[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Google's privacy policy explicitly informs users, "We may share aggregated non-personal information with third parties outside of Google."

That's exactly what is being sought in this investigation.

"May" does not mean "will". And Google will charge a fee for the information it chooses to sell. Google has a property right in the data. Google can also be adversely affected by turning over this data because people will not trust Google and will use it less. Also it would set a precedent regarding information that anyone may hold that the government can have access to it without a crime being involved. This would be the KELO case for all the personal information in the country.

But you agree with Hillary, if it's for the children...

[HiTech RedNeck]

Also it would set a precedent regarding information that anyone may hold that the government can have access to it without a crime being involved.

Yes, I quite note that the Desert Beggar has yet to say what he would think about a subpoena to root through his possessions in support of, say, an anti drug law. For example I want to know how many citizens are hoarding Sudafed.

[Mojave]

"May" does not mean "will".

"What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." --Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353 (1967).