Posted on 12/22/2025 8:29:58 AM PST by DFG
This week, in Commonwealth v. Kurtz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the use of a “reverse keyword” request that led police from a pool of Google searches to a suspect in a 2018 kidnapping and rape, concluding that the data fell under the long‑standing “third‑party doctrine.” The opinion announcing the judgment said that when people type searches into Google without extra privacy tools, they effectively share those queries with the company and assume the risk that Google may hand them to police.
The ruling means that, under both the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and Pennsylvania’s own search‑and‑seizure protections, those basic search records are not treated like the content of private communications and do not automatically trigger the warrant requirement. The court contrasted this data with more sensitive digital records such as long‑term location tracking, which the U.S. Supreme Court previously said generally does require a warrant in Carpenter v. United States.
Investigators in the Kurtz case obtained a reverse keyword warrant instructing Google to identify anyone who searched the victim’s name or home address in the week before the assault. Google responded with an IP address tied to John Kurtz, which police then used, along with additional investigation, to identify, charge and ultimately convict him of rape and related offenses.
Kurtz argued on appeal that this sweeping search of Google’s database violated his federal and state constitutional rights because it exposed intimate, expressive behavior without individualized probable cause. The justices rejected that claim as to basic, non‑protected searches, holding that he had no “cognizable” expectation of privacy in the records Google produced and that the warrant met the probable‑cause standard under existing law.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Using The Internet is the equivalent of standing in the middle of downtown and yelling out what you are going to do............
With most people, once you have their phone, laptop, and bank records, you know pretty much everything about them.
This is the correct ruling. Sending an email is a public communication, unless encrypted. Think of the internet as a gigantic radio station, where everyone has a microphone to broadcast to everyone.
Assume everything you do is public.
When I lived in Panama, my brother insisted on our communications going through Proton Mail because it was encrypted. Although I agree with you - assume NOTHING that goes out on the internet is private.
Agreed.
My only issue is the lack of transparency.
Google—and everybody else—should put it in bold print on their home page.
“We collect everything. We share everything with anyone we choose to share it with. Have a nice day.”
I learned long ago that emails can be forwarded easily to the exact people you would least want to see them. So never say anything even in private emails that you aren’t prepared to stand behind publicly if you have to.
Worked for a power company on nuclear plant. Anti-nuke arseholes lied and lied.
They even claimed that the apparent void in poured concrete was a body .So, we had to dig........
So, we were warned by Legal that any communications and/or notes we made were subject to search. That meant any notes during staff meetings were to be ......”professional” and we needed to pretend that it would come out in court.
Gesuss.
“effectively”
“...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...”
Wrapping my cellphone in two layers of aluminum foil doesn’t block the Wi-Fi or the cellphone connection.
Placing my cellphone in two-quart, covered, stainless steel saucepan doesn’t block the Wi-Fi or the cellphone connection.
Placing my cellphone in my double-steel walled oven did cut me off.
A reminder:
It’s time for lunch.
You’re, very, very hungry.
Them: “I’m worried about my privacy on Facebook”
Me: “It’s literally intended to be the opposite of private”
There was a nice thread here a couple of days ago about the Texas AG suing TV makers for collecting info on viewers.
I immediately looked up how to cancel that “feature” on my newish Samsung.
Absurd ruling...
Like issue a statement that rain is wet...
Works for me. If you don’t like it you can use VPNs and firefox.
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.