3 ms·
It's common to see news stories about dumb criminals who were targeted for more thorough investigation, leading to their eventual conviction, due to their Inter
by Encosia 16y ago
It's common to see news stories about dumb criminals who were targeted for more thorough investigation, leading to their eventual conviction, due to their Internet search history (e.g. "How much antifreeze does it take to kill an adult" and "how to mask the taste of antifreeze in food")
- jacquesm 16y agoI'm just going to have to google that now. I really hope that I won't have anybody die near me in the near future by drinking anti-freeze because I'll surely be in the docket defending myself.
- Encosia 16y agoMake sure you avoid people like this for a while! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Turner_(murderer) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Turner_(murderer)
- showerst 16y agoI think it's important to note that these people weren't targeted as a result of their search history, they were already targeted, and the search history was just used as evidence for further action. So me searching for "how much antifreeze..." wouldn't ever be noticed, unless i was _already_ under suspicion that met legal standards for a warrant, so that search data was requested.
- Encosia 16y agoOf course, but circumstantial evidence like search history is often used to narrow a field of suspects down to a single candidate for thorough investigation. At that point, they're going to investigate you as exhaustively as it takes to make the case. Without those circumstantial clues to focus the investigation, the authorities are at a significant disadvantage.
- pedanticfreak 16y agoIs this an argument in support of Google complying with the search warrants or just helpful advice for your serial killer buddies?