4 ms·

A house was burned down, and the cops wanted to know who searched for the house address prior to the arson. I’m having a hard time getting worked up about this

A house was burned down, and the cops wanted to know who searched for the house address prior to the arson. I’m having a hard time getting worked up about this. To me it’s the equivalent of getting a warrant to find out who bought matches. It’s not like the police got access to all of the users browsing history, they just got a list of IP address who had been casing the joint.

lamontcg 3y ago
> A house was burned down [..] Next time it could be something that you find much less clearcut. Someone had an abortion (if you favor abortion rights), someone bought a gun/ammunition (if you favor the second amendment), someone was just around a given location (if you favor free association and movement). The dragnet could have been over drugs (if you are against the war on drugs). I don't know what conservatives/right-wingers fear these days, but imagine its a dragnet over those things pushed by a liberal political system. And this request produced only a handful of hits, but there's nothing stopping them from getting search results that produce a hundred hits in the dragnet. When it comes to crime there are real actual slippery slopes. You can justify capital punishment with some horrible serial killer like Ted Bundy, but then that winds up with Texas killing innocent, poor, mentally handicapped people who get shitty legal representation.
heavyset_go 3y ago
> It’s not like the police got access to all of the users browsing history, Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices when they're under investigation because they're on that list, so the police get more than access to users' browsing history. > they just got a list of IP address who had been casing the joint. Or they got a list of completely innocent people who made deliveries, live nearby, etc, who are now treated as suspects for arson and murder they didn't commit.
- tiahura 3y ago
  Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices But that’s not what happened. I don’t practice in Colorado, but my guess is that a judge would deny such a warrant without something more, e.g. the person has a prior conviction for arson, or there’s a personal connection with the victims. If you’re just the Amazon delivery guy, I don’t see it happening.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    You misunderstood how and when the warrant was issued. “The person” who you are assuming must have had some other incriminating evidence against him was not even identified until after the warrant was executed.
  - heavyset_go 3y ago
    I don't have that confidence. Judges and grand juries grant warrants based on the beliefs, strong feelings and lies/embellishments of law enforcement too regularly. > my guess is that a judge would deny such a warrant without something more, e.g. the person has a prior conviction for arson, or there’s a personal connection with the victims. Or they're the wrong religion, race, nationality, seem "suspicious", know/related to felons, don't belong to the good ol' boys club, etc.
  - oxygen_crisis 3y ago
    > But that’s not what happened. That definitely happened. 98. Law enforcement also served an additional warrant on Google for the account information belonging to E.M. There was no connection between Mr. Seymour, Mr. Bui, D.S., and E.M., except that E.M. searched for the address of the fire within the specified time frame. As a result, law enforcement obtained E.M.’s entire Google history, including all of her location history and search history, but did not find any connection to the fire. https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/343f777f-46d4-4c04-b85a-26b34908f544/Seymour-rule-21-petition.pdf https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/343f777f-46d4-4c04-b85a-...
harimau777 3y ago
The are two scenarios that worry me: Someone searches for something that is related to arson for some innocent reason.[1] The police decide that is enough evidence to make them a suspect and eventually prosecute. Due to fear of being found guilty or inability to afford a competent lawyer, the person takes a plea deal even though they are innocent. The government does something questionable like dropping a bomb on a suspected terrorist that also kills a lot of civilians. Someone hears about it; however, they do not investigate further because they fear that a search history related to bombs could make them look like a potential criminal. This results in them not holding the government accountable. [1] Perhaps they are a fan of true crime shows. Perhaps they remembered an urban legend they heard as a kid about flammable clothing and were curious if it was true. etc.

lamontcg 3y ago

> A house was burned down [..] Next time it could be something that you find much less clearcut. Someone had an abortion (if you favor abortion rights), someone bought a gun/ammunition (if you favor the second amendment), someone was just around a given location (if you favor free association and movement). The dragnet could have been over drugs (if you are against the war on drugs). I don't know what conservatives/right-wingers fear these days, but imagine its a dragnet over those things pushed by a liberal political system. And this request produced only a handful of hits, but there's nothing stopping them from getting search results that produce a hundred hits in the dragnet. When it comes to crime there are real actual slippery slopes. You can justify capital punishment with some horrible serial killer like Ted Bundy, but then that winds up with Texas killing innocent, poor, mentally handicapped people who get shitty legal representation.

heavyset_go 3y ago

> It’s not like the police got access to all of the users browsing history, Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices when they're under investigation because they're on that list, so the police get more than access to users' browsing history. > they just got a list of IP address who had been casing the joint. Or they got a list of completely innocent people who made deliveries, live nearby, etc, who are now treated as suspects for arson and murder they didn't commit.

tiahura 3y ago
Police then get warrants for users' electronic devices But that’s not what happened. I don’t practice in Colorado, but my guess is that a judge would deny such a warrant without something more, e.g. the person has a prior conviction for arson, or there’s a personal connection with the victims. If you’re just the Amazon delivery guy, I don’t see it happening.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  You misunderstood how and when the warrant was issued. “The person” who you are assuming must have had some other incriminating evidence against him was not even identified until after the warrant was executed.
- heavyset_go 3y ago
  I don't have that confidence. Judges and grand juries grant warrants based on the beliefs, strong feelings and lies/embellishments of law enforcement too regularly. > my guess is that a judge would deny such a warrant without something more, e.g. the person has a prior conviction for arson, or there’s a personal connection with the victims. Or they're the wrong religion, race, nationality, seem "suspicious", know/related to felons, don't belong to the good ol' boys club, etc.
- oxygen_crisis 3y ago
  > But that’s not what happened. That definitely happened. 98. Law enforcement also served an additional warrant on Google for the account information belonging to E.M. There was no connection between Mr. Seymour, Mr. Bui, D.S., and E.M., except that E.M. searched for the address of the fire within the specified time frame. As a result, law enforcement obtained E.M.’s entire Google history, including all of her location history and search history, but did not find any connection to the fire. https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/343f777f-46d4-4c04-b85a-26b34908f544/Seymour-rule-21-petition.pdf https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/343f777f-46d4-4c04-b85a-...

harimau777 3y ago

The are two scenarios that worry me: Someone searches for something that is related to arson for some innocent reason.[1] The police decide that is enough evidence to make them a suspect and eventually prosecute. Due to fear of being found guilty or inability to afford a competent lawyer, the person takes a plea deal even though they are innocent. The government does something questionable like dropping a bomb on a suspected terrorist that also kills a lot of civilians. Someone hears about it; however, they do not investigate further because they fear that a search history related to bombs could make them look like a potential criminal. This results in them not holding the government accountable. [1] Perhaps they are a fan of true crime shows. Perhaps they remembered an urban legend they heard as a kid about flammable clothing and were curious if it was true. etc.