Haha!!
Reminds me of this:
Posted on 10/05/2021 9:17:41 AM PDT by aquila48
The U.S. government is secretly ordering Google to provide data on anyone typing in certain search terms, an accidentally unsealed court document shows. There are fears such “keyword warrants” threaten to implicate innocent Web users in serious crimes and are more common than previously thought. In 2019, federal investigators in Wisconsin were hunting men they believed had participated in the trafficking and sexual abuse of a minor. She had gone missing that year but had emerged claiming to have been kidnapped and sexually assaulted, according to a search warrant reviewed by Forbes. In an attempt to chase down the perpetrators, investigators turned to Google, asking the tech giant to provide information on anyone who had searched for the victim’s name, two spellings of her mother’s name and her address over 16 days across the year. After being asked to provide all relevant Google accounts and IP addresses of those who made the searches, Google responded with data in mid-2020, though the court documents do not reveal how many users had their data sent to the government.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Just like Hitler dreamed of doing and exactly how it’s done today in communist China
you lied about the headline and your post should be pulled ... actual headline is:
“Exclusive: Government Secretly Orders Google To Identify Anyone Who Searched A Sexual Assault Victim’s Name, Address And Telephone Number”
Look, as long as facebook has been fixed and back online, the public just doesn’t care.
“In an attempt to chase down the perpetrators, investigators turned to Google, asking the tech giant to provide information on anyone who had searched for the victim’s name, two spellings of her mother’s name and her address over 16 days across the year. After being asked to provide all relevant Google accounts and IP addresses of those who made the searches, Google responded with data in mid-2020, though the court documents do not reveal how many users had their data sent to the government.”
This search was specific and narrow in its scope. It is not an unconstitutional “dragnet” as the headline implies.
This was a perfectly logical and perfectly legal search warrant and law enforcement was doing their job.
And I’m a devout critic of law enforcement abuse and I’m saying this is what they should be doing.
It may have been an episode of Forensic Files in which the investigators were able to use information from an online source of maps to identify the one person who downloaded a particular map.
Whether we like it or not we live in an era when it is getting increasingly difficult to get away with committing a crime. That includes “thought crimes”.
Ain’t nothing wrong with this....
If you have a proper search warrant for the specific data you are looking for.
Don’t use google. Everyone should understand by now that the evil empire that was Microsoft in the 90s is the Google of today. Don’t trust them. period.
I don’t see this as a ‘thought crime’.
Researching a target on the web is literally no different than casing a target in public. You leave behind public traces of your activities in both circumstances.
On the web you leave behind traces on publicly accessible infrastructure like routers, servers, and etc. and in public there are surveillance cameras everywhere.
If the FBI or other law enforcement are trying to find a missing person then using publicly facing information to do so makes sense.
“Who searched for Chloe Smith who lives at 1300 Elm Street in Des Moines, Iowa?” is then a logical and legal approach. It does not require a dragnet of searching every query on a public database and instead is narrow in scope and specific in the information sought.
Keep in mind this then has to be matched with other information to demonstrate intent on the part of a suspect.
So what that someone looked up Chloe Smith?
But what if I know that Gary Edwards looked up Chloe Smith and then when I check surveillance cameras and license plate readers I see that before the girl went missing Gary drove from Chicago to Des Moines. And then a license plate reader mounted on a streetlight saw his car on Elm Street? And then a neighbor’s surveillance camera saw Gary’s car parked in front of Chloe’s house the night she went missing?
Now there’s enough to make Gary a legitimate suspect all while absolutely nothing of Gary’s was searched. His 4th Amendment rights are entirely intact.
This passes Constitutional muster and if I had a kid who was missing I’d hope that this would happen.
“If you have a proper search warrant for the specific data you are looking for.”
Big if... And if you have a fair judge.
Remember the FISA warrant on Trump?
Have you considered getting a life?
a state sanctioned Stazi.. whoda thunk?
Boy, have WE come a long way or what from freedom and liberty.
Tell me again, Daddy. How did social media make life better for us?
Does that include the names of celebrities who claim to have been raped?
You’re making a decent case for law enforcement being able to do their job.
That said, the fear citizens have is the unlawful expansion of this ability to including hunting down political opponents of white lineal ‘elites’... you know - us. Traditional Americans..
...................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOC_dcuJO48
Song about: General “Willie” (prick) Mark Milley, General Austin & Winken Blinken. Start at .43 if you want to skip Hannity intro...
I’ve read it five times and I can’t see any difference. Tell us please.
And all you peeps who use gmail, do not make the mistake of believing your EMAIL is not also being examined!!
Haha!!
Reminds me of this:
The obvious point, but many people don't get it, is NOTHING you do on the internet has any privacy associated with it. Government will snoop to the extent technology admits, and it ALWAYS justifies the snoop. You might not thing the reason given holds water, but YOUR impression of "reasonable privacy" carries no weight whatsoever. The government decides what is reasonable privacy.
Even when a snoop is found to be unconstitutional, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride. There is no further remedy in reality, even though on paper it is a crime. The government has not ever, to my knowledge prosecuted a government (or government contracted) snooper for criminal snooping.
I doubt there was a search warrant. None needed. No warrant needed to place a human tail or infiltrator either.
Exactly. More truly terrifying words were never spoken.
What's worse, "the public" includes a big ugly chunk of Freepers...
The line for the courts is that law enforcement can ask service providers for information about specific things. Those service providers, like Google, can insist on a search warrant...which they typically do when the metadata will be linked to personally identifiable information such as a name, IP address, computer name, etc.
Where a search warrant is required is when law enforcement wants to search a person’s computer either in person or by remote access. Absent that warrant the evidence will be inadmissible in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.