. Qwant is based in France (different data handling rules).
Having tried all of these, I've decided to switch to Qwant full time. Better balance of effectiveness and privacy than DuckDuckGo has shown.
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Google ad company (Score:2)
Don't use Google products! (Score:2, Troll)
Plan your crimes better (Score:2)
I have no sympathy for someone this blatantly stupid. If you're going to do anything illegal, then plan like the cops are following you the whole time. Googling the women's home address 10 mins before doing something as EXTREMELY high profile as setting fire to a car demonstrates the kind of intelligence that I honestly want removed from the genepool. Heck, carrying your personal tracking device while committing a crime in and of itself should be grounds for neutering. Go to a bar. Have a drink. Leave your
Re: (Score:3)
By and large people don't become criminals because they're smart or ambitious, they become criminals because they're lazy and stupid. The only reason why crime is still a viable career choice is because cops aren't much smarter or any more ambitious.
Get a VPN people! (Score:2)
Now!
Advance planning is key! (Score:2)
From a report: In August, police arrested Michael Williams, an associate of singer and accused sex offender R. Kelly, for allegedly setting fire to a witness' car in Florida. Investigators linked Williams to the arson, as well as witness tampering, after sending a search warrant to Google that requested information on "users who had searched the address of the residence close in time to the arson."
If they had googled the address a few days earlier, the arsonist likely could have avoided detection, but googling the address shortly before committing the crime, AND leaving your cellphone (tracking device) on while you commit the crime is just bad form.
Seems silly to object (Score:2)
How is this different than the police checking surveillance tapes from the business across the road, then looking up registration plates of cars loitering? Is that unconstitutional too? Or are words (keyword searches) inherently more specially protected than pictures?
I support the right of free expression, but denying police access to data to solve a real crime opposes common sense.
Time to dump the evil google (Score:1)
I'm usually completely against this sort of thing. (Score:2)
But I'm not sure I agree here. How is this any different than tracing an uncommon explosive to see who purchased it?
I mean police should still need a warrant to COMPEL google to turn over this information but I don't know that I see an ethical problem with choosing to cooperate with legitimate investigations asking for searches on specific numbers. I do have an issue with Google retaining this information beyond what is technically required for the service to function though. That should be illegal.
Google will never be broken up (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"accused sex offender" (Score:2)
Just know that in most countries, that is for a judge to decide, and adding "accused", let alone decades later, does not get you out of it being slander and being illegal.
Os he a sex offender or not?
If he is, you can drop the "accused".
If he is not, then you can stop breeding a culture where everybody can accuse you of everything and it sticking to yoir for your entire life, proven or nor, thank yoi very much.
If you do not comply, I am sure I can find somebody to accuse you of raping babies and eating them
Re: "accused sex offender" (Score:2)
Damn the lag of that touch screen keyboard is a nightmare. I am very sorry.
Re: (Score:1)
Those farking bastages... (Score:1)