Google Searches can, and will, be held against you(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Google Searches can, and will, be held against you
https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1737845283126730858
55 comments
Readable mirror: https://nitter.net/alanfeuer/status/1737845283126730858
And? It's called collecting evidence.
Searching for a Ron Burgundy meme is evidence of what, exactly?
Or is it okay to inexplicably twist that into a crime somehow because it's used to persecute the "right" people in this instance?
Or is it okay to inexplicably twist that into a crime somehow because it's used to persecute the "right" people in this instance?
These searches are a footnote in the charging documents. This bozo was identified by eyewitnesses and appears in videos posted on Instagram of the riot, had air tickets from his home city to DC, had hotel reservations in DC, was carrying two phones each with logged-in location tracking accounts etc.
> Searching for a Ron Burgundy meme is evidence of what, exactly?
Nice of you to ignore all other searches and focus on that one thing.
Nice of you to ignore all other searches and focus on that one thing.
It's obviously not by itself a crime, but it could obviously be part of a fact pattern indicating intention to commit a crime.
This aspect of law and criminality isn't new at all. "What, so a guy can't just meet his buddies at a nice Italian restaurant anymore?"
This aspect of law and criminality isn't new at all. "What, so a guy can't just meet his buddies at a nice Italian restaurant anymore?"
It can be supporting evidence for all sorts of things which are argued in court where this person's counsel also gets to challenge it. It's not like Jan 6th defendants were convicted because of their Anchorman fandom.
You've mixed up crime and evidence.
Not sure why the meme was included but the rest looks like gathering information in preparation for a crime to me.
We are both not lawyers so we don’t know jack tbh
You don't need to be a credentialed lawyer to know if something doesn't pass the bullshit test.
In fact, what you just stated is the essence of trial by jury. ;)
It's circumstantial evidence at best though, cops need more than just search history to convict.
There's a popular belief that circumstantial evidence is inherently inferior to direct evidence, but that's not actually the case.
Direct evidence is evidence that directly links a person to a crime, such as testimony from someone who witnessed the defendant committing the crime or a video showing the defendant committing the crime.
Anything else is circumstantial evidence. Fingerprints? Circumstantial. DNA match? Circumstantial.
Most criminal convictions are based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
Direct evidence is evidence that directly links a person to a crime, such as testimony from someone who witnessed the defendant committing the crime or a video showing the defendant committing the crime.
Anything else is circumstantial evidence. Fingerprints? Circumstantial. DNA match? Circumstantial.
Most criminal convictions are based entirely on circumstantial evidence.
i believe there must be indication of intent.
for example a search for -lethal chainsaw injury; followed by purchase of chainsaw and safety gear, is different than purchase of chainsaw, tarps, 5gal bleach, and a pack of smokes
for example a search for -lethal chainsaw injury; followed by purchase of chainsaw and safety gear, is different than purchase of chainsaw, tarps, 5gal bleach, and a pack of smokes
How do you prove the searches were done by the accused?
I was in jail with a guy that ran over his wife and killed her. He claimed they were joking around and he accidentally hit the gas pedal. His Google search was full of searches for poisons...
who flagged this? why? unflag it
People don't turn off search history?
Is that sufficient? I always just assumed stuff like that only hides it from the user
He caught a lot of shit for it, but Eric Schmidt had a tendency to say unpopular things that were also true. When he said that "If you have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place," The context of the conversation was online activity.
And in that context he's not wrong at all. For all the privacy and identity obfuscation tools we have, the Internet is one big paper trail where you should assume that someone is auditing everything you do, legally or illegally. There are too many computers in the loop serving your requests and responses for it to be reasonable to assume otherwise.
And in that context he's not wrong at all. For all the privacy and identity obfuscation tools we have, the Internet is one big paper trail where you should assume that someone is auditing everything you do, legally or illegally. There are too many computers in the loop serving your requests and responses for it to be reasonable to assume otherwise.
Another reason to use Yandex, beside a still-functioning reverse image search
To the commenters saying, "So what?" I would suggest thinking of instances other than distant political targets.
I in fact searched for "chloroform" because I wanted to read the Wikipedia page. Imagine I'm accused of a crime I _didn't_ commit, and my Google searches p-hack into a pattern. This hypothetical recalls the excellent "Don't talk to the police": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I in fact searched for "chloroform" because I wanted to read the Wikipedia page. Imagine I'm accused of a crime I _didn't_ commit, and my Google searches p-hack into a pattern. This hypothetical recalls the excellent "Don't talk to the police": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
I'm accused of a crime I _didn't_ commit, and my Google searches p-hack into a pattern.
It takes more than that to get a warrant and 'p-hack' is doing a lot of lifting as well. Far more intrusive evidence than your google searches can be gathered about you with a warrant.
Both 'it's bad that a giant digital dossier is constantly being collected about us by private parties you have little influence over' and 'it's harder to do crimes' can be true without it meaning 'the man is going to jail you for your bad taste in anime'.
It takes more than that to get a warrant and 'p-hack' is doing a lot of lifting as well. Far more intrusive evidence than your google searches can be gathered about you with a warrant.
Both 'it's bad that a giant digital dossier is constantly being collected about us by private parties you have little influence over' and 'it's harder to do crimes' can be true without it meaning 'the man is going to jail you for your bad taste in anime'.
I'm not sure you need a warrant? The "Third Party" doctrine in the USA still hasn't been totally over-ruled, and therefore any information you give to third parties is considered fair game via subpoena, which is vastly lower standard than a warrant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
(this is missing a key case, a 6th Cir. opinion, not SCOTUS sadly, but concerns emails being intercepted... I will update Wikipedia as soon as I can remember the cite)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
(this is missing a key case, a 6th Cir. opinion, not SCOTUS sadly, but concerns emails being intercepted... I will update Wikipedia as soon as I can remember the cite)
These searches were obtained by serving Google with a search warrant, as it says in the charging documents from which these quotes were ragescreenshotted.
I’m one of the people saying “So what?”
If your search for “chloroform” is the only evidence against you then you’ll probably have a decent chance to beat the flimsy case.
If your search for “chloroform” is accompanied by the purchase of ingredients to make chloroform, posession of a bunch of rags that smell like choloroform, etc., then your chances look less rosy.
If somebody powerful enough wants to put a political dissident in jail (or worse), they’ll make it happen.
If your search for “chloroform” is the only evidence against you then you’ll probably have a decent chance to beat the flimsy case.
If your search for “chloroform” is accompanied by the purchase of ingredients to make chloroform, posession of a bunch of rags that smell like choloroform, etc., then your chances look less rosy.
If somebody powerful enough wants to put a political dissident in jail (or worse), they’ll make it happen.
If you find yourself in such a circumstance, the best evidence you could collect is probably evidence that searching for chloroform doesn't correlate with criminal activity.
I wonder if that's actually something you can require Google to pull as a defendant in a criminal case?
I wonder if that's actually something you can require Google to pull as a defendant in a criminal case?
[deleted]
Another (more gruesome) example from a real case:
>A list of Brian Walshe’s Google searches, according to prosecutors
>Brian Walshe is accused of murdering his wife, Ana Walshe, and dismembering her body. She was last seen Jan. 1.
"Dec. 27
“What’s the best state to divorce for a man”
Jan. 1
4:55 a.m.: “How long before a body starts to smell”
4:58 a.m.: “How to stop a body from decomposing”
5:20 a.m.: “How to embalm a body”
5:47 a.m.: “10 ways to dispose of a dead body if you really need to”
6:25 a.m.: “How long for someone to be missing to inherit”
6:34 a.m.: “Can you throw away body parts”
9:29 a.m.: “What does formaldehyde do”
9:34 a.m.: “How long does DNA last”
9:59 a.m.: “Can identification be made on partial remains”
11:34 a.m.: “Dismemberment and the best ways to dispose of a body”
11:44 a.m.: “How to clean blood from wooden floor”
11:56 a.m.: “Luminol to detect blood”
1:08 p.m.: “What happens when you put body parts in ammonia”
1:21 p.m.: “Is it better to throw crime scene clothes away or wash them “
Jan. 2
12:45 p.m.: “Hacksaw best tool to dismember”
1:10 p.m.: “Can you be charged with murder without a body”
1:14 p.m.: “Can you identify a body with broken teeth”
Jan. 3
1:02 p.m.: “What happens to hair on a dead body”
1:14 p.m.: “What is the rate of decomposition of a body found in a plastic bag compared to on a surface in the woods”
1:20 p.m.: “Can baking soda make a body smell good”"
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2023/01/18/brian-walshe-go...
>A list of Brian Walshe’s Google searches, according to prosecutors
>Brian Walshe is accused of murdering his wife, Ana Walshe, and dismembering her body. She was last seen Jan. 1.
"Dec. 27
“What’s the best state to divorce for a man”
Jan. 1
4:55 a.m.: “How long before a body starts to smell”
4:58 a.m.: “How to stop a body from decomposing”
5:20 a.m.: “How to embalm a body”
5:47 a.m.: “10 ways to dispose of a dead body if you really need to”
6:25 a.m.: “How long for someone to be missing to inherit”
6:34 a.m.: “Can you throw away body parts”
9:29 a.m.: “What does formaldehyde do”
9:34 a.m.: “How long does DNA last”
9:59 a.m.: “Can identification be made on partial remains”
11:34 a.m.: “Dismemberment and the best ways to dispose of a body”
11:44 a.m.: “How to clean blood from wooden floor”
11:56 a.m.: “Luminol to detect blood”
1:08 p.m.: “What happens when you put body parts in ammonia”
1:21 p.m.: “Is it better to throw crime scene clothes away or wash them “
Jan. 2
12:45 p.m.: “Hacksaw best tool to dismember”
1:10 p.m.: “Can you be charged with murder without a body”
1:14 p.m.: “Can you identify a body with broken teeth”
Jan. 3
1:02 p.m.: “What happens to hair on a dead body”
1:14 p.m.: “What is the rate of decomposition of a body found in a plastic bag compared to on a surface in the woods”
1:20 p.m.: “Can baking soda make a body smell good”"
https://www.boston.com/news/crime/2023/01/18/brian-walshe-go...
If you ever decide to murder somebody like this, make sure you are also writing a crime novel at the time.
It's not outside the realm of possibility that someone else, such as a family member, used his computer or it was compromised.
Note how he approached the problem with a rigor of a solid researcher.
[deleted]
I mean, yes? This is neither surprising or a bad thing IMO.
It’s like any other evidence.
It’s like any other evidence.
I search for a lot of messed up stuff.
I guess don’t try to overthrow the government.
the problem is..
..or ever be accused of overthrowing the government.
..be in proximity of anyone accused of wanting to overthrow the government.
..be victimized by a state employee with a grudge.
..etc etc.
..or ever be accused of overthrowing the government.
..be in proximity of anyone accused of wanting to overthrow the government.
..be victimized by a state employee with a grudge.
..etc etc.
Is the sole evidence used?
Context, context, context.
Context, context, context.
Precisely.
By itself, it would just be circumstantial.
In the context of, say, camera footage of you scrambling up a wall of the capitol building, it's extremely important for establishing mens rea, to determine if you were scrabbling up that wall because you got caught up in the heat of the moment or if you had looked up "Is the US Capitol building scalable" a few days before your plane ticket to DC.
By itself, it would just be circumstantial.
In the context of, say, camera footage of you scrambling up a wall of the capitol building, it's extremely important for establishing mens rea, to determine if you were scrabbling up that wall because you got caught up in the heat of the moment or if you had looked up "Is the US Capitol building scalable" a few days before your plane ticket to DC.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
So do I! If I am then accused of a messed up crime, I’ll have to explain myself.
If I went to the library and asked the librarian those questions, I’d assume the librarian must comply with legal requests for information if the cops come asking.
Don’t tell the librarian about your crime and they won’t rat you out.
Don’t tell the librarian about your crime and they won’t rat you out.
You have got this completely wrong. Librarians tend to uphold exceptionally high standards of privacy.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre...
Not to mention the fact that, well, a library kiosk is anonymous, many libraries don’t have cameras, and there is no ledger that records who walks to which bookshelf and reads which page of any given book.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre...
Not to mention the fact that, well, a library kiosk is anonymous, many libraries don’t have cameras, and there is no ledger that records who walks to which bookshelf and reads which page of any given book.
Librarians are smart enough to avoid cases where they would know. They can’t claim the fifth and aren’t your lawyer or confessor.
op00to(1)
That's why people should switch to using Yandex when thinking of doing something that might be seen as politically illegal in the West. Maybe even Baidu, even though I don't know how thorough Baidu is at scrapping the anglophone web.
Arguably Google's quick answer box contributed to people searching this way, though I'm sure it was a two way street of people searching that way leading to people expecting real answers to this type of query - Google would have simply responded to user expectations.
Either way, DDG and Bing likely wouldn't have fared better, and I doubt you'd get very far with Tor before hitting endless Captchas - meaning generic (or at least less immediately incriminating) searches are the only realistic solution in the near future.