Police Tactic of Sweeping Google Searches To Find Suspects Faces First Legal Challenge (nbcnews.com) 149
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: A teen charged with setting a fire that killed five members of a Senegalese immigrant family in Denver, Colorado, has become the first person to challenge police use of Google search histories to find someone who might have committed a crime, according to his lawyers. In documents filed Thursday in Denver District Court, lawyers for the 17-year-old argue that the police violated the Constitution when they got a judge to order Google to check its vast database of internet searches for users who typed in the address of a home before it was set ablaze on Aug. 5, 2020. Three adults and two children died in the fire.
That search of Google's records helped point investigators to the teen and two friends, who were eventually charged in the deadly fire, according to police records. All were juveniles at the time of their arrests. Two of them, including the 17-year-old, are being tried as adults; they both pleaded not guilty. The defendant in juvenile court has not yet entered a plea. The 17-year-old's lawyers say the search, and all evidence that came from it, should be thrown out because it amounted to a blind expedition through billions of Google users' queries based on a hunch that the killer typed the address into a search bar. That, the lawyers argued, violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. "People have a privacy interest in their internet search history, which is really an archive of your personal expression," said Michael Price, who is lead litigator of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' Fourth Amendment Center and one of the 17-year-old's attorneys. "Search engines like Google are a gateway to a vast trove of information online and the way most people find what they're looking for. Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy."
Price said that allowing the government to sift through Google's vast trove of searches is akin to allowing the government access to users' "thoughts, concerns, questions, fears." He added: "Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy," Price said. "'Psychiatrists in Denver.' 'Abortion providers near me.' 'Does God exist.' Every day, people pose those questions to Google seeking information."
That search of Google's records helped point investigators to the teen and two friends, who were eventually charged in the deadly fire, according to police records. All were juveniles at the time of their arrests. Two of them, including the 17-year-old, are being tried as adults; they both pleaded not guilty. The defendant in juvenile court has not yet entered a plea. The 17-year-old's lawyers say the search, and all evidence that came from it, should be thrown out because it amounted to a blind expedition through billions of Google users' queries based on a hunch that the killer typed the address into a search bar. That, the lawyers argued, violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. "People have a privacy interest in their internet search history, which is really an archive of your personal expression," said Michael Price, who is lead litigator of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers' Fourth Amendment Center and one of the 17-year-old's attorneys. "Search engines like Google are a gateway to a vast trove of information online and the way most people find what they're looking for. Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy."
Price said that allowing the government to sift through Google's vast trove of searches is akin to allowing the government access to users' "thoughts, concerns, questions, fears." He added: "Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy," Price said. "'Psychiatrists in Denver.' 'Abortion providers near me.' 'Does God exist.' Every day, people pose those questions to Google seeking information."
Indeed (Score:5, Interesting)
"He added: "Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy," Price said. "'Psychiatrists in Denver.' 'Abortion providers near me.' 'Does God exist.' Every day, people pose those questions to Google seeking information."
Yes, the right of the people to ask for meaningful things in their life should remain private.
Where does (murder victim) live?
Where does (murder victim) work?
Which acid and how to use to solve a human body?
Which cleaning spray destroys human DNA completely?
How to make Thermite to completely destroy the murder weapon?
Re: (Score:3)
I expect that at least your three last questions can be answered by GPT-3 and its likes. Don't know how close we are to being able to run private instances of such with prepopulated models?
Re:thermite (Score:2)
How to make Thermite to completely destroy the murder weapon?
That's a simple one: light it.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Informative)
"He added: "Every one of those queries reveals something deeply private about a person, things they might not share with friends, family or clergy," Price said. "'Psychiatrists in Denver.' 'Abortion providers near me.' 'Does God exist.' Every day, people pose those questions to Google seeking information."
Yes, the right of the people to ask for meaningful things in their life should remain private.
Where does (murder victim) live?
Where does (murder victim) work?
Which acid and how to use to solve a human body?
Which cleaning spray destroys human DNA completely?
How to make Thermite to completely destroy the murder weapon?
Reading comprehension fail?
Price said that allowing the government to sift through Google's vast trove of searches is akin to allowing the government access to users' "thoughts, concerns, questions, fears."
Google didn't allow "The Government to sift through" anything.
Just a few lines further up it says: " they got a judge to order Google to check its vast database of internet searches for users who typed in the address of a home before it was set ablaze"
Re: (Score:2)
You're right but you missed the point. The Government didn't sift through Google's vast trove of searches. They made Google do it for them, thereby making Google essentially an extension of the Government for the duration of the search.
By that logic the government is running anything anyway so this is no exception, not newsworthy.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the right of the people to ask for meaningful things in their life should remain private.
Where does (murder victim) live?
Where does (murder victim) work?
Which acid and how to use to solve a human body?
Which cleaning spray destroys human DNA completely?
How to make Thermite to completely destroy the murder weapon?
The difference is in asking "Show me everyone who asked something similar to these questions" vs "Did [suspect] ask any of these questions". One is trawling for a list of potential suspects, and the other is investigating an existing suspect. A judge should not grant a warrant for the first, but should grant a warrant for the second.
The problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
a judge to order Google to check its vast database of internet searches for users who typed in the address of a home before it was set ablaze on Aug. 5, 2020.
This is a very narrow and specific search request. I see no issue in this instance. I'm not saying unfettered access for police is OK, I'm saying this very narrow warrant seems perfectly legit.
Re: (Score:2)
>"This is a very narrow and specific search request. I see no issue in this instance. I'm not saying unfettered access for police is OK, I'm saying this very narrow warrant seems perfectly legit."
I tend to agree with you. If it is done with a warrant, and is very specific, then that is the due process needed. I think what scares us all is that it could be a slippery slope on what is "specific" when seeking a warrant. And making sure that these warrants are actually a process with a judge really lookin
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a very narrow and specific search request.
Only for very broad definitions of "narrow". This is still a very broad warrant. A narrow warrant would be to ask if a specific person typed in the address within a reasonable time frame, perhaps a day or two prior to the fire. What they got instead was a dragnet that could have very easily implicated people who had absolutely nothing to do with the fire.
Re: (Score:3)
A narrow warrant would be to ask if a specific person typed in the address within a reasonable time frame,
Only if they were looking to confirm a suspect. By comparison, you're saying a narrow warrant for CCTV footage from a specific camera would only confirm if a specific person was on it rather than who was on it. Asking for CCTV footage for the day in question isn't broad. You're being silly.
Re:The problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So everyone who did a Google search on that address was "near or in contact with the victims or around the scene of the crime"?
No, this is more like knowing that the suspect had black hour and brown eyes, and questioning everyone in the city who has black hair and brown eyes.
Re: (Score:3)
So everyone who did a Google search on that address was "near or in contact with the victims or around the scene of the crime"?
If they did it a few days prior to an arson attack? Very clearly: "yes!"
Re: (Score:2)
No, this is more like knowing that the suspect had black hour and brown eyes, and questioning everyone in the city who has black hair and brown eyes.
Nope.
I'd be willing to bet everything I own that the list returned by google was very, very short indeed.
(probably just a single result).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We can add more traits to narrow down the list of suspects until you're satisfied, but at some point we have to ask how much of that kind of fishing and violation of our privacy is acceptable for nothing more than circumstantial evidence.
It's a question Google ought to ask themselves, too.
Re: (Score:2)
You must first have probable cause. You cannot use a Google search to establish probable cause.
Re: (Score:2)
You must first have probable cause. You cannot use a Google search to establish probable cause.
You've got that completely ass-backwards.
a) They need probable cause to search an individual.
b) They don't need probable cause to ask around a crime scene for anybody who saw anything.
Guess which one of those options this information request was?
Re: (Score:2)
While all of that is true, the problem here isn't that the police can get a warrant to see who they should interrogate. The problem is that police interrogation is corrupt. But you don't eliminate warrants, you eliminate the police's ability to conduct interrogations which should be illegal. To wit, you start by making it illegal for them to interrogate you without your lawyer present, and all which that entails (i.e. making sure you're appointed an effective one, if you do not already have one on retainer.
Re: (Score:3)
>"While all of that is true, the problem here isn't that the police can get a warrant to see who they should interrogate." "But you don't eliminate warrants, you eliminate the police's ability to conduct interrogations which should be illegal."
Correct, as long as what they are getting a warrant for is reasonable and actually looked/approved by a judge.
>"The problem is that police interrogation is corrupt."
I wouldn't go that far. Most police want to find the guilty and also do not want to implicate th
Re: (Score:2)
They have to tell you that if they arrest you (Miranda requirements).
Not any more [cnn.com]. The Catholic Court is in full effect. Next stop, Star Chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
>Not any more [cnn.com]. The Catholic Court is in full effect. Next stop, Star Chamber."
Well, that is not really correct. They limited the ability to sue civilly. A court can and will throw out statements collected after arrest but before being Mirandized. The Supreme court said that the Miranda procedure is just that, a procedure, not a "Constitutional Right" because it isn't in the Constitution. The legislature, however, can extend the ability to sue, if they so choose.
Re: (Score:2)
A court can and will throw out statements collected after arrest but before being Mirandized.
You hope, but you cannot count on that. And if they don't, now there is less recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You hope, but you cannot count on that."
Well, one would hope so. It would be valid grounds for an appeal, for sure.
>"And if they don't, now there is less recourse."
Well, a civil suit isn't going to change that much. But I get that it can give some satisfaction. I would support laws to enable suing, seems you would as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yours also said nothing as an argument for anything except ignorant people who don't understand the justice system.
Ignorance of law and how it works isnt a reason to ignore crime.
(And why is GP modded "troll"? It's good discussion material. Dear mods, moderation is not about whether you agree with the message.)
Moderation is about pushing information that is useful to the top. Yours isnt. The GP's post isnt.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no opening a precendent to anything other than normal search requests for SPECIFIC information. This was narrow as it should be.
If you are worried about your searches, then maybe you should reflect on what the fuck you are searching.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A judge can issue a search warrant that is limited in location and describes the things being searched for. This is supposed to be done after a suspect is identified in order to gather evidence for or against that suspect.
We're talking instead about a blanket search of the information for anyone who uses Google, in order to identify a suspect in the first place. This is totally outside the scope of a usual search warrant.
Even the NSA denied before Congress that they were using "dragnet" techniques like this
Re: (Score:3)
This is supposed to be done after a suspect is identified in order to gather evidence for or against that suspect.
Where is it stated that you need a suspect to get a warrant to search a place?
Re: (Score:2)
>"Where is it stated that you need a suspect to get a warrant to search a place?"
They can search the crime scene. They can search public areas. They can question anyone they like. With permission from the individual, they can search that person's private stuff too. What they can't do is search individuals or private stuff/places without permission without a warrant, although there is an exception if the crime is currently taking place and there is clear probable cause.
That is my understanding as a no
Re: (Score:3)
So where do you draw the line on what is "narrow" or "specific" enough? Can you codify your opinion in a way that's unambiguous?
Even if you can, it's opening up a precedent that can be pushed.At some point you'll end up with either unfettered access or disallowing this use of law enforcement power completely. There are no half-measures.
How is it different than police asking locals for any CCTV footage from cameras near a crime scene?
Re: (Score:2)
That search is by nature limited in place and scope. You're not getting the content of people's conversations or thoughts, just a record of their physical presence in a very limited area.
So ... just like this information request then.
Re: (Score:2)
So where do you draw the line on what is "narrow" or "specific" enough? Can you codify your opinion in a way that's unambiguous? Even if you can, it's opening up a precedent that can be pushed.
I'll set a precedent for you quite happily right now: Courts decide when issuing a warrant. There done. Oh wait that precedent has existed for 100 years and is how the legal system already works.
Warrants for information from 3rd parties are perfectly legit, always have been providing they information sought is related to the case and the warrant is specific enough as decided by the courts. There's no slippery slope here.
May I recommend you chose carefully who you share your private information with? There a
Re: (Score:2)
Note the lack of instances.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I don't get the hate for Liz.
Whatever she may have done in her youth, I haven't heard a single word from her that I disagree with when it comes to her politics.
Re: (Score:3)
I soured on her pretty much immediately when she jumped on the nerds-get-out hate train that says because I make my living working with computers I'm everything that's wrong with San Francisco, California, and the country. But slashdot in general certainly has taken a self-loathing luddite turn this last half-decade or so; so YMMV.
Not really a Constitutional issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And I absolutely hope this will eventually lead to "No Google, you can not store this information. At all. No. Not even with agreement. You can't store this information. At all. No."
Fat chance of that, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate data is covered by the EULA you "agree" to when you sign up or use their service and click the agree button, not the Constitution. Google owns this data, and has every right to provide the government with it, with or without a warrant. If you want this to change, privacy laws need to be implemented.
Google doesn't provide data without a warrant. Google would really like it if courts decided that these sorts of warrants are invalid. Responding to government data requests is expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate data is covered by the EULA you "agree" to when you sign up or use their service and click the agree button, not the Constitution. Google owns this data, and has every right to provide the government with it, with or without a warrant. If you want this to change, privacy laws need to be implemented.
Google doesn't provide data without a warrant.
And that's their choice. Like I said, as it stands now, that data belongs to Google, and they're free to provide it with or without a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the assertion was supposed to be that if the police pay you for evidence, then the rules of evidence apply to you as well, and you cannot have done anything the cops could not have legally done for the evidence is inadmissible. I don't know if that's true, though that's certainly how it should work, since if you're getting paid you're effectively an agent of the police.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think true, when most in the US got stimulus checks, did we all become public actors? Nearly every company gets government money from somewhere, from buying supplies (practically any big box store) to utilities (juice and heat for buildings) to real estate leases, to hardware and software. Google was served with a subpoena, and they complied. As you say, the liability rests with the courts and police.
Of course not, nor are all the government retirees, veterans receiving benefits, military retirees or those receiving Social Security benefits public actors just because they receive government money. Even though most of those people are previous government employees, none of those payments are actual paychecks for employment. The government is bound by the Constitution, corporations are not, regardless of the government monies they receive. I do believe though, that because the internet is pretty much t
Re: (Score:2)
I do believe though, that because the internet is pretty much taking over and providing the service the broadcast industry provided in the past (and more), though, that they should be regulated in a similar fashion to the broadcast industry
So the FCC should have a say on what is allowed on the internet like they do for TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Once google starts accepting money from the government they become a public actor, and are subject to the same rules.
You think the government pays for these requests? Ha! A judge signs a warrant and Google must comply or be found in contempt of court and fined or whatever the judge decides. If Google doesn't want to comply, they have to pay lawyers to go to court and argue that they shouldn't have to, because the request is too broad, or because the cost of complying is unreasonably high, or something, but since they would start with the judge who issued the warrant, they're almost certainly going to lose... and then hav
Re: (Score:2)
Once google starts accepting money from the government they become a public actor, and are subject to the same rules.
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you are public or private. Information is discoverable via warrants in either case and have been for centuries.
But even if it were relevant it's also completely and utterly wrong with no legal basis. Accepting money from a public institution doesn't make you any less a private one.
Re: (Score:2)
Google can sell data all day to the government and not be an "agent of the government"
That's probably true, but the government doesn't pay companies to respond to warrant requests. They get served and they have to comply (at their own expense) or be in contempt.
They'll Lose (Score:5, Insightful)
Rightly or wrongly, in the US you have no privacy rights in data voluntarily given to a third party, at least under current federal law. I don't see Congress changing that and it's damn sure that the current SCOTUS won't change that.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't use the 4th when you spray paint your murder plans on someone's wall either.
Don't ask Clarence Thomas (Score:3)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi... [nbcnews.com]
“As I have previously explained, ‘substantive due process’ is an oxymoron that ‘lack[s] any basis in the Constitution,’” he wrote. He later called it a “legal fiction” that is “particularly dangerous.”
Substantive due process is a term in constitutional law that essentially allows courts to protect certain rights, even if those rights are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. It has been interpreted in many
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
His view boils down to unless the constitution explicitly states something it doesn't exist. So things like contraception or gay marriage will be going bye bye, or sent back to the states to decide. So yeah your marriage that is recognized in Georgia won't be recognized in Mississippi.
Since the constitution doesn't mention interracial marriage he seems strangely silent on overturning that decision....
He's literally a real life Uncle Ruckus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think that view is fairly logical, even though Thomas is inconsistent on it. If it's not in the constitution, it's too easy to argue about whether or not it exists. We need a privacy amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Isn't this how the Revolution began? That we have unalienable rights that come from Creator not Government. That not all rights are specified and do not need to be specified but are supposed to be self-evident.
Thomas' rulings or viewpoint are unjustifiable.
Forget about going after Trump
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rightly or wrongly, in the US you have no privacy rights in data voluntarily given to a third party, at least under current federal law.
That's irrelevant.
The question here is whether or not the government can legally compel Google to provide information in response to a warrant (or subpoena, or national security letter), and of course they can... but only within certain bounds that have been established by centuries of court cases. The case at hand is essentially to decide how those precedents and the arguments and constitutional basis that underpins them apply to this new techology.
How was this tested? (Score:2)
This is of course in addition to the question of whether catching criminals is worth the privacy violation. I don't think its worth it even if the technique is effective, but I also doubt this type of search actually helps much
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, this seems a pretty fucking specific search to me.
I can't say I've ever googled the address of those people, have you?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, this seems a pretty fucking specific search to me.
Hardly. There have been broader warrants, but this, in my opinion, was not narrow enough.
I can't say I've ever googled the address of those people, have you?
Have you ever been to a grocery store? What if this fire was set at a Walmart on a day you went shopping, and a "narrow" search for "everyone at Walmart" ends up with the police at your door accusing you of setting the fire (they may do that even if they know full well that you weren't involved, because why waste an opportunity)? What if, while unwisely talking to the police, you accidentally implicate yourself in somet
Re: (Score:2)
It would be a lot easier to explain searching a Walmart address rather than the home of a private house shortly before it burned down killing the family inside.
Re: (Score:2)
A hysterical hyperbolic deserves ridicule, not deep assessment. Especially the bolded part.
Google ok, but not police? (Score:3)
This implies that it's not ok for police to access the data, but it is ok for Google to do what they want with it as a private company. I don't know what's worse.
Re: Google ok, but not police? (Score:2)
Google can't detain you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google can't detain you.
Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All Google wants to do is make money; either by selling stuff or services to you or by advertising at you so other companies can try to sell their stuff or services. They can't arrest you. They can't prosecute you. They can't even detain you, much less imprison you. They can't seize your assets. They can't shoot you or curse your neck until you die. And if they try any of that, they won't get away with it. The police? Not so much.
They had a warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a problem with the warrant granting process (and I believe that there is) then we should address it. But the cops got a warrant, information was only delivered pursuant to the warrant, and the search information was almost certainly not the only criteria used in making arrests. If there's problems with who was charged, we should address those problems too, but this still seems like reasonable use of a search warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They had a warrant (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact it does not. If they have the wrong people and know it, then they are failing in a way that's unrelated to whether or not the person they're accusing was located through search results.
We have a warrant process because sometimes we need information to solve a crime. If the process is broken, fix it. If something is a crime that shouldn't be, fix that. But you don't fix the problem by throwing away the whole idea of warranted searches. There are times when they are warranted. There's no other way to get this data that doesn't involve more warrantless searches. This is the way that actually disrupts privacy the least.
Re: (Score:2)
Your entire argument here presumes they have the right suspect and that the accused has committed the crime. That has not been proven in any way.
That's how it works, yes. First you make a list of suspects, then you investigate them.
I suspect the police have more evidence than just a google search.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how it works. Do you think they magically get a suspect list?
If I kill a stranger for laughs, I wouldn't be on an automatic suspect list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is a problem with the warrant granting process (and I believe that there is) then we should address it. But the cops got a warrant, information was only delivered pursuant to the warrant, and the search information was almost certainly not the only criteria used in making arrests. If there's problems with who was charged, we should address those problems too, but this still seems like reasonable use of a search warrant.
Yeah, this case is about whether the warrant should have been issued.
Moral of the story (Score:2)
based on a hunch that the killer typed the address into a search bar
Always use Openstreetmaps.
What's wrong with these lawyers... (Score:2, Informative)
" police violated the Constitution when they got a judge to order Google ..."
The police are just doing their job, canvassing potential witnesses. The result would not be enough to charge anyone, but gives them a list of people to investigate further.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virt... [ojp.gov].
"Canvassing not only may identify suspects, it also uncovers witnesses who may have either witnessed the crime or suspicious persons or vehicles in the vicinity at the time of the crime."
Or would you rather the police went, "Hey, sorry someone murdered your father/mother/wife/child. But we cannot use use technology to identify people of interest, for fear of offending the EFF brigade"
Re: (Score:3)
The ends cannot justify the means.
> Since the 1950s, such "dragnets" have generally been held to be unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure actions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Treating everyone like a criminal is not the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
The ends cannot justify the means.
> Since the 1950s, such "dragnets" have generally been held to be unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure actions.
Feel free to go to court and challenge them.
Re: (Score:2)
The ends cannot justify the means.
> Since the 1950s, such "dragnets" have generally been held to be unconstitutional as unreasonable search and seizure actions.
Feel free to go to court and challenge them.
That's exactly what's happening.
Re: (Score:3)
Since the 1950s, such "dragnets"
Asking for specific information pertaining to a single address of primary interest to the case is not a dragnet.
Treating everyone like a criminal is not the answer.
Precisely no one is being treated like a criminal. Quite the opposite. The police are going out seeking information that is available using appropriate legal means to obtain it. They then use information to build a case and only *then* a single person gets treated like a *suspect*. Whether they get treated like a criminal down the line is up to the judge. But this is literally how the legal system
Re: (Score:2)
> They differ from traditional search warrants in that police seek them without knowing the name of a suspect; instead, they are seeking information that might lead them to a suspect.
The part where it can lead to multiple suspects might also lead to investigating multiple people, most or all of which are innocent. The multiple suspects aspect is the "dragnet" aspect here.
I'm guessing in this case the kid had an Android phone and he was all Googled up and Google tracked his every breath. Definitively tyin
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the damn Menendez brothers the police talked to multiple people.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about search warrants, not policing in general. Usually, search warrants relate to a known individual - you suspect Oligonicella committed a crime so you search Oligonicella's things/residence or where you think Oligonicella committed a crime. You don't search private spaces in the entire neighborhood hoping to find something on unknown suspect(s). This case kind of comes down to whether your search history is private or not, existing law tends to say if you gave it to a third party then that t
Re: (Score:2)
The police are just doing their job
This! The police *cannot* violate the constitution by getting a judge to issue a warrant. At best the judge could violate the constitution by issuing it when it's not proper to do so, but this is literally the normal process of the legal system.
Not a problem (Score:2)
When such a demand is made, Google should just print out the list of searches and truck it over to the court.
Not in the Constitution (Score:2)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Does anyone see where in the Constitution it says what you search for is protected by the need for a warrant? Didn't think so. So this is perfectly legal, is what Tom Boy Thomas will say, since the "original intent" of the Amendment was only about what you personally have possession of in your own home.
Warrants (Score:2)
You guys act like a warrant is some magical rights-protecting thing. Many judges have nearly 100% approval ratings, and the ones they do not approve are usually just resubmitted after clerical errors are fixed.
Do you know what the punishment is for approving an overly broad, abusive warrant, based on no evidence?
Nothing.
If a judge does not approve a warrant, and something ends up happening, though, they will be put under a microscope.
And so, they approve, and approve, and approve. It is risk-free. It does
This is not Minority Report. (Score:2)
As sympathetic as I am to their rights (Score:2)
but what if (Score:2)
we have to commit a crime, and cannot obtain the information we need?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.youtube.com/result... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)