Google Searches Used in Murder Trial? 260
mcrbids writes "Well, the details are a bit scant, but it seems that the content of Google searches were used to help establish intent in a murder trial. Will police in the future simply serve a subpoena to Google to find out what you've been thinking about? While this use of that information makes sense, at what point does your privacy give way to public concerns? Should police be able to search through your search history for "questionable" searches before you've been arrested for a crime, and what effect would this have on the health of society?"
Clueless! (Score:2, Funny)
> you've been thinking about?
How would Google know what someone has been thinking about?
Re:Clueless! (Score:5, Funny)
They're Google.
Re:Clueless! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Clueless! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clueless! (Score:5, Interesting)
Even stranger to today's society, our parents knew and approved of our activities. FWIW, we both had First Class Radio Amateur Licenses and were in all the math/science/electronics classes together, so we weren't totally clueless about what we were doing. This was back in a time (~1955) when a group of us kids would think nothing of grabbing our
Re:Clueless! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Clueless! (Score:5, Insightful)
How would Google know what someone has been thinking about?
Gee, based on just the searches that I do? They could figure out that I work for a mental health agency, that I used to work for an insurance agency, that I'm considering getting engaged, that I perfer credit unions to banks, that I've filed or am considering filing bankruptcy, etc, etc, etc. Don't even get me started about my porn perferences ;)
I can't even say that they couldn't pin all that down to an actual name any more either since I'm using G-mail and it receives the same cookie that google.com does.
Re:Clueless! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Clueless! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Clueless! (Score:5, Funny)
Why not? When she leaves and takes half, she won't be getting much, now will she?
Re:Clueless! (Score:2)
Re:Clueless! (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, that you perforate your porn is TMI.
Re:Clueless! (Score:3, Insightful)
site:asstr.org filthy drugged school girl nipple-clamps
into the search field unless there is *something* on your mind. That said, when did we start prosecuting thought crimes?
moronic question (Score:4, Informative)
search history was recovered from the local hard drive.
Re:moronic question (Score:2)
Searching for information does not prove in and of itself that you commited a crime.
But it can be used to establish that you had the means to commit a crime.
Just like growing poppies in the United States is by no means against the law.
Unless you know how to turn them into an opiate.
Note to self (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for the reminder slashdot!
Re:Note to self (Score:2)
Re:Note to self (Score:2)
Re:Note to self (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Note to self (Score:2)
You need a reminder? (Score:5, Informative)
Obvious Answer (Score:5, Interesting)
And of course, the slippery slope case presented in the intro copy would NOT be reasonable. If i am arrested for valid suspicion i would expect them to try to build a case against me. But, in a free society, it is not acceptable to have everything i do fed into a system which is flagging people as POTENTIAL criminals.
so: yes. and no.
Re:Obvious Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason I ask is that google talks about how the information they gather (including in search history, I guess?) is aggregated and in no way identifiable and linkable to an individual. So, then, how could a subpeona to google result in anything useful being returned?
However, this isn't a huge deal, really. I'm not one of those detestable "if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?" idiots, but the thing to learn here is that it's okay to look up "snap" and "neck" and even "how to murder someone" via google or any other engine. However, if you actually ARE going to murder someone, you probably should not look up "snap" and "neck" or "how to murder someone" via google. Or, rather, if the authorities are trying to tie a suspect to a murder, he is not going to be convicted soley on a few google searches. It will just be additional circumstancial evidence to add to the pot.
These sort of things only become a problem when they start seeking out suspects and disrupting innocent people's lives because the people made particular searches in a search engine. So rather than saying "We're pretty sure this guy killed this other person and we want to see his google history", they start going through all of google's data and investigating every person with suspiciously strange search keywords just in case whoever they are have committed whatever crime against whatever unknowned victims and are suspects soley because of the information they sought.
Re:Obvious Answer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Obvious Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Usually those who get caught are not "profr. Moriarty" cold-blooded murderers who calculate all their movements and erase all possible evidence. But rather emotionally unstable people who, in a desperate situation, opt to kill the one causing them trouble
And when you're in a desperate situation, you usually don't think "Ah... will the police use the google caché
Bad affect, exposes the obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad affect, exposes the obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not like the only evidence they have is the Google search history, or that that's how they identified their suspect. Rather, the Google search history of a suspect supports everything else they've been building in
I don't see any controversy here (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes they should. I think that using a search engine to research methods of breaking someone's neck and water levels in nearby lakes is evidence that should be available to officers trying to find out who broke someone's neck and dumped them in a lake.
While this evidence alone is not enough to incriminate someone it does provide extra evidence to lead to their future incarcination. Lets face it, things add up and being able to find the pieces of a puzzle is an important part of researching a crime.
You can't arrest someone for looking at certain things but knowing they looked at those things is important in figuring out if they did commit a crime.
Re:I don't see any controversy here (Score:2)
Oh yea?
Re:I don't see any controversy here (Score:3, Insightful)
What if there are no suspects in the case? Should the police be able to subpoena Google for a list of all searches from all IP addresses used in the area with search terms related to water levels and/or breaking someone's neck?
Re:I don't see any controversy here (Score:2)
What if there are no suspects in the case? Should the police be able to subpoena Google for a list of all searches from all IP addresses used in the area with search terms related to water levels and/or breaking someone's neck?
Why not? I really can't think of any reason to not allow the police to use every means necessary to investigate and find suspects in a crime. Looking up information on murder techniques is not enough of a reason to incriminate someone but if it helps the police locate suspects I ca
Re:I don't see any controversy here (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I guess it depends on the service when trying to determine how much privacy you should expect.
I live in a small isolated town of less than 50,000 people. Let's say a local serial killer crops up and the police use public library records to find out that over the past year I've checked out a dozen books about serial killers, more than anybody in town by a long shot. Does that make me suspect? In their minds it very well may, but logically it should not. (this issue came up with the Patriot Act, if you remember) Why the hell would I be so interested in serial killers? Am I some kind of sicko?
1) A person should feel free to pursue knowledge that isn't specifically illegal without fear. This is a very important aspect of a free society. You can't determine intent by analyzing what a person has chosen to learn about. If I do a bunch of research about the theory of evolution, does that mean that I'm a scientist learning about evolution, or does it mean that I'm a christian fundamentalist looking for flaws to prop up the idea of intelligent design? You can't be certain. So maybe you find out that I'm a christian, does that sway you in one particular direction? Well, it might, but it *shouldn't*. And so on and so forth...it can really snowball until you think you've really got me pegged.
2) The police are not infallible, by any means. It is not uncommon that when a good suspect is found (good being subjective), they will concentrate most of their efforts on that suspect, sometimes overlooking clues that would lead them to the real perpetrator. Plenty of people have been wrongfully incarcerated due to purely circumstantial evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't see any controversy here (Score:2)
can you say, "circumstantial evidence"? (Score:2)
Have you ever heard of the term "circumstantial evidence"? Google it. And find:
Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
In other words- you can't use circumstantial evidence to infer guilt in a crime. Joe Shmoe could "google" the local
Re:can you say, "circumstantial evidence"? (Score:2)
From wikipedia:
"A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence..."
Most criminals are sma
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:can you say, "circumstantial evidence"? (Score:2)
Have you ever heard of the term "circumstantial evidence"? Google it.
Or, even better, Research It [ciar.org]! :-)
-- TTK
Re:can you say, "circumstantial evidence"? (Score:2)
This is the only point I take issue with. Do you really think it's wise to allow Bush and co to stack the judiciary with religious fundamentalists and ultra-conservatives? I'm not saying that voting judges in would produce a better result - it would produce a different result - perhaps better, perhaps worse. After all, the people voted the current government in - at least this time anyway. The way they got in the 1st time demonstrates the prob
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:2, Funny)
Let's conduct an experiment... (Score:5, Funny)
*types "how to bomb white house"...*
**KNOCK KNOCK**
"Who's th....
Re:Let's conduct an experiment... (Score:2)
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16314.htm [state.gov]
Re:Let's conduct an experiment... (Score:3, Funny)
"WE ask the questions around here!"
Re:Let's conduct an experiment... (Score:3, Funny)
Conversely, there's the Sgt.Schultz approach:
A: Knock, knock.
B: Who's there?
A: What are you asking ME for??
Why not? (Score:2)
In this case, it looks more like they went through the guy's web caches on his computers. Assuming the computers were properly obtained, they're evidence. I don't see anything scary or privacy-killing here. Yes, the details are sketchy--but if he's on trial right now for a crime committed two years ago, it's pretty safe to say that he was arrested for the crime before t
Re:Why not? (Score:2)
Yeah, but who's to say the infomation Google turns up has any truth in it. It's just whatever's on the web after all.
Already done (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Already done (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Already done (Score:2)
specific term cannot (or at least should not) be grounds for a conviction.
As you point out, many people search for strange terms out of curiosity, just to see what comes up, and that is enough to ensure tha
Re:Already done (Score:2)
What history could show however is pre-meditation. e.g. Did the person we know committed the crime search for the implements in the months and weeks leading to the crime?
That's for a jury to decide (Score:2)
Bear in mind too that in murder trials a whole lot hinges on prior intent (i.e. the difference between execution and a few years in prison!) In the article cited, the plaintiff was found to have searched for a variety of information in support of the killing: information on how to kill, information on currents in the body of water where he ditched the body, etc. If I were on a jury, this sort of information would go a
Re:Already done (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone stupid enough to use IE to aid in committing a crime Deserves to have the book thrown at them.
Privacy? (Score:2)
Why shouldnt they be allowed to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why shouldnt they be allowed to? (Score:2)
I'm not worried about the search, I'm worried about the conclusions drawn by those searches. If it is assumed that everything that is typed in to Google is an admission of intention at face value, then the wrong conclusions are going to be made. If you did a search for 'pre-teen books', would you appreciate it if I jumped to the wrong
The new google (Score:2)
We will have to rename google to:
go:ogle
Sounds like Madison Ave. material to me... (Score:5, Funny)
Visit altavista.com and search "Snap Neck"
Re:Sounds like Madison Ave. material to me... (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like Madison Ave. material to me... (Score:2)
I remember the very first time I visited Google. It was around the time of the Kikwit ebola outbreak as I remember, in around 95. That was the last time I ever used any other search engine. Guess they just stumbled on a golden algorithm.
Re:Sounds like Madison Ave. material to me... (Score:2)
Not a Big Deal (Score:2, Insightful)
What this guy did was about as dumb as buying books/magazines/journals on these subjects, and then having sticky bookmarks on all this kind of info when the police search your home. Not that different from the countless individuals who get caught with child porn because they forget, or simply don't know how, to clean our their caches and histories.
If he had been using Safari on OS X, he could have been in "Private" mode and avoided this whole mess. OS X! Great for the cr
What an inflammatory submission... (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
In other words, they looked at the files on his computer as evidence. That's been done for
Might they subpoena google in the future? Maybe, but that hasn't happened yet...
Plain old browser history (Score:3, Informative)
Since the defendant was already a suspect, reviewing his browser history is no different than searching his personal papers or anything else in his home.
What? (Score:2)
Does Google keep search info? (Score:2, Insightful)
No Need to Subpoena Google (Score:2)
There's no need to subpoena Google when you can just get a warrant to search the person's house and effects for evidence. Their "effects" would naturally include their computer, including any information in the browser cache.
Oddly enough, that seems to be exactly what the police did in this situation, based on the article text: "investigators continue to find new evidence on computers seized from Robert Petrick's home". (Okay, I'm kind of assuming they had a warrant, but seeing as how the guy's on trial f
If you leave something in public... (Score:3, Interesting)
The same should apply to the internet. What you leave here is not private. By definition if it is on the internet it should be considered *public*. Far too often I've run into people who don't want you to look at their "private" webpages even though they are not protected and indeed are searchable on the net! People like this need to take a clue from this trial. If it is on the internet it is public... PERIOD.
GJC
The Healthy Rule of Law (Score:2)
To make people think twice before murdering? Sounds pretty healthy to me.
I like to live in a country where the judge can gather evidence to resolve a crime. This is called the healthy rule of law, and has nothing to do with the government spying on the citizens, which is very unhealthy. This kind of confusion is really hurting our privacy rights.
Let's not confuse the issue (Score:2)
1. As in this case, information on what was searched from his own computer
2. Information on what was searched from Google via search warrant.
3. Google the people involved and follow some relevant links.
It should be obvious how one's cyber-life can provide clues, motives, evidence, or even alibis.
Think of the trees (Score:3, Funny)
If Google really wants to "not be evil"... (Score:3, Interesting)
That would probably be the single biggest proof that Google truly does stand apart from other all other companies.
A Solution (Score:2)
If Google wishes to maintain their "good guy" reputation, they could simply update their privacy policy to state that they only store aggregate anonymous information.
Libraries never have (Score:3, Insightful)
(Full disclosure statement: Patron history is allowed and kept for so-called "Outreach patrons" who enjoy a personalized level of library se
dirty little secrets (Score:2, Insightful)
Google Sets (Score:3, Funny)
As a roleplayer... (Score:2, Interesting)
You've got the wrong idea (Score:2)
If he had left notes on stickies somewhere about how to hide a body in a lake, it would be no different from this. If he hadn't wanted anybody to know wh
100,000,000 pages?! (Score:2)
Are they printing on post-it notes or what?
Or did some reporter just Google a Kb to printed-page-equivalent [davedoyle.com] conversion? 'Cause I doubt they're going to find much useful information in the .dll libraries and executables...
RTFA. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just one more step away. (Score:2)
Just look for patterns in search habits, then go collect the offenders for questioning.
Re:Just one more step away. (Score:2)
Re:Just one more step away. (Score:2)
Cops seek shortcuts to justice (Score:2)
Unfortunately, unless the Judge knows enough to block this outright, the jury will hear it. And they, nontechnical as they are, will probably lean towards this as being a smoking gun. This is how the DAs use computer forensics like this as a s
Even more scary... (Score:2)
Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims"
Yes, that's right. The same government that'd believe the bytes on a harddrive somewhere "prove" somebody searched for something on Google, also would trust the contents of a hard drive containing "intelligence" on Iran.
Right now, the US is trying to build a case against Iran armed with a "stolen" hard drive. Sure, Mossad could have just cooked up the same data, but hey -- it's on a computer right? It's gotta be true.
It's just like those TV ads
Search-terms found on Goatse's PC (Score:2, Funny)
Prove it! (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless you have a computer that is physically off-limits to anyone else in the world, I don't see how this can easily be proven. Even if I logged into to some account, that doesn't prove I was there doing it. For example, my browser remembers my name and password for several accounts. Anyone else could sit down and my computer and log into those accounts.
So, whose to say someone isn't trying to frame me by entering my home and using my computer to make 'questionable' searches? For that matter, who's to say someone couldn't have remoted in to my computer and performed those searches.
Re:Searched (Score:5, Informative)
Last week, a forensic investigator discovered that Petrick allegedly researched lake levels, water currents, boat ramps and access about Falls Lake just four days before he reported Sutphen missing on Jan. 22, 2003.
~http://www.wral.com/news/5287261/detail.html [wral.com]
Yes, the info was found on his hard drive, not acquired from Google or his ISP or anywhere else.
Re:Searched (Score:3, Informative)
He could have browsed from a live CD and not left a trail. I wonder how many crimes are being solved because criminals don't know how to take a few simple security steps?
Re:Searched (Score:2)
What's funny is that any time a new 'securityesque' technology comes along, +5 Insightfuls go out to whoever determines an easy way around it. Yet, people are caught this way all the time.
Re:Searched (Score:2)
Theifs are drawn in by the idea that they can make a lot of money quick, but don't take into account the resources needed to actually get the job done. With many schemes that I've heard people describe, the hourly wage of just going to work for McDonald's is about as profitable. And if you throw in the jail time spent if you do get caught, you're working for just about nothing. Now there are some crimes that pay short term, but
Re:Searched (Score:3, Informative)
It takes longer than that to come up with the plan, obtain the tools necessary, find the right place, sufficiently mask your identity, wait for a good target to come by, flee the scene, get rid of any evidence and then have a convincing alibi when all is said and done.
Not following all of those procedures (and probably more) will significantly increase your risk of getting caught. And all this for... what's the average
Re:Searched (Score:5, Insightful)
That won't help if law enforcement subpoenas Google, or any other website for that matter (yeah, I know that in this case Google wasn't involved, but I could easily imagine it happening). Probably the best thing to do is use someone else's open access point, with your live CD on your laptop.
Re:what question? (Score:2)
Re:what question? (Score:2)
Of course, if you had an incompeted defense attourney, that doesn't mean it wouldn't go through. But then, if you have an incompetent attourney, you're already screwed.
Re:what question? (Score:2)
Of course, I personally wouldn't want Johnny Cochran anywhere near my courtroom. I got this thing against zombies.
Re:what question? (Score:2)
Re:what question? (Score:2, Insightful)
you don't get it. i would not say i would have 'forgotten' my passwords. i would say: 'i well remember all my passwords, but i will not tell you them.' and if something was 'convenient' or not, there is a law that forbids to use my refusal against
Re:Subpoenas (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They were his computers, but that ain't the poi (Score:2)