[HN Gopher] Police sweep Google searches to find suspects; facin... ___________________________________________________________________ Police sweep Google searches to find suspects; facing its first legal challenge Author : ceejayoz Score : 44 points Date : 2022-06-30 20:43 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nbcnews.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nbcnews.com) | the_doctah wrote: | It's an interesting subject until the article repeatedly suggests | that these searches are going to be used to hunt down women who | seek abortions. They could have picked literally any crime to | pose that rhetorical situation for. | daenz wrote: | I wonder if the future of policing will become so | lazy/understaffed that if they can't find a digital paper trail | for a crime via ML, it will be kicked to the backlog. | ceejayoz wrote: | Wouldn't change much. They solve 2% of major crimes. | https://theconversation.com/police-solve-just-2-of-all-major... | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | I agree with the other commenter who said that, if the keyword | search is narrow in scope such that it would apply to _this_ | particular crime (in this case, the exact address, and | timebound), then it strikes me as a "reasonable" search, and not | a fishing expedition. Furthermore, it seems pretty analogous to | what is required for a warrant for a physical search - you can't | put out a broad dragnet, it must be targeted in scope, and the | definition of "targeted" has pretty much always come out of case | law. | | Now, when it comes to the fear about being used to prosecute | abortions, that is really a totally separate issue, as doing a | reverse keyword search for "get abortion pills by mail" is too | broad. But I think the broader issue with the abortion examples | is that many people fundamentally believe the laws are unjust and | _deserve_ to be broken. Whatever the case may be, the legal | system itself surely cannot differentiate between "unjust" and | "just" laws. | ciupicri wrote: | Reminds of the "pressure cookers" and "backpacks" scandal from 9 | years ago. | ceejayoz wrote: | To be honest, this seems like a pretty reasonable search; a | warranted search, narrowly scoped in both keywords (a specific | address) and timeframe. | | Meanwhile, this: | | > "If Google is allowed or required to turn over information in | this Colorado case, there is nothing to stop a court in a state | that has outlawed abortion to also require Google to turn over | information on that kind of keyword search." | | seems like it's of entirely different magnitude, far less | amenable to such a narrow scope. | ajsnigrutin wrote: | > seems like it's of entirely different magnitude, far less | amenable to such a narrow scope. | | Why? | | If the police finds a burnt house, and check who googled for an | address... how is that different to them finding an illegal | abortion clinic, and checkng who googled for that address? | ceejayoz wrote: | > If the police finds a burnt house, and check who googled | for an address... how is that different to them finding an | illegal abortion clinic, and checkng who googled for that | address? | | I don't think that sentence refers to _illegal_ abortion | clinics; I think they 're referring to state laws that | attempt to punish out-of-state abortions | (https://www.usnews.com/news/national- | news/articles/2022-05-1...). | | That said, a clinic is more like a house that burns down | _several times daily_ , which dramatically expands the scope | of any such warrant. | lin83 wrote: | If the requirement to be narrow and time limited is not | codified in law (which afaik it is not) it is pretty much | guaranteed such broad searches will happen. All it takes is | convincing a judge. | | If the past has taught us anything it's that law enforcement | will use any tool to the maximium of what is allowed and then | beyond (e.g. coerced phone searches, racially motivated stop | and search, drug dogs to force vehicle searches, privately | sourced licence plate tracking and face recognition, criminal | DNA testing from rape kits, forced biometric collection and | more). | tunap wrote: | Oh no, they need not convince a judge. Thanks to the Patriot | Act, they can surveil and ask for permission ex post facto. | Or, surveil and never ask for permission, if the LEOs decide | not to request a warrant... again, after the surveilling has | been completed. | ceejayoz wrote: | It is codified, in the Fourth Amendment. | | > 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 | | Legally, the term is "particularity". | chucksta wrote: | https://www.aclu.org/blog/documents-aclu-case-reveal-more- | de... | | >The FBI's role in the process is a condition of the | Federal Communication Commission's equipment authorization | issued to the Harris Corporation. | | The result is that members of the public, judges, and | defense attorneys are denied basic information about local | cops' use of invasive surveillance gear that can sweep up | sensitive location data about hundreds of peoples' cell | phones. For example, when we sought information about | Stingrays from the Brevard County, Florida, Sheriff's | Office, they cited a non-disclosure agreement with a | "federal agency" as a basis for withholding all records. | When the ACLU of Arizona sued the Tucson Police Department | for Stingray records, an FBI agent submitted a declaration | invoking the FBI nondisclosure agreement as a reason to | keep information secret. | | Yeah it works really well | ceejayoz wrote: | Stingrays are typically warrant _less_ ; a very different | scenario than this case. Their very nature makes them | pretty broadly scoped, too, impacting anyone in range. | | (I'm of the opinion they're a Fourth Amendment violation, | and quite a few court cases are winding their way through | the system. Quite a few judges have already ruled against | their warrantless use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stin | gray_use_in_United_States_...) | [deleted] | slaymaker1907 wrote: | I hope courts require both that the requested search data is | very specific to the crime (which you are right, a specific | address is specific), and I also think that such requests | should be by court order/search warrant. The specificity | requirement is most important, but I think law enforcement | should not get a blank check to do these sorts of queries. It's | a lot harder to convince a judge/jury that a query was too | broad after it turned up good evidence compared to rejecting | the query before it is run and collected. | | That's all from a legal perspective. From a policy perspective, | I think our search histories should not be collected in the | first place as much as practically possible. In meatspace, | libraries are actually very protective of what books you look | up/checkout. Seattle City Library actually requires you to opt- | in for tracking of your checkout history because they know this | sort of data is sensitive. | dillondoyle wrote: | Would person ___ searches 'within 2 weeks of last menstruation' | be narrow enough? | | The case of this is fine to me on it's face. But examples like | the above are terrifying. | ceejayoz wrote: | I don't think that'd be comparably narrow, no. | dillondoyle wrote: | how about adding specific person Jane Doe searches address | ___ of planned parenthood within 2 weeks of last | menstruation | | To me the ultimate problem isn't the scope of the search. | It's that the guardrails against partisanship are gone via | takeover of law by Republicans and christian crusaders. | | Attorneys general and judiciaries have huge power and are | so lopsided depending on geography and political party in | charge. and I don't trust the ultimate Supreme Court to do | what's right in the end | | that it's illegal now is crazy. That is seems likely that | they will try to prosecute people (more likely TX style | citizen suits) for getting healthcare in a different state | is crazier. | ceejayoz wrote: | Planned Parenthood provides prenatal care and other non- | abortion services. No probable cause. | matt321 wrote: | Everyone agrees preventing criminals from burning people alive | is wrong, but some people don't think abortion is wrong so | there's grey area there. | ceejayoz wrote: | Sure, but there's still a big scope difference; "who searched | for this one address right before it burned down" versus "who | searched about abortion; we don't know anything much more | specific than that". | | > Google delivered information on 61 queries, according to | court filings, along with the IP address -- a unique number | for each computer on the internet. Investigators focused on a | handful of those queries, asking Google to provide detailed | user information for them. One of them was linked to the | 17-year-old. | | That's pretty narrow. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-30 23:00 UTC)