Comment on Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling
TWeaK@lemm.ee 11 months agoIt wasn’t specific to an individual criminal, though. Police aren’t allowed to get warrants for fishing expeditions, they’re supposed to find leads themselves and then get a concise warrant to evidence to confirm that. They searched people they had no right to search, and violated their constitutional rights.
tsonfeir@lemm.ee 11 months ago
It wasn’t specific to the fire? Like, whoever googled the address is a suspect. That’s a pretty good way to solve a crime.
rgb3x3@beehaw.org 11 months ago
Would you still feel the same way if the DMV was set on fire and you were a suspect because you’d searched for directions to the place?
Or if you had searched that address because you were looking for homes in the area to compare with what you wanted?
It shouldn’t be enough to make a Google search to assume an individual is a suspect in a crime.
TWeaK@lemm.ee 11 months ago
Yes exactly. This story has echos of the guy who was hounded by police (and maybe even charged and convicted?) because he took a different route while cycling and rode past a house where a crime was committed. That, too, was Google.