Don't Google "How To Commit Murder" Before Killing

An anonymous reader alerts us to a murder trial in New Jersey in which Google and MSN searches were used against a woman accused of killing her husband. In the days before the murder, prosecutors say the defendant searched for "How To Commit Murder," "instant poisons," "undetectable poisons," "fatal digoxin doses," and gun laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Her husband was killed with a gun procured in Pennsylvania. The crime occurred in 2004; of course, people now know to be careful about their searches.

Comments

Huh?

[Lenneth-chan]

IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?

Re:Huh?

[Cristofori42]

IANAL, but.. why not?

Re:Huh?

[Applekid]

Not much different from admitting evidence suggesting an alleged had checked out a book on poisons from the library when the stand accused of a poisoning death.

What I want to know is whether researching the search histories of the accused is the status quo.

Re:Huh?

[ComaVN]

Not on it's own. Combined with other evidence, it might show intent.

Re:Huh?

[Jhon]

IANAL, but this would support premeditation -- not necessarily that she COMMITTED the murder. This type of evidence could go a long way in changing a murder 2 case in to a murder 1 case.

Re:Huh?

[Eccles]

Why do you think it would not be admissable?

Anything can be forged or faulty, be it pics, documents, or server logs, the possibility that it could be faked is not by itself grounds for inadmissibility.

While it might be hearsay, it would be a statement against interest, which is one of the hearsay exceptions.

IANAL, although my wife is, and I helped her study a little.

Re:Huh?

[sjwaste]

IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?

IAALS, so this might not be entirely the best answer, but it seems to me the hardest thing will be authenticating the data. Barring a first party admission (who the hell would admit to this?), Google would have to authenticate the search terms, the IP would have to be authenticated as that of the defendant's at that time. So you'd have to subpoena the records from Google, authenticate them, and in they come.

But remember, admitting something as evidence doesn't mean it's not rebuttable. You can bring in an expert to talk about how its cloudy that the IP was hers, etc. In the end, the finder of fact (the jury) determines whether or not its credible. The rules of evidence only keep out the stuff that's really irrelevant, overly prejudicial, hearsay, etc.

Now maybe a real lawyer will correct me if I'm missing something.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It shows her present state of mind at the time, and people usually do what they say they plan to do.

Re:Huh?

[maxume]

Are you talking about attorney-client privilege? It doesn't make it o.k. for a lawyer to be party to a crime. It isn't real clear if the computer was her lawyers or not, but if she used her lawyers gun to shoot someone, it wouldn't make the gun inadmissible.

Re:Huh?

[sjwaste]

If I was defense, I would argue that it's overly prejudicial when balanced with its probative value, but without more of the facts, I really can't expand on that. I think that's a better shot than hearsay. I don't think its hearsay at all (not really an out of court statement meant as an assertion by a party other than the accused). If it is, though, that's why FRE 807's there, this would probably fall into the residual exception.

Re:Huh?

[Drantin]

IAALS? I am a lawyer's sidekick?

Re:Huh?

[cayenne8]

I can't get to the link for TFA....how did they find SHE did these searches? Was it just data still on her own home computer, or was this information somehow attained FROM Google and MSM that tied her searches there to her?

The latter is much scarier IMHO. I don't want anyone to commit murder and get away with it, but, I didn't realize that Google searches could be traced from their systems backwards to you.

Re:Huh?

[sjwaste]

Law student :)

Re:Huh?

[LordSnooty]

I didn't realize that Google searches could be traced from their systems backwards to you.

Really, I guess you've not heard of these "EyePee" addresses which I'm told are recorded by the search engine when you use it?

Re:Huh?

[tomknight]

"What I want to know is whether researching the search histories of the accused is the status quo."

Worried about something?

Re:Huh?

[Andrewkov]

As a regular watcher of "Law and Order" and "CSI: Miami", I can assure you that the law does not work that way.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article says they got it from seized computers, presumably from the browser history or saved form field data.

Re:Huh?

[boaworm]

If you would have read the article, you would have found

Jennifer Seymour, who worked for the State Police digital technology unit, testified thismorning how she examined the digital contents of computers and hand held devices obtained as part of the investigation.

Her testimony was the strongest evidence yet in the state's circumstantial evidence case against the 34-year-old McGuire, who allegedly murdered her husband with a .38 caliber weapon, dismembered his body and placed body parts in three suitcases found in the Chesapeake Bay in May of 2004. That's not a strong case I'd say.. but IANAL (as this seems to be the acronym of this post)

Re:Huh?

[maxume]

Sorry about the apostrophes.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

wel let me say to you how the internets wurks here . you see the tubez are fillled up with dese numbas that uniqueley identify your PeeCee to the rest of the internstz . if ta machinez you connect to log dis infoz, they can probbbbably track it back to uz. .lollzerz.

Seriously, if the parent post isn't indicative of the vast decline of /., nothing is.

Re:Huh?

[stratjakt]

It obviously doesn't prove she comitted the murder - but if you establish that she did indeed commit the murder, this goes a long way to show that it was premeditated (murder in the first degree), rather than an emotional act commited in the heat of passion (manslaughter).

If you want to kill somebody, or hate somebody so intensely, never let anyone know. Never say "I'd love to strangle that sunmabitch", even if its blowing off steam. Say you did kill that guy, in self defense, or by accident... You've already showed evidence of premeditation.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing. ;)

Re:Huh?

[pz]

I read TFA. It states that a forensic analyist went through at least one of eight computers that the defendant is suspected of using. The one in question is from her home, if I recall. If the report is accurate (probably close enough) and complete (who knows), neither her ISP nor Google were involved in determining what the person using that computer was searching for.

Re:Huh?

[Ngarrang]

IANAL, but it probably goes toward reasonable doubt to the motives of the suspect.

In any case, go ahead and Google that phrase, but wait 24 months so Google can anonymize your search...per their new policy.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens when a law student who takes Viagra?

He gets taller.

Re:Huh?

[DragonWriter]

I can't get to the link for TFA....how did they find SHE did these searches?

From several computers that McGuire had access to. A few relevant bits from TFA:

Jennifer Seymour, who worked for the State Police digital technology unit, testified thismorning how she examined the digital contents of computers and hand held devices obtained as part of the investigation.
.
.
.
Seymour, now employed by the U.S. Department of Defense, testified how digital investigators can trace activity on a computer, including information the user has deleted.

She testified that she isolated data that was accessed in the weeks leading up to the murder, by inserting the keyword "search," which showed activity by Google and MSN search engines, with the searches center-ing on poisons and gun laws.
.
.
.
Seymour said that on Sept. 8, 2005, the State Police obtained eight computers, three laptops and eight hand-held devices as part of the murder investigation.

In her testimony today, she said she examined the contents of a computer obtained at the office of McGuire's attorney, though she did not identify the name of the attorney. She also said she tested a home computer used by the Woodbridge couple, and a home computer used by her parents, who now live in Barnegat.

Re:Huh?

[voice_of_all_reason]

Wait, her testimony was the strongest evidence? Why didn't they admit the actual files that showed these searches were made?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely you've heard of DHCP?

Re:Huh?

[Austerity Empowers]

EyePee addresses are traceable only to whatever you have that terminates them, such as a wireless cable/router, or at worst, your computer. They are not stamped inside your head or buried in an RFID in your skin such that they necessarily place your hands on a keyboard/mouse such that you're necessarily engaged with whatever activity was occurring on that link.

In all probability they asked her if she was using her computer at such and such time, and she said yes, allowing it into court. That they managed to get the logs from Google is another matter entirely, but I suspect Google had no choice.

Re:Huh?

[Brigadier]

keep in mind any evidence submitted can be refuted by the defendants lawyer. So it would be within his best interest to find an 'expert' who could say something like 'she had an open wifi terminal, or my daughter was doing an essay.' I dont know the details of the trial but I'm sure the evidence was supporting.

Re:Huh?

[eserteric]

how did they find SHE did these searches? Well, it's like when they find out that a gun that was used in a murder was registered to the suspect. It doesn't mean that the suspect actually shot the person, but it's pretty incriminating that it's registered in his/her name.

And it's the same concept here. There's no definite proof that she conducted the searches, but a computer that is in some way connected to her did.

Re:Huh?

[ijakings]

Just dont hire the same "expert" as the RIAA did. He doesn't believe 2 computers can exist within the same room apparently.

Re:Huh?

[__aamnbm3774]

Man, it sure is easy to frame someone these days.

Re:Huh?

[vought]

EyePee addresses are traceable only to whatever you have that terminates them, such as a wireless cable/router, or at worst, your computer. They are not stamped inside your head or buried in an RFID in your skin such that they necessarily place your hands on a keyboard/mouse such that you're necessarily engaged with whatever activity was occurring on that link. Not yet .

Re:Huh?

[rtaylor]

It's the tights and cape you're wearing that made us think sidekick.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which matters exactly how in this matter? It doesn't.

Re:Huh?

[Brian See]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't think there's any need to subpoena Google. Just look at the browser history -- the search terms you google are clearly visible -- so an entry of http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how+to+kill+s omeone is probably what they found. You authenticate the chain of custody of the computer where you retrieved the browser history (probably via a forensic image of the computer), and you have testimony from the investigator that the computer was retrieved from xyz location and handled in a forensically sound manner, etc. etc.

Once you have the foundation of the browser history entry, then you introduce expert testimony regarding what that history entry means -- in other words, that someone using that computer (and perhaps logged in via a certain user profile) went to Google and searched for those terms.

In this manner, it doesn't go in via the party admission hearsay exception.

On cross-examination, the other side could attack the chain of custody and could probably elicit admissions that the evidence just shows that the computer was used and that it could have been someone besides the defendant doing the searching. And then there's always the possibility of forgery / planted evidence -- but with the forensic image (which is usually hashed) and the chain-of-custody logs, you'd probably have a hard time. All of this stuff goes to the WEIGHT of the evidence, and not to its admissibility.

IAAL.

Re:Huh?

[jimbojw]

> (who the hell would admit to this?)

Everyone - assuming the interrogator is Jack Bauer

Re:Huh?

[hanssprudel]

Ever heard of ISPs keeping records of DHCP leases?

You are NOT anonymous on the Internet. Get over it.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to guess Legal Secretary.

Re:Huh?

[b100dian]

Careful what you're clicking!

Re:Huh?

[Harlequin]

Clearly, it must have been her husband researching how to kill her! She killed him in self defense after finding out what he was searching for on the internet.

Re:Huh?

[Brian See]

Testimony arising out of a forensic computer examination is most often hybrid fact testimony and expert testimony. Without looking at the transcript (or really anything more than the news reports), it seems to me that the examiner simply offered her expert opinion that the computer was used to Google certain (incriminating) search terms. The opinion gets before the jury and the basis of that expert opinion (ie the browser history) gets out under Rule 703.

Whether the jury gets to take the printout of the browser history back to the jury room is a separate question, but my point is that the hearsay problem isn't what some of the commenters here are making it out to be.

Re:Huh?

[cyberianpan]

And I reckon that it was simply checking the browser history, whilst this evidence is circumstantial (eg was she using computer at time etc) it really is a kicker regards proving intent/pre meditation :-)

Re:Huh?

[nine-times]

I didn't RTFA, but i highly doubt that they searched all Google searches for "poison" and then traced the searches back to her. There's a simpler, much more likely option that would necessarily link it to the woman's actual computer, and not just an IP address her ISP assigned to her. It's obvious: they had a search warrant and looked on her computer.

There's your search history and cache. Depending on your browser, it might auto-complete text fields of web pages you've visited before. Also, if you have a Google account and you're logged in, it might store your search history. Unless you know what you're doing, your you'll leave all sorts of information about your browsing habits on your own computer.

Re:Huh?

[Bagels]

Lawyers don't have sidekicks, they have henchmen.

(apologies to any lawyers present)

Re:Huh?

[hearingaid]

It supports both.

Yer Honor and fine boobs of the jury, the defendant searches for information on how to commit murder, and then, not long after, her husband turns up dead. We think she mighta had somethin' to do with it.

Think about it. It's not much of a stretch.

It's not enough to convict on (at least, not by itself), but it's evidence.

Re:Huh?

[networkBoy]

About halfway down:

How to Commit War Crimes With a Straight Face um.....
wow, didn't know you needed a guide to do that.

Re:Huh?

[networkBoy]

I'm using your router, so while I'm not anonymous I am not me either. :p

Seriously I'm beginning to think that the best defense is to have an open WiFi connection and claim to be a "data communist" when confronted with IP logs.
-nB

Re:Huh?

[Amouth]

hell i am going to go right now and search how to distroy the world..

i want to see them try to pin that on me

Re:Huh?

[Jtheletter]

Lawyers don't have sidekicks, they have henchmen.

No no no. You've got it backwards, lawyers have sidekicks - Birdman & Peanut/Avenger - and villains have henchmen - The Monarch & henchmen (but they prefer the term 'minions').

See? Adult Swim *is* good for something. ;) 1-31-07, Never Forget!

Re:Huh?

[cayenne8]

"IANAL, but this would support premeditation -- not necessarily that she COMMITTED the murder. This type of evidence could go a long way in changing a murder 2 case in to a murder 1 case."

Strangely enough...NOT if she'd done the murder in LA!!

We have a case right now of a former radio personality, that is accused of gunning down his wife. They are charging him with Murder 2. Apparently down here, premeditation does not make it Murder 1. I'm still trying to sort this all out, but, I think you have to be commiting another Felony while murdering someone in order for it to be Murder 1.

Interesting how so many laws can vary so widely between states.....

Re:Huh?

[frdmfghtr]

RTFA...it will answer your questions.

From what I gathered from the story, the data was on the LOCAL computers. MSN and Google searches were barely mentioned in the article.

There is NO mention of ANY data being obtained directly from Google or MSN. It was all cached data left on various local devices used by the suspect.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's crazy talk. My IP changes several times a day - I don't want it to, dialup and all. My connection is paid for in another name and in another county, but that's me. Even when I liberate movies and music from other people, their wireless router might have a log of the IP changes for it but I don't see how that identifies me or how it makes them liable considering all of the neighboring open access points. Its a good thing, and there's nothing wrong with anonymity. I don't have to worry about arbitrary laws preventing me from sharing information regardless of who might protest and even though some will abuse privacy to commit murder or whatever it doesn't even begin to justify invading everyones privacy.
Howevermany lives might be saved or whatever justice might be served cannot justify stripping people of civil rights unilaterally. I don't care how many atrocities are performed by allowing freedom of speech, etc. how many billions of dollars, hours of productivity, parcels of land - if there is no anonymity then I'm not about to get over it anymore than I'm willing to get over being legally bound to PC speech or other such nonsense just because of hate speech. Fuck that, conformist fucking pig.

Re:Huh?

[Jhon]

Do you have a link or summery of that case? I live in LA and I'm unaware of it.

Re:Huh?

[Asic Eng]

how did they find SHE did these searches?

They were looking at the searches, then using them to investigate what she did. So they found she was searching for instant poisons/undetectable poisons/fatal dioxin doses and also accessing www.walgreens.com/storelocator. Then they used this information to find the pharamacist who filled the prescription for chloral hydrate (written by the accused's alleged boyfriend who happens to be a doctor). So apparently they used the information on her computer as a starting point. I think that's a valid police technique. They don't have proof that the drug in question (chloral hydrate) was actually used on her husband, though. Just from the data given in the article it would also be possible that someone else had purchased the chloral hydrate, or that the chloral hydrate was not used in the murder at all.

During murder investigations police can search personal belongings of suspects. I think it must be a horrible feeling to have this happen to you. On the other hand, it certainly seems reasonable that the police would not just search hand-written things but also data which is on a suspects computer (provided there is a proper legal process in place to prevent arbitrary searches). If they find that someone searched for poisons on the internet, on a computer you have access to, just the day before your spouse was murdered - I think that's valid circumstantial evidence.

Re:Huh?

[westlake]

IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?

it suggests the planning, the premeditation, that leads to a conviction for first-degree murder.

your late husband took digitalis. you were researching the lethal overdose, how easily it could be detected in autopsy. while studying other ways to successfully fake a natural death or a suicide.

Re:Huh?

[nebaz]

Does LA mean Los Angeles or Louisana, in this case?

Re:Huh?

[Spazztastic]

Google logs your searches if you log into Gmail and have a personalized homepage, which is very common for most users these days. All your searches are logged unless you specifically ask not to. Odds are she had her computer set to remember her info, got caught, they logged in and saw the searches.

Moral of this story? Disable search logging.

Re:Huh?

[vux984]

Agreed.

Nearly all evidence is circumstantial. They could find the gun in your hand - all that means is you picked it up. Not that you fired it. They could find gunshot residue on your hand - all that means is you fired it, not that you fired it at the victim.

I'd hate to be that innocent bastard who stumbles over a gun and picks it up only to have it accidently discharge into the floor, before seeing his very recently murdered ex-girlfriend lying just a few feet away.

Similarly, finding this in her browser history doesn't make her guilty but it sure closes the window of 'reasonable doubt' a little more.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's likely the searches were recovered by analyzing browser history.

Unless Google stores the history in cookies (doubt that would be appreciated, imagine the disk space)... or they obtained a subpoensa for Google and MSN to reveal logs connected from the IP.

But, how could both of these companies keep logs of *everyones* queries. That's some serious disk space. It could be also they were asked ahead of time to record the information, but that would imply that someone had suspected something beforehand (which doesn't appear to be the case here).

Re:Huh?

[Jhon]

I THOUGHT it was Los Angeles -- but it's Louisana.

Found a link.

There are a number of things that might make the above case 2nd degree, not 1st. "I just wanted to scare her" would mean 2nd degree.

Finding the google searches in TOPIC case pretty much supports 1st degree premeditation.

Re:Huh?

[Matt Edd]

...fine boobs...

uh... what were you saying?

Re:Huh?

[Harin_Teb]

I am a Law Student.

Which, incidentally, is also true of me... I'm sitting in my patent drafting class right now!

Re:Huh?

[jacem]

IANAL, but, is that all the evidence they have connecting her to the crime?

Re:Huh?

[stratjakt]

Generally, first is with intent to kill - premeditation. That can be hard to prove, depending where you're tried. Just because someone heard you mutter "i'd love to pound that guys head in" a year earlier, may not be enough.

I can see here, researching on the internet, shows intent, and a really cold character.

Commission of a murder, during the comission of another felony is first degree by default. I think the logic goes: by robbing that liquor store, you showed a disregard for the clerks life, and therefore a certain willingness to take it, or by fleeing the police in the car, you show a willingness to run over the 6 year old crossing the road, etc.

Second degree would be maybe shaking a baby to death, beating someone to death. It gets hairy here, splitting between 2nd degree murder and manslaughter. Manslaughter I understand as accidental, but due to some negligence on your part. 2nd degree murder is accidental, but due to actions taken on your part.

It is confusing. It's easier just not to kill people.

Re:Huh?

[rupert0]

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/8-ways-t o-kill-someone-with-the-nano-184570.php LOL Betcha this one was on her cache !

Re:Huh?

[Uncle Rummy]

I'm using your router, so while I'm not anonymous I am not me either.

Unless you're extremely diligent about clearing your cookies, it's likely that whatever search engine you frequent can piece together who you are. Remember the AOL logs? If you use gmail or yahoo mail, it gets even easier, as they can cross-reference against your email.


I'm beginning to think that the best defense is to have an open WiFi connection and claim to be a "data communist" when confronted with IP logs.

A friend of mine has the same philosophy. While I agree with it in principle, I think in practice it's rather dangerous in today's world. Imagine what a jury is going to be thinking when the prosecution trots out your ISP's traffic logs showing searches on murder methods, police procedures, firearms regulations, evasion techniques, money laundering and corpse disposal, complete with hard copies of a few choice pictures from ogrish or rotten. Regardless of the fact that you run an open AP, most of the jury members are only going to remember all the disturbing things that were searched and viewed from your connection, and believe that even if you didn't perform those searches and view those pages, you must have some implicit connection with those who did.

Or, imagine that the RIAA sues you for copyright infringement after downloading Britney's greatest hits from somebody leeching your connection. Even if you've never run a P2P client yourself, you're now in the unenviable position of having to defend yourself against a well-financed team of legal bullies. Even if you get them to concede that your open AP casts doubt on their assertion that you were the direct infringer, I wouldn't be surprised if they then decided to change tacks and go after you for contributory infringement or some such.

Re:Huh?

[fmobus]

You just have to watch Dubia's addresses *ducks*

Re:Huh?

[fmobus]

and get pounded by *AA for violating DMCA? I think I'd rather be arrested for murder, thanks.

Re:Huh?

[evilRhino]

They can't. All they know is that the searches were done on the dead husband's computer. I don't have a link, this was reported in my local paper the Star Ledger.

Re:Huh?

[cayenne8]

"Does LA mean Los Angeles or Louisana, in this case?"

LA = Louisiana....like TX = Texas, AR = Arkansas....etc.

I would guess if abbreviating Los Angeles it would be with periods? L.A.?

Anyway, Louisiana has some pretty weird laws...coming from Napoleanic law rather than Common Law foundations.

Re:Huh?

[PatHMV]

As a former prosecutor in Louisiana, I can explain this one for you. To begin with, understand that the penalty for Murder 2 is life in prison, no parole. And here in Louisiana, that sentence means you will die in prison. For Murder 1, the penalty is either the death penalty or life in prison.

We don't use the concept of "premeditation" in Louisiana, we use "intent." If you kill somebody, and you had an intent to kill them, that's Murder 2, even if that intent was formed the second you pulled the trigger. You don't have to "lie in wait" or anything like that. In a poisoning case, the only defense, beyond just I didn't put the arsenic in his soup" would be "I had no idea that was arsenic, it came out of the jar labelled 'sugar.'" It's also Murder 2 if you kill someone in the course of committing another crime, such as armed robbery. Say you accidentally drop the gun while you're pulling the robbery, and it goes off and kills somebody. You didn't intend to kill the guy, you didn't pull the trigger, but you did kill him in the course of a robbery, so that's Murder 2.

Murder One is a murder where you intended to kill someone AND one of several aggravating circumstances is present. If you shoot a cop and kill him, that's Murder 1. If you're pulling a robbery AND you intentionally shoot the store clerk, that's Murder 1 (if you had only accidentally shot the store clerk, it would be Murder 2).

You can read the law for yourself:

• First Degree Murder
• Second Degree Murder

Note the use of the phrase "intent to kill or cause great bodily harm." That's in there to prevent the murderer from claiming "yeah, I shot him, but I only wanted to wound him in the arm, I didn't mean to shoot him in the heart."

Re:Huh?

[evilRhino]

This is a bad argument against it. The RIAA hasn't been able to prove their case against people putting even the minimal amount of resistance.

Re:Huh?

[hansonc]

IANAL either and I didn't RTFM either but I would assume that this is being used to show premeditation of the crime they can prove otherwise.

Re:Huh?

[onemorechip]

Not yet

...that you know of.

Re:Huh?

[Eccles]

They admit the actual file records as part of her testimony. Defense queries expert witness as to credentials, then asks what she's discovered, she describes and verifies the it, and it's entered into evidence by the judge if he's satisfied with the procedure.

Re:Huh?

[onemorechip]

it sure closes the window of 'reasonable doubt' a little more

At the same time, it opens up another path for somebody who wants to frame somebody else for the crime.

Re:Huh?

[whitehatlurker]

They could find gunshot residue on your hand - all that means is you fired it

Actually, it doesn't mean that much - you could have gotten the GSR from handling the recently discharged weapon. I believe that the pattern of residue would indicate the likelihood that you had fired the gun.

Re:Huh?

[Eccles]

keep in mind any evidence submitted can be refuted by the defendants lawyer.

The lawyer doesn't do the refuting, he queries an expert (possibly the prosecution's expert) regarding possible problems with the evidence. You might, for example, get someone from Google who would testify that "How to murder" has been searched 4,000,000 times in the last year, or present as counter evidence notes from a novel that the defendant or a relative with access to the house was working on.

Re:Huh?

[LordSnooty]

Of course, in the AOL 'anonymous search terms' scandal, it took some journalists about 4 minutes to work out who one of the searchees were. And that was with no data apart from a bunch of search strings.

Re:Huh?

[R2.0]

I got the best illustration of the power of circumstantial evidence in an undergrad Intro to Law class.

"A five year old holding an empty pie plate and having a face full of blueberry filling is all circumstantial, but you can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt he ate the pie."

This was before "American Pie" came out, so I'm sure his analogy has changed by now.

Re:Huh?

[harl]

A friend of mine has the same philosophy. While I agree with it in principle, I think in practice it's rather dangerous in today's world. Imagine what a jury is going to be thinking when the prosecution trots out your ISP's traffic logs showing searches on murder methods, police procedures, firearms regulations, evasion techniques, money laundering and corpse disposal, complete with hard copies of a few choice pictures from ogrish or rotten. Regardless of the fact that you run an open AP, most of the jury members are only going to remember all the disturbing things that were searched and viewed from your connection, and believe that even if you didn't perform those searches and view those pages, you must have some implicit connection with those who did. This is not legal advice.

The idea is that a jury never sees any of what you mention above. You never trust a jury to make the right choice. You control what they see and thus allow them to only make one choice. The one you want them to. Your lawyer should be able to get all of this labeled as inadmissible by showing that multiple MAC addresses regularly and routinely connect to your computer. You did keep those logs right? At that point you supeana the computers of everyone in a 500 ft radius and check for matching MAC addresses. Then you search matching computers for evidence of those searches. If you don't have people regularly and routinely connecting to your computer, and the logs to prove it, then your "data communist" defense is motion denied. The jury will see the pics and searches. You will probably go to jail.

Re:Huh?

[sumdumass]

How much in time, effort, money, emotional distress, Assuring others your innocent and anything else involved in a RIAA accusation before something gets admitted to drop the case?

And do we know that everyone who has gotten their cases dropped gotten their legal fees back? I assume they got a judgment but did they really get them back or is it being held up on appeal? I imagine total amount would be into the tens of thousands if not hundreds when all things considered. And even if your legal fees were small (2500?) how much would that have made sitting in a back collecting interest? Imagine it taking from one to two years for the case to goto trial, Another two to three years for appeals and then finally an appeal if they get one then the time actually waiting to see the money back. You could easily lose that money to 5 to 10 years. At 3% interest, $2500 (which will be more by the time all the appeals and motions for fees are taken into consideration) sitting in a bank at 10% interest for 7 year would double your money. You not likely to get that much interest but CDs and Bonds for the time period could get you 3-8% interest easy. And this isn't even considering if you have the money sitting around, If you have to barrow it for the same time period, you would be paying 3-8% on top of it.

I'm not sure it would be worht it unless you have hte money, the time, and are trying to prove some kind of point. Otherwise, there are other ways to shield yourself from RIAA suits and still do whatever without going to court.

Re:Huh?

[ostrich2]

Wait a minute...Google watches you pee, too? Man, someone's got to get a hold of this monster.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also Murder 2 if you kill someone in the course of committing another crime, such as armed robbery.

Another violent crime, your link says.

(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm; or

(2)(a) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of aggravated rape, forcible rape, aggravated arson, aggravated burglary, aggravated kidnapping, second degree kidnapping, aggravated escape, assault by drive-by shooting, armed robbery, first degree robbery, second degree robbery, simple robbery, cruelty to juveniles, second degree cruelty to juveniles, or terrorism, even though he has no intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm.

So you can still, for example, run over someone while driving drunk or accidentally shoot someone while illegally hunting on their land without being sentenced to life in prison?

As an aside, I'm always amused by legal terms like "forcible rape."

Re:Huh?

[sumdumass]

But if you washed your hands, or whore gloves, then the pattern could be pointless.

But more importantly, there are these toys that are blots of ink loosly resembling patterns. Some might see a butterfly and some might see a vagina. While other could so other things. The pattern, even if it is possible to accurately recreate and predict could still not prove much. err be much proof that you shot the weapon.

Re:Huh?

[gharris]

I always wash my whore gloves.

Re:Huh?

[sumdumass]

Well, What the lawyer is probably going to say is that this is just circumstantial then go on to claim the murder could have been committed by any number of people close to the defendant who could have had access to the same computers the evidence was found on.

Motive? She was abused and one of her close friends wanted to stop it and make sure it never happened again. Her close friend didn't know all this could happen and is now fearing her freedom. Or how about Her close friend, who had access to the computers in question also, that knew the defendant was having an affair with their lover and wanted to get her back. This could have been done to make it look like the defendant killed her husband and maybe they even thought about the cookies and wanted it to implicate the defendant's new lover in the process. Killing tow birds with one stone perhaps.

And then when her expert witness along with the state's say that there is no proof as to who actually did the searches, and the lawyer asks is any one of the close friends who had access to the computers could have been the one who did the searching, they will have to say yes. Maybe place some stipulations on it but the answer will be yes.

In the end, If you were on a jury and knowing what you know now, would you think anything was proof of a specific person committing murder? More specificly, the defendent or could it be likely a close friend?

Re:Huh?

[dr_labrat]

that would carry more weight if you could spell subpoena just like you would have more faith in my post if i could punctuate

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all you can bring? A spelling error? That's pathetic.

Re:Huh?

[nilloc]

According to the article, they got the search results from her computer. Not Google nor MSN.

Re:Huh?

[the_mushroom_king]

Just get a new pair. There's plenty more in the wharehouse.

Re:Huh?

[GrumpySimon]

Dubya, is that you?

(trolling, I know)

Re:Huh?

[Yvanhoe]

If the computer cache revealed such browsing at a time of the day where she was alone at home, this can bring some light on the question of premeditation. Of course, she could also defend saying "it is not me, it is this tech-savvy kid I baby-sitted last night", but if she simply admits the fact that she has made some research, submitting such clues to the court effectively helps to find the truth.

Re:Huh?

[CrimsonScythe]

I was kinda expecting this to be the first link...

Re:Huh?

[Uncle Rummy]

Ok, first of all, IANAL. Now then.

The idea is that a jury never sees any of what you mention above...Your lawyer should be able to get all of this labeled as inadmissible by showing that multiple MAC addresses regularly and routinely connect to your computer.

The ISP logs constitute a record of activity that occurred over your connection, and consequently have probative value. The fact that your AP is open and used by multiple individuals would be presented by the defense in an attempt to dilute the effect of the logs. It is the jury's task to weigh these things against each other, not the judge's (assuming a jury trial).


...you supeana the computers of everyone in a 500 ft radius and check for matching MAC addresses. Then you search matching computers for evidence of those searches.

Good luck with that. Imagine a high-rise apartment building in an affluent city neighborhood. On how many innocent people's property and privacy rights would you be intruding in your attempt to identify the one whom you allege was responsible for all those bad things in your ISP's logs? Ever hear the phrase "fishing expedition"?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Start with "Carbon dioxide".

Hell, you probably drive an escalade or an expedition, therefore:

GUILTY!

Re:Huh?

[vux984]

don't you mean whorehouse?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. They are both "summery".

Re:Huh?

[ghostcorps]

This should be marked down for redundant, but it looks like some ppl need this spelled out: Its very rare (lets say: never, outside a military court) that any one piece of evidence is 'all' you need. But, each piece goes toward building a picture of events and a 'likely scenario'.

Re:Huh?

[metachor]

As someone who works in the e-discovery/e-forensics field (litigation support/IT admin, IANAL), it pleases me to read this lucid explanation of how the discovery process actually applies to the article in question. Thanks!

Re:Huh?

[Brian See]

Metachor, IAAL and 99% of my practice is eDiscovery-related. Call me a lawyer among techies, or a techie among lawyers, either way is hopefully accurate. I get lots of practice trying to explain this stuff to both the geeks and the technophobe lawyer/judges out there.

Re:Huh?

[SanityInAnarchy]

And I'm thinking the best way to crack down would be to force people to be responsible for what happens on their hardware, unless someone signs some sort of waiver first -- and maybe some sort of standards as to what kind of community you have to be to allow that. A difference between something like YouTube, or an ISP, and something like an anonymous, deliberately unprotected FTP server.

Re:Huh?

[RubberChainsaw]

"It's also Murder 2 if you kill someone in the course of committing another crime, such as armed robbery. Say you accidentally drop the gun while you're pulling the robbery, and it goes off and kills somebody. You didn't intend to kill the guy, you didn't pull the trigger, but you did kill him in the course of a robbery, so that's Murder 2."

Thank you for your insightful post. I have to say that this accidental murder during another crime law is just plain stupid. I understand its intent, but it doesn't seem a very good implementation. It puts the bystanders of a robbery at increased risk. If a criminal robs a store, and someone accidentally gets shot while in that store, then a criminal who knows his local laws might as well kill everyone else in the store, too.

:(

Re:Huh?

[PatHMV]

You're welcome. But besides criminals not always thinking things through that closely, and there are a lot bigger factors influencing their decisions in such crises, they still have a strong incentive to not go ahead and shoot everybody else. Second degree murder (from the accidental death during the robbery) carries only life in prison. But the first degree murder they'd get from killing everybody else will earn them the death penalty, and we in Louisiana aren't too squeamish about imposing the death penalty. The accidental law does provide a strong incentive for the robber to be very careful with his weapons and so forth, if he is rational enough to realize the consequences. Of course, since the penalty for armed robbery here is up to 99 years in prison, the robber probably wasn't thinking too much about the consequences one way or the other.

Re:Huh?

[sumdumass]

You know, I get so much grief from not using a spell check. I turn it on and it totally change the meaning of the word being used.

But as far as washing, You could probably just turn the Whore gloves inside out and shake the fuck out of it enough to use again.

Re:Huh?

[lambini]

And this one : Report by the CIA on How to Commit an Assassination

Re:Huh?

[tomknight]

Google says:

"Web Results 1 - 10 of about 47,000 for "distroy the world". (0.44 seconds)

Did you mean: "destroy the world"
Yahoo! Answers - how can i distroy the world?27 answers - Yahoo! Answers - how can i distroy the world?
http://answers.yahoo.ca/question/index?qid=2007011 9204117AA5r65o&show=7-322k"

There's a Canadian plot beating you to it!

Re:Huh?

[FritzTheCat1030]

Yeah. If you deliberately leaving your wireless open to give yourself deniability results in my computers getting subpoenaed just because I live next door, you better believe I'm going to be offering my testimony to the prosecution. And I'm going to say you bragged to me about committing the crime even if I've never spoken to you in my life.

Re:Huh?

[jbroom]

IAALS: I am a Lawyer Scumbag.
It's actually redundant, as they are synonyms...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

it sure closes the window of 'reasonable doubt' a little more At the same time, it opens up another path for somebody who wants to frame somebody else for the crime. Ah, ha. So the husband frames the wife for his murder before committing suicide... Nice mystery novel in the making.

Re:Huh?

[harl]

Ever hear the phrase "fishing expedition"? Yes. It's often called "discovery."

Re:Huh?

[PatHMV]

Yes, since I was providing the link, I didn't list the specific details in my summary. And yes, running over somebody while driving drunk is vehicular homicide, a different crime, which carries a substantially lesser penalty. Accidentally shooting someone while illegally trespassing on their land would probably be classified as manslaughter under La. law, which covers both intentional killings made in the heat of passion (i.e., you catch your wife in bed with another man, snap and kill them both... but do it right away; if your blood has time to "cool" before you shoot them, it'll be murder) and killings made accidentally while in the course of committing any felony not listed in the murder statutes or any misdemeanor "directly affecting the person." If you hit somebody with you fist, say, that's simple battery, a misdemeanor directly affecting the person. If the guy falls down, hits his head on the edge of the coffee table, and dies, then you're guilty of manslaughter. Trespass is generally a misdemeanor, and probably wouldn't be considered to be "directly affecting the person," so your second example would probably be negligent homicide, but only if you were grossly negligent.

Re:Huh?

[davper]

I would think that intentionally poisoning with a non-household chemical would be premeditated. It's not like she picked up a knife or gun and killed because she suddenly got angry.

Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[Tillmann]

Hi,

if my wife gets murdered, will it make me a suspect if I've googled for "ReiserFS"?

bye,
Till

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Because ReiserFS puts the "stab" is "fstab". It truly is a killer filesystem.

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[saskboy]

Some mod didn't get your joke.

I don't think most people know their searches are so easily identified. I routinely get searches that hit on my site where people are looking for "15 year old vagina", or something along those lines. I'd bet it isn't other 15 year olds searching in most cases.

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[donnyspi]

"I routinely get searches that hit on my site where people are looking for "15 year old vagina", or something along those lines"

I do too and I redirect all traffic with stuff like that in it's querystring to the pedophilia article on wikipedia.

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[partenon]

Maybe *you* didn't understood the (bad) joke... Reiser (the person who did ReiserFS) is accused of murder of his wife...

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[gefafwysp]

If my wife gets murdered, will it make me a suspect if I've googled for the film "How to Murder Your Wife"?

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[saskboy]

I got it just fine. I was referring to the person who modded him as a troll.

A simple search like "file system designer wants to kill wife how best to accomplish the crime" would have made the moderator aware of why it was funny. ;-)

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

But why is that search hitting on your site? You might want to grep for "15"

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[Qzukk]

But why is that search hitting on your site?

Google was wearing the beer goggles that night?

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[saskboy]

Apparently I have a high pagerank, on Yahoo too, for searches involving "vaginas" which I wrote about recently after highschool students in New York were suspended for reading the Vagina Monologues. I certainly don't have that specific search string anywhere on my website.

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[NickDngr]

if my wife gets murdered, will it make me a suspect if I've googled for "ReiserFS"?

Maybe, but posting to /. about it definitely will.

Re:Will googling for "ReiserFS" make me a suspect?

[kyknos.org]

Since when are 15 years old girls targeted by pedophiles? I was dating a 15 yo girl and I certainly do not feel like a pedophile. And there is nothing illegal about it of course.

Google fulfilling prophecy...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just googled "How to make more money doing less work."

Here's hoping.

Re:Google fulfilling prophecy...

[Skidge]

Now your employer will use that against you in your next performance review. :)

Re:Google fulfilling prophecy...

[iago-vL]

Easy, be a writer. I tell people that I use Slashdot for research, so I can read it all day with impunity!

ARG!

[jrwr00]

I'm lost on this one, First google is doing one thing, then another?!
!?

Re:ARG!

[Chosen Reject]

If you read, you don't get so lost. First Google did nothing in this case. Well, except for return results on the searches she made a long time ago. The evidence was all found on her computer. The detectives never went to Google. They just looked on her computer and found what she had searched for by looking at her computer, not at Google's logs.

Literacy...It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Source

[MattSparkes]

I hope they found this in the auto-finish feature, and not from Google?

Re:Source

[solevita]

TFA mentions that computers were seized from the defendant and not Google or MSN (the other search engine mentioned). So no, this wasn't a case of google keeping records, but the defendants computer.

Maybe the title should read: "If Google'ing 'how to commit murder' before killing, throw harddrives into volcano".

Re:Source

[Achromatic1978]

Why?

Seriously, why?

If I kill someone with a nailgun I buy at a hardware store, is it 'evil' if the hardware store hands over CCTV footage of me buying said nailgun to the police with a warrant?

I'm curious, really, why would or should Google get a free pass in a similar situation?

But you *can* Google it...

[h890231398021]

Just not from a PC traceable to you. Use a library in a far-away town. Change your MAC address and use an open wireless net. Use an anon proxy. Use Tor. This situation is no different from, for example, Googling about a serious health condition you'd prefer your insurance company not know you have just yet, and many similar cases.

Re:But you *can* Google it...

[solevita]

I think you've got it wrong. They didn't examine google's logs, they looked at the defendants computer. Clear your history? Yes. Change your MAC address? That won't help.

Re:But you *can* Google it...

[mrchaotica]

Change your MAC address and use an open wireless net. Use an anon proxy. Use Tor.

None of those things will remove the evidence from the PC you used (using the library's computer will, though, assuming the library doesn't keep records). What you actually need is Tor and full-disk encryption (or shred(1), or thermite...).

Re:But you *can* Google it...

[maxume]

Of course, there are laws telling the insurance companies they can't do this, so instead of healthy people being able to independently get really cheap insurance or a well funded single payer system, we have communal health cost sharing programs that are expensive for healthy people to get into and impossible to get into for those with the mark of sickness.

Re:But you *can* Google it...

[Anonymous Coward]

No need for disk encryption or shred. Just use knoppix on a ramdisk.

Re:But you *can* Google it...

[BigFire]

There was a serial killer who was convicted in part to an online map print out. The local TV station was doing a sob life story of one of his victims. He in turn went to the local library, and use an online map service and narrowed the map down to the actual spot where he left his next victim. He then send a print out of the map to the station.

Police subpoenaed the internet service on who did the exact search (it help that he did multiple zoom), and trace it back to the library. Further subpoenaed on the Library & their computer identified the killer. I believe he's now serving multiple life sentence for the multiple murders he committed.

Re:But you *can* Google it...

[SydShamino]

Use a library in a far-away town.

Hint: Don't use the library in the far-away town where you bought the gun.

Re:But you *can* Google it...

[lamona]

Most libraries run software that clears cache and stored completion strings each time that the browser is closed, so that the next person using the computer doesn't see the previous person's history. So unless someone gets to the computer ASAP, the likelihood of some recoverable data still being on the disk is fairly low.

The most likely source of information about use of a library computer would be a local proxy server, if the library runs one. But of course it would show the aggregate of searches from all library machines, so you'd have to be able to figure out what machine that person was at.

Libraries that use paper signup sheets are advised to shred them at the end of the day. The signup software that is commonly used removes data either at the end of the day or at the end of 24 hours. No fancy wiping of the disk, so getting at that day after some passage of time is probably just a matter of how much $$ you want to throw at it.

(I always hate talking about this, because the logical conclusion, from the law enforcement point of view, is to require libraries to keep this data.)

Ludicrous

[loafing_oaf]

So this means I can no longer use the Internet to shop for ether, rope, and shovels?

Re:Ludicrous

[Cro Magnon]

Sure you can. But you might be in trouble when your ex-wife is found tied up in a grave with an ether smell coming from the box.

Re:Ludicrous

[TechDogg]

Hey, this is /.

He shouldn't have a wife nor a box.

Re:Ludicrous

[blake3737]

Sure you can. Here at shady bob's rope, ether and shovel emporium, your privacy is foremost.

on another note...

[physicsboy500]

Don't search for "live nudes" before your wife comes home.

The results there can be pretty messy too!

Accept it

[Overly Critical Guy]

There is no privacy, folks.

Re:Accept it

[bronzey214]

Oh, quit being so overly critical.

*looks at your user name*

Oh.

Alternative

[petabyte]

Or alternatively, don't kill anyone?

Somehow that seems simpler to me.

Re:Alternative

[iminplaya]

Anyone? I wish... Lots of folks think that some people just need killin'.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Or alternatively, don't kill anyone? Let's say you didn't kill your wife but your computer happened to have those search words in its history because a month ago your kid was randomly searching violent words. So the cops see your wife is dead and violent words in your search history and pin it on you...while the real killer is the psychotic neighbor.

Re:Alternative

[partenon]

That's why we have the word "justice" :-) You won't be declared guilty w/ only one weak evidence. If you haven't killed her, you'll probably be declared not guilty, due to lack of evidence or existance of evidences in your favor.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

...that's just because you are not married to my wife.

Re:Alternative

[DragonWriter]

Let's say you didn't kill your wife but your computer happened to have those search words in its history because a month ago your kid was randomly searching violent words. So the cops see your wife is dead and violent words in your search history and pin it on you

That would suck.

However, that's not what happened here. The searches aren't the only basis for the prosecution; the prior history of violence between the victim and the defendant, the affair, the suspicious prescription written by the defendant's lover and filled at a location of the pharmacy for which the defendant a location search immediately before the prescription was filled and immediately before the murder, etc.

Re:Alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that "jest" means "joke," right? Maybe you meant "gist?" Or were you too busy missing the point of the joke and calling people "fucktards" to use real words?

Google "shitcock penny arcade" for a full explanation of yourself.

Re:Alternative

[iminplaya]

That's why we have the word "justice"...

And without the word "money"(which is required for "justice" to mean anything at all), you just might be declared guilty on that weak, or even completely false evidence.

Cost of murder

[MattSparkes]

It says she bought the prescription at Walgreens, it would have been much cheaper if she had bought them elsewhere. She got caught, and she didn't get the best deal, what a fool.

Re:Cost of murder

[Anonymous Coward]

We all know that Wal-Mart results in a lower Total Cost of Murder (TCM) when compared to mom and pop shops.

Heh

[garett_spencley]

I often search for things on wikipedia and google just out of personal interest and curiosity. Every time I search for something related to weaponry or toxic substances etc. I can't help but think to myself "will this ever come back to haunt me?"

For example, the other night I was watching an action movie and it got me curious about exactly what plastic explosives are and how they work. You see them in movies all the time and there's obviously a lot of misinformation and hollywood make-believe at hand so I wanted to find out the real story. I wiki'd for it and had an interesting read.

Now the next time I go to cross the Canada/US border (I live on a border town) I half expect customs to detain me and bring up those searches :\

Re:Heh

[mrchaotica]

I often search for things on wikipedia and google just out of personal interest and curiosity. Every time I search for something related to weaponry or toxic substances etc. I can't help but think to myself "will this ever come back to haunt me?"

No kidding -- I just googled "man shred" (as in, looking up the man page for the "shred" secure deletion program) while replying to another post in this thread. I'd be screwed if somebody accused me of murdering somebody with a wood chipper!

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the next time I go to cross the Canada/US border (I live on a border town) I half expect customs to detain me and bring up those searches :\

Don't worry about it. Search away.

I have a felony conviction on my record for possession of illegal explosives. I've flown many times since 9/11 and gone through customs several times, never been selected for searches or been treated differently from anyone else. I always laugh when I see people talking about the little things that will get them extra attention from the authorities. Folks, if the authorities were really that good at collecting evidence and correlating information, 9/11 wouldn't have happened to begin with.

Re:Heh

[jonbritton]

You're thinking of it backwards. If you killed someone using poison, and the police find you've searched for "how to kill someone using poison," it can be submitted as evidence that you knew how to kill someone using poison, because the steps for killing someone using poison were outlined in your search results.

The searching doesn't get you caught. It's just that after you're caught the search makes it seem more likely you did it, because jury's don't like coincidence.

Re:Heh

[Deagol]

Just tell them you were researching the movie Fargo.

"And I guess that was your accomplice in the wood chipper?"

Re:Heh

[jimicus]

Also consider that in any murder case, the prime suspects are the victim's immediate relatives.

Re:Heh

[westlake]

I have a felony conviction on my record for possession of illegal explosives. I've flown many times since 9/11 and gone through customs several times, never been selected for searches or been treated differently from anyone else.

Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember it didn't work for the rabbit. ~R.E. Shay

Re:Heh

[toddestan]

No kidding -- I just googled "man shred" (as in, looking up the man page for the "shred" secure deletion program) while replying to another post in this thread. I'd be screwed if somebody accused me of murdering somebody with a wood chipper!

And just think of how much more screwed you would be when they seize your computers, only to find that the drives had been securely wiped!

Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

[sbaker]

Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

Re:Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

[Iamthefallen]

Ask Slashdot for advice on how to kill your wife?

I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.

Re:Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

[sbaker]

Well, if you're not even going to *try* to offer advice - I'll take my business elsewhere. I bet the Wikipedia help desk will be more helpful!

Re:Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, this was all foreseen by Murray Leinster in "A Logic Named Joe"

This fella punches, "How can I get rid of my wife?" Just for the fun of it. The screen is blank for half a second. Then comes a flash. "Service question: Is she blonde or brunette?" He hollers to us an' we come look. He punches, "Blonde." There's another brief pause. Then the screen says, "Hexymetacryloaminoacetine is a constituent of green shoe polish. Take home a frozen meal including dried-pea soup. Color the soup with green shoe polish. It will appear to be green-pea soup. Hexymetacryloaminoacetine is a selective poison which is fatal to blond females but not to brunettes or males of any coloring. This fact has not been brought out by human experiment, but is a product of logics service. You cannot be convicted of murder. It is improbable that you will be suspected."

The screen goes blank, and we stare at each other. It's bound to be right. A logic workin' the Carson Circuit can no more make a mistake than any other kinda computin' machine. I call the tank in a hurry.

"Hey, you guys!" I yell. "Somethin's happened! Logics are givin' detailed instructions for wife-murder! Check your censor-circuits--but quick!"

Re:Mmm'k - so it's AskSlashdot next time?

[hritcu]

I wonder what's the data retention policy of Slashdot, and whether posting as Anonymous Coward is guarantees any sort of real anonymity.

Or, just clear your history

[Dachannien]

Note that the police and prosecutors apparently didn't need to subpoena Microsoft or Google for search records, but rather recovered the search URLs from the browser history.

Re:Or, just clear your history

[gemtech]

That was my first though: clear your browser history. and cookies, and RECENT. Anyone that surfs for porn knows how to do this, just in case someone else using the computer gets nosy.
I just bought a Vista notebook computer, that is one of the nicer features: there's a single button that you can push (once you find it) that clears out everything.

Re:Or, just clear your history

[Shabbs]

Indeed!

In Firefox: Go to Tools --> Options --> Privacy Tab: And enable "Always clear my private data when I close Firefox".

As Ron Popeil says: "Just set it... AND FORGET IT!!!"

Cheers.

at least log out of your google account

[cpm80]

Last I checked google doesn't require users to log in to perform a search. Given this there's no way or google to track your searches, except recording your IP address, if you're not logged in. This combined with the something like the tor network would give reasonable security. Of course that still leaves your local machine to tell on you, I recommend bcwipe.

Re:at least log out of your google account

[solevita]

Given this there's no way or google to track your searches, except recording your IP address, if you're not logged in

That's not true. There's the Google UID - a cookie that the search giant gives you and uses to trace every search you make. Your IP address is largely irrelevant; they have a method of chasing you, not just the NAT device from behind which you searched. The Only on-topic piece of your post was this:

Of course that still leaves your local machine to tell on you...

Re:at least log out of your google account

[CoolCat]

Remember the cookie that lasts til 2038.. Every user has a unique id with google logged in or not.

Re:at least log out of your google account

[cpm80]

I guess I should have spelled it out for the people with nothing better to do (like you): just where do you think this "google UID" is stored (local machine?). Get a life...

Re:at least log out of your google account

[solevita]

I don't understand why you're getting upset:

1: You were incorrect; logging out of Google services won't help, because
2: There was a tracking method you weren't aware of. And
3:Google's ability to track you is largely irrelevant to this story anyway as the required evidence came from computers seized from the defendant. But that's cool anyway because
4: You mentioned removing evidence from a local machine and I agreed with you.

Re:at least log out of your google account

[LurkerXXX]

You mean you actually accept Google's cookie?

Personally I don't accept any cookies except for specific sites I want/need them for.

hmm.

[overeduc8ed]

yes, generally one must be very careful if one would like to get away with murder. e.g., make sure the gloves don't fit.

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

done this before, have we?!

Correction: Don't Google X 2 Years Before Killing

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

HEADLINE CORRECTION: "Don't Google 'How To Commit Murder' Less Than Two Years Before Killing"

See:
Google to Anonymize Users' Search Data (Maybe, After 2 Years or So)
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/03/15/0343250.shtml

Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

1. "Steve Ballmer" + Zune + squirt + Naked
2. Walrus Porn
3. enriched uranium for sale
4. "girl" + "myspace" + "16 and under" + "sex" + "I am not an FBI agent"
5. Latex frog fetish
6. "How can I keep the feds from discovering my vast marijuana growing operation?"
7. "genital warts" + "cures" + "sandpaper"
8. "nitroglycerin" + "subway schedule" + "best escape routes"
9. anthrax + "crop dusting license"
10. "Cowboy Neal in Bondage"

- Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[Anonymous Coward]

"Steve Ballmer" + Zune + squirt + Naked

I had to try that one. This came up: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/12year-old-gets -pr0nfilled-zune-for-the-holidays-223213.php

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[carvalhao]

Great!!! Now we'll ALSO have Echellon ./ every site mentioned here!

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[smackt4rd]

Walrus Porn? You are a sick sick man! :D

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[TheSam]

This thread delivers!

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[Deagol]

I can't decide what's more embarrassing for that 12-year-old girl: the gay pr0n, or the mother's finger nails.

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[marcop]

How about "How to cook humans?"

Wait, I meant, "How to cook for humans?"

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[Dwedit]

I got your "Walrus" entry right here...

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[Anonymous Coward]

How about "How to cook humans?"

"To Serve Man"

Re:Ten Other Subjects Not to Google For

[KudyardRipling]

This is rather reminmiscent of those "GREP THIS" tags from alt.2600:

10. +"krytron" +"slapper" +"HMX" +"cobalt tamper" +"lithium deuteride" +"beryllium shell" +"lagrangian codes"
9. +"chip implants" +"digital angel" +"cashless economy"
8. +"nail polish remover" +"hydrogen peroxide"
7. +"freemasonry" +"majesty 12" +"jekyll island" +"sixteenth amendment" +"federal reserve"
6. +"snuffle" +"hard encryption" +"fort meade proofing" +"privacy"
5. +"stress causes heart disease" +"chase that dollar, dammit!"
4. +"ccitt 5" +"N2 carrier" +"livengood, alaska"
3. +"secret war aganst the" +"jonathan pollard"
2. +"H1B visa" +"job stealing" +"role reversal" +"message to working class whites: drop dead"

This one guarantees summary execution:
1. +"right to life" +"return of Yeshua HaMaschiach" +"king of kings" +"lord of lords" and especially +"Beef, it's what's for dinner"

Her last search ....

[Anonymous Coward]

should have been 'Just Kidding'

google from other accounts or computers

[peter303]

Google often tracks by logins and IP addresses. So create a alternative login and use a library or cafe computer to do your nasty seraches instead of at home or work. Sometimes that doesnt even work because many libraries require a library card to log in and cafes in Italy record ID card or passport numbers. At least its another level of indirection to throw off detectives.

Yeah--No Kidding!

[eldavojohn]

IANAL, so could someone explain to me how the heck something like this could be admitted as evidence?

I'm not a lawyer either but if I were in her shoes, I would simply claim I was working on writing my first novel--a murder mystery. I had to do some research and, hence, the searches.

Someone happened to murder my husband in a similar fashion (he was a very detestable man, everyone hated him and as a result I suffered at home). There's your shadow of a doubt.

But, oddly enough, I've seen what the courts allow the RIAA & MPAA to submit as evidence (server logs with IP addresses) to prosecute people and, at least in those cases, that's all the evidence they need! Considering this, am I shocked that a legally requisitioned computer can be submitted & used as evidence? Not really--though I should be. It's a shame what the "Justice System" is becoming these days.

I guess I could stretch this and look for people who search for "to build a fire" and charge them with all unsolved arsons in their area. Boy scouts & Jack London fans beware!

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[way2trivial]

sounds like it would make a great movie!
http://imdb.com/title/tt0103772/
John Correli: Did you kill Mr Boz, Miss Tramell?
Catherine: I'd have to be pretty stupid to write a book about killing and then kill him the way I described in my book. I'd be announcing myself as the killer. I'm not stupid.

Nick: Writing a book about it gives you an alibi for not killing him.
Catherine: Yes it does, doesn't it?

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[thebdj]

But, oddly enough, I've seen what the courts allow the RIAA & MPAA to submit as evidence (server logs with IP addresses) to prosecute people and, at least in those cases, that's all the evidence they need!
Okay, to explain what has probably been said on slashdot a million times already, the burden of proof in a CIVIL case, like the suits by the RIAA and the MPAA, is considerably lower then the burden of proof in a CRIMINAL case. Now, I cannot recall a case yet, where the RIAA or MPAA have actually won in court. Most of them, as I recall, are settled out of court for considerably less, or the RIAA drops the suit when someone fights back hard enough and starts poking holes in their flaky evidence.

Considering this, am I shocked that a legally requisitioned computer can be submitted & used as evidence? Not really--though I should be. It's a shame what the "Justice System" is becoming these days.
Why should you be shocked? If you commit a crime and are charged with said crime, why shouldn't a legally obtained warrant allow a jurisdiction to seize your computer and review it for potential evidence? If anything, the courts would be keeping up in that regard, instead of keeping notes or writing messages on paper, criminal might be keeping track of information on their personal computer. In this particular case, they obviously determined that she was searching the internet and found out WHAT she was supposedly searching for. It might not convict her by itself, but it would show a level of pre-meditation, if the jury sees it that way.

I guess I could stretch this and look for people who search for "to build a fire" and charge them with all unsolved arsons in their area. Boy scouts & Jack London fans beware!
You have no probable cause. This sort of blanket searching would never fly in most courts and might only be allowed under convoluted items in the PATRIOT ACT. You would first have to suspect the individual of arson, have sufficient evidence to get a court issued warrant, find enough evidence on the PC to get a subpoena for the information from Google, and subsequently add evidence to the case. I am willing to bet this wasn't the beginning of their case.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Communomancer]

But, oddly enough, I've seen what the courts allow the RIAA & MPAA to submit as evidence (server logs with IP addresses) to prosecute people and, at least in those cases, that's all the evidence they need!

Okay, to explain what has probably been said on slashdot a million times already, the burden of proof in a CIVIL case, like the suits by the RIAA and the MPAA, is considerably lower then the burden of proof in a CRIMINAL case.

Grandparent wasn't asking about burden of proof. He was asking about admissibility of evidence. Are the standards for admissibility of evidence lower in civil court than they are in criminal court? I don't know, personally, but I'd be interested the answer. Any lawyers reading this?

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[voice_of_all_reason]

Why should you be shocked? If you commit a crime and are charged with said crime, why shouldn't a legally obtained warrant allow a jurisdiction to seize your computer and review it for potential evidence?

Because a computer is a substantially valuable and useful piece of property. Unless the police can convince the warrant judge that it actually has evidence, they can't take it.

Otherwise, they'd simply sieze your car and house to review for "potential evidence." Enjoy staying at a homeless shelter for the next few months while your case chugs along.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Blappo]

"There's your shadow of a doubt."

Not shadow of a doubt, reasonable doubt. That is not what I would consider "reasonable" were I a juror.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[DragonWriter]

Because a computer is a substantially valuable and useful piece of property. Unless the police can convince the warrant judge that it actually has evidence, they can't take it.

No, they have to convince that judge that there is probable cause to believe evidence will be found on it; probable cause is not certainty that evidence is there.

Otherwise, they'd simply sieze your car and house to review for "potential evidence."

Uh, yeah, police get search warrants for suspects cars and houses and all the time, too.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[voice_of_all_reason]

You're correct on the first part, but search warrant is an entirely different beast than siezure. No one gets deprived of their house during the investigation, do they? What if you work through your computer? And it has costly software/needed files on it (an author?) How would you be able to mount an effective defense if you can't make any money during the length of the investigation/trial? Seems like a great way to ensure the prosecution can't lose.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Brian See]

Are the standards for admissibility of evidence lower in civil court than they are in criminal court? I don't know, personally, but I'd be interested the answer. Any lawyers reading this? The standards for admissibility are the same. The RIAA decisions you probably have seen are not trial admissibility decisions, however. The ones I'm aware of are at from the motion to dismiss / summary judgment stage, where the judge usually decides if there's any "material facts" in dispute. (Huge oversimplification.) While evidence presented at the summary judgment stage needs to be admissible, this is procedurally a much different animal than the presentation of evidence to a jury.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like you're an idiot to me.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[DragonWriter]

You're correct on the first part, but search warrant is an entirely different beast than siezure.

No, they aren't. The standard (probable cause) for both is the same.

No one gets deprived of their house during the investigation, do they?

During the actual search of the house, yes, one may be deprived of the use of it. Usually, evidence that may be seized from the house is not integral to and may be seized without seizing the house itself; this less the case with your other example (cars) which, when evidence is found during a search, will more likely be seized themselves, and even less the case with computers, which if evidence is found on them, the physical evidence itself will often be inseparable from fairly critical components of the computer.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[hearingaid]

No one gets deprived of their house during the investigation, do they?

Of course they do. Do you think the yellow Do Not Cross police tape allow anybody but police officers to cross?

They don't. If you see the police tape on a house, its residents have been booted out. Here's a typical example.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Forseti]

but search warrant is an entirely different beast than siezure.

Uh, no it's not! A search warrant allows the police to seize any evidence or illegal items they find. In fact, I believe the police is always allowed to seize evidence, the warrant just allows them to look where they aren't usually allowed to. Just read the first sentence of this Wikipedia page

No one gets deprived of their house during the investigation, do they?

Of course they do, all the time! If your house is the scene of a crime, you can and will be expulsed from it until the CSI team has cleared it. If the house itself is evidence, rather than just the contents, it may be seized and kept until well after the end of the trial.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Jane Q. Public]

As of the last time I checked via the EFF, the RIAA and MPAA had not won a single court case related to internet piracy; rather, their methodology has seemed to be to force a settlement through intimidation: "We will bury you in costs and paperwork." But apparently, even that approach has not been working well lately... they have actually lost the suits that have continued to completion.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[RobertLTux]

and the real funnzie is if they find something Not covered under my warrant they have to have the existing warrant expanded (or a Nth warrant) to make the evidence legal to use. example

they serve a No Knock warrant for "meth and related material" and they during a search find a Nuke lab they would need to get a new warrant (or expansion) to cover the WMD stuff (so they call both a judge and the bomb squad)

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[westlake]

Now, I cannot recall a case yet, where the RIAA or MPAA have actually won in court. Most of them, as I recall, are settled out of court

almost all civil cases are settled out-of-court:

Tort trial cases terminated in U.S. district courts, 2002 - 2003

Total number tort cases concluded: 98,786
Jury and bench tort trials 1,647
Tort trials with plaintiff winners 704
Tort trials with monetary awards 590
Median damage awards $201,000

Civil Justice Statistics

remember that these are the cases that entered the system - not those settled before any papers were filed

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Brian See]

As far as I am aware, there's no information about RIAA cases that have progressed to trial yet -- see http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#tri al ("We do not have information on any trials, although it would seem that there must have been some, especially in cases where the defendants are representing themselves, without legal counsel.")

So by that token, one could say that the RIAA has not "lost" a trial related to internet piracy, either.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[Achromatic1978]

I've seen what the courts allow the RIAA & MPAA to submit as evidence (server logs with IP addresses)

Not even. Try "screenshots of their client running bittorrent and showing a connection to an IP address". Bleh.

Re:Yeah--No Kidding!

[DragonWriter]

I'm not a lawyer either but if I were in her shoes, I would simply claim I was working on writing my first novel--a murder mystery. I had to do some research and, hence, the searches. Someone happened to murder my husband in a similar fashion (he was a very detestable man, everyone hated him and as a result I suffered at home). There's your shadow of a doubt.

The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. That's rather far from beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mere abstract possibility of innocence is not enough to establish reasonable doubt.

And thats it?....

[FinnMcGee]

It seems they took this as an open and shut case... Seems to convenient, maybe they should look into it a bit more than "the computer you use has had this "searched" on it". but then again. im just a simpleton. what would i know of the crazy world of law( and CoughCommonSenseCough ). -One Eye

Re:And thats it?....

[DragonWriter]

It seems they took this as an open and shut case... Seems to convenient, maybe they should look into it a bit more than "the computer you use has had this "searched" on it".

Uh, if you read TFA, you might notice they did look into more than "the computer you us had this 'searched' on it."

There's also:
1) You were telling others about your violent conflicts with the victim, who was your husband, and
2) A doctor you were having an affair with at the time wrote a perscription for a rarely used incapacitating drug that could have been used to facilitate the that was filled at a pharmacy you had done a search for two days before the murder, etc.

Its not just the searches alone.

I have the relevant Asimov reference.

[Toon Moene]

"All the troubles of the world."

Re:I have the relevant Asimov reference.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? A computer that wants to kill itself because it's tired of solving humanity's problems is relevant to a woman looking up information on how to kill her husband?

Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

[vivaoporto]

All the information used against that woman was obtained by the computer forensic team after they seized her computer using the right procedure, obtaining a warrant first, and keeping the whole chain of evidence rules.

You guys need to remember that only because it is digital it doesn't mean it is less relevant or admissible. Had she asked a doctor what is the lethal dose of a certain substance, or what are the less detectable poisons, or similar suspicious questions like those, this doctor would certainly be called as a prosecution witness, and his deposition would certainly be admissible and relevant. Why then the same pursuit of knowledge would not be admissible or relevant? Because it is not a real doctor that got asked, but the internet?

Notice that I'm not saying that it is sufficient evidence to nail her, as IANAL and I don't know the details of the case. But at least admissible and relevant it is.

Re:Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

[Nom du Keyboard]

You guys need to remember that only because it is digital it doesn't mean it is less relevant or admissible.

Just a whole lot easier to alter after the fact.

Re:Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

[drinkypoo]

Notice that I'm not saying that it is sufficient evidence to nail her

In fact, all the evidence points to it being highly dangerous to nail her. Watching her google activity can help you keep safe, though.

Re:Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

[Maxo-Texas]

Perhaps this will help you understand the problem with this kind of evidence...

The doctor says,
"Someone called me from a phone at her house and asked about poison."

Cause that's all the computer evidence says.

Someone- unknown- with access to her computer- which may not require a signin- googled for those items.

They are going to say in court "SHE googled for these terms" and if her lawyer is any good, they'll object and say "SOMEONE googled."

Re:Before the "OMG! Google is the evilzor" begin

[Anonymous Coward]

So... Are there people reading this that somehow think it's a bad idea that her search behavior was used as evidence? There is a big difference between a spur of the moment crime of passion and a pre-meditated murder, and the search evidence was obviously used to show pre-meditation.

How could anyone have a problem with this???

hmm

[hubritc]

Better make that, don't read Slashdot article about not googling

Re:Correction: Don't Google X 2 Years Before Killi

[daeg]

As others have said, it wasn't Google itself that lead to the evidence, it was her computer. Or, at least that's what I've gathered.

The funnest google search term that led visitors..

[Anonymous Coward]

...to my website was "how to kidnap fat people". I don't know what's creepier: that anybody was searching for this kind of shit, or that they ended up at my site...

To Be Evil or Not To Be Evil? That is the question

[plover]

I don't know: is turning these logs over to prosecute someone "evil"? Is it "evil" if that person is a music downloader? Is it "not evil" if that person is accused of murder?

Or does Google just get off by simply saying, "Well, they had a warrant, so it's not our evil?"

ask jeeves instead

[teh_chrizzle]

i know he can keep a secret. he helped me out that time i woke up in a strange hotel room in denver next to a dead hooker.

as luck would have it, getting rid of dead hookers is a common problem and there are many useful articles on wikihow. i can tell you from experience that your company's helpdesk is NOT very cooperative in a situation like that.

Re:ask jeeves instead

[Anonymous Coward]

I know when that happened to me I immediately regretted picking up a dead hooker the night before.

Re:ask jeeves instead

[drinkypoo]

i know he can keep a secret. he helped me out that time i woke up in a strange hotel room in denver next to a dead hooker.

Mr. Affleck? Is that you?

Re:ask jeeves instead

[teh_chrizzle]

i guess they took them down. probably some commie bullshit about "terms and conditions".

my attorney won't let me go into the specifics... but it invovles lyeaye in the athtubbaye.

Re:ask jeeves instead

[Ubergrendle]

Link?

Not that I need it now...more for future reference...

Re:ask jeeves instead

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.glumbert.com/media/hooker

Just say...

[nathan s]

...you've been thinking of taking up naturism. ;-)

Pro-tip for murdering

[SydBarrett]

Before you shoot someone, do a bunch of searches for "poisons". That way the cops will expect you to poison someone and when they find the body they will be all like "Welp, he wasn't poisoned, so I guess you didn't do it".

Re:Pro-tip for murdering

[nine-times]

Or better yet, try Googling for "how NOT to shoot someone". That will throw the cops off your tracks.

Re:Pro-tip for murdering

[gardyloo]

"How to kill everyone". It's stood me in good stead so far.

RIAA

[tinkerghost]

They have won a few cases either through default or misrepresentation. AFAIK they have never had to subject their 'proof' to a jury or even cross examination.

Set up a frame

[phorm]

Hmmmm, so if I wanted to frame somebody, part of the procedure would be to access their computer and do a bunch of google searches on "hiding evidence", "untraceable poison" and various others...

While the likelyhood that somebody does such is low, it's certainly not impossible.

Re:Set up a frame

[ebvwfbw]

While the likelyhood that somebody does such is low, it's certainly not impossible.

Actually not. The profile for murder in certain instances is a white male and very educated. So say they hear about someone threatening to kill a target in public. There is your mark! Watch any number of whodunit shows to find out how to complete it and not make the mistake that got that guy caught, add this in for more incriminating "evidence". For those of us that saw Mythbusters last night, bonus points for using "hot dog" urine to distract a guard dog to complete the ruse.

Re:Set up a frame

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for curiosity's sake: what was the relevance of race and gender here? ("white male", that is.)

Also found

[Tablizer]

"How to succeed in Iraq" - Matches: 0, User: gwbush

Re:Also found

[bill_mcgonigle]

"How to succeed in Iraq" - Matches: 0, User: gwbush

My God, man, try to control yourself. Wait for the tangentially related stories at least.

Duck, here come the Offtopic's (followed by the politicos' modwar).

Just a question

[Nom du Keyboard]

Just one question here: If the RIAA can't prove who was using a computer for filesharing, how can someone prove who was using the computer for Google searching? Even if you have the computer and the searches still on it, does that say who was at the keyboard? Consider, maybe the husband was researching how to kill his wife, she found out, and got him first.

Re:Just a question

[stratjakt]

The logs were on her computer, from what I understand, and not subpoena from google.

It could be established through other witnesses and testimony that the computer is hers, and that others dont use it.

The fact that theres a password on it (and its to be assumed the password is known to her), goes a long way to show that fact.

By your logic, nobody would ever be convicted of child porn, because they could say "waht if someone came in in the middle of the night and downloaded all of that... " Fortunately, the standard is "reasonable doubt", and not "remotely possible under the current understanding of quantum physics".

Re:Just a question

[DragonWriter]

Just one question here: If the RIAA can't prove who was using a computer for filesharing, how can someone prove who was using the computer for Google searching?

It'd be pretty hard to make a if the Google searching was all there was, because while its evidence from which the jury could infer that a particular person did the search, any one of the searches alone wouldn't prove much.

OTOH, when a number of computers you have access to are used to search for certain things that might relate to plans to commit a murder, when a doctor that is also your lover writes a suspicious perscription that might be used to facilitate the murder that is filled just before the murder at a location of a pharmacy that you had just done a location search for, when the person killed is your husband that you've been having violent conflicts with immediately prior to the murder, then its not just about the searches anymore.

Re:Just a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I can infer that you have never done a Google search for "run-on sentence"

Re:Just a question

[Tim C]

That's why it's called "evidence" and not "irrefutable proof".

Pshh. New Jersey...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you think they'd learn to clear the cookies on their C64s by now out there.

From the Googled Article

[geoffrobinson]

Don't Google this article.

The fear is.,

[Animaether]

whether justified or not I'll leave for the tinfoil hat people to debate, that instead of a suspect becoming more suspect if they googled for e.g. "how to commit murder" after a murder was indeed committed and they were a suspect, the very act of "how to commit murder" MAKES one a suspect.

E.g. like this poster, wondering if googling about explosives will get him some extra attention at the border : http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226677&cid=183 62637

future searches

[sootman]

"high security prison" + escape
bribing + (jury or juror)
"insanity defense" -twinkie
Ask.com: "how to kill a judge"
"soap-on-a-rope"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List of Law & Order episodes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI

Hmmm

[Willy Wong]

Should I google "How to NOT commit murder" before doing the deed just to be on the safe side?

How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

Well, having had my computer taken by the cops as "evidence", I've learned several important lessons:

1) The cops have _no_ sense of humor. Thanks to Fark, I had This, and This in my cache. Apparently, I'm now into terrorism and child trafficing.
 
2) EFS doesn't help. Microsoft's Encrypting File System doesn't encrypt anything that can't be broken in seconds with the password (and usually minutes/hours without).
 
So, especially for farkers, get TrueCrypt. It's free, and open-source. Then, get TCTEMP. It makes it so your temporary files encrypted with a random key. Restart, and they all go "poof". Then get TCGina. You get to encrypt your home directory (and history, documents, etc.) - it automatically mounts it when you login.
 
Use AES/SHA-1 as your encryption scheme, and pick a good password. If you're _really_ paranoid, grab Shred Agent (wipes files you delete automatically), and Distrust (a firefox addon that automatically deletes your history and cache for you). Nobody is _ever_ going to be recovering your data (even you, if you forget your password).

If you are looking for a quick, easy, fool-proof way to wipe your hard drive so _nobody_ will _ever_ recover _anything_ from it, make yourself a DBAN disk. Easy to use, and it gets the job done right.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[dk.r*nger]

Microsoft's Encrypting File System doesn't encrypt anything that can't be broken in seconds with the password

Isn't that.. kindalike.. you know, the point?

On another note, if the cops suspected you enough to go through the hassle of taking your computer, and yet, here you are, something tells me that, even though cops have no humor, you still made it out.. no?

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[sholden]

It's not that they have no sense of humour. Some of the cops I know do have a sense of humour (not all of them I must admit). It's one of two things:

1. You lucked out and got the all common bastard cops - most likely since most of them are (possibly that's because they seriously deal with the dark side of humanity all day long and hence end up seeing everyone as being like the people they usually deal with, possibly it's just the type of person that also sees "cop" as a good career choice).

2. They didn't happen to have the same sense of humour of you, and hence didn't know about the sources of the items in question. They certainly aren't going to take you at your word about it since if you go out and blow something up or whatever next week they are going to get their asses handed to them. Hence it's self preservation.

Still both those cases are good reasons to always "lawyer up" as they say in the TV shows (always implying that's a bad thing of course) and say no more than necessary.

I don't know anyone who has had a pleasant experience with the police...

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Use THERMITE

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Isn't that.. kindalike.. you know, the point?

Well, kinda. The previous poster should have said "a password." You can always be forced to give up your password or assumed guilty if you don't. A good encryption setup encrypts a chunk of disk. When you enter on password it decrypts as a dummy directory (a few porn images or something). When you enter a different password it decrypts as your real data. This way you can say, "okay, okay my password is 'monkeypoop' I just didn't want my friends to know I looked at porn."

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[Deliveranc3]

Note: if you live in the U.S., the advice above will be considered evidence, of anything.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[cdrguru]

You may want to consider two things in respect to this.

One is that taking such advanced steps to make sure your computer can't divulge evidence is a clue that there is some evidence, somewhere. An unmotivated cop is your friend. He has lots of stuff to do, probably more pressing and more important. However, doing these things will make almost anyone think there is something being hidden and if they dig deep enough they will find something important. Maybe really, really important.

So then they bring in the ground penetrating radar and start digging up the garage floor. You have supplied the one thing that you should never do - motivation.

The second point is that wiping incriminating material is a crime. If there was evidence on your computer - no matter what it might be - and it is provably deleted you are guilty of spoilation. Judges don't like that much. Consider it like having a cop giving you a ticket for jaywalking and then you give him the finger and call him some choice names. Suddenly you find yourself with more than a jaywalking ticket.

Do not destroy evidence. It can go extremely hard on you. Do not believe for a moment that your computer contains all the evidence in total and there exists nothing else.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[CPE1704TKS]

Isn't not giving the password to unencrypt your hard drive considered obstruction of justice? Depending on what you're trying to hide from the police, the penalities for obstruction of justice may be more severe...

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[ghostcorps]

Firstly: If a Forensic examiner EVER boots up from an HD he is working on then he should be shot. Anyone worth their salt knows to mount a suspect HD on bit-locker (for eg) before doing anything else.

Secondly: The longer something takes to be encrypted (and it will be) the harsher you will be treated. Cough up the pw and your guarranteeing yourself an easier time than if you don't.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[ghostcorps]

I meant 'de-crypted' lol

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if this multi-password capability is well-known, you should have two dummies - one not bad at all, one kind of bad.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[TheQuantumShift]

Since it's obvious that you're totally innocent and have nothing to hide, I'm surprised you left out the quick release hard drives and the high powered electromagnet...

Seriously though, if the cops are looking at you for whatever reason, all sorts of high security measures that make one think of "Nuclear Secrets" and what not will just add suspicion and your computer will still end up as "evidence". I say if you have nothing to hide (except those couple of cached pages from donkeyslammers.com of course, Firefox has an option to clear private data for a reason) leave it open, unencrypted and accessible.

And then when they accuse you and can't find anything, sue the ever loving crap out of them and get it all over CNN.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

Truecrypt/TCGina supports this. Enter the second password with a space after the first.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

I wouldn't say I lucked out - I had one threaten to kill me if I didn't let them search my apartment (he pulled out a knife, said it was his "throwdown knife", and he could just shoot me and say I pulled it on him).

Prosecution was willing to make a deal, he called the officer. The officer said she didn't want a deal, and wanted a felony conviction, so they have been doing everything they can to make it happen.

As for the "sources" - one was satirewire.com. One was theonion.com, and one was This.

Landover Baptist Creation Scientists have used Scripture to calculate every amount of payment except for the price of white females. Scripture teaches us that females are worth less than men (Leviticus 27:1-7), but since these are the last days, and the present economic and international situation is unbalanced during this time, we found it appropriate to modify the pricing where necessary. Members of the Young Christian Soldiers Program released these figures after days of concentrated prayer and meditation. We're also taking a big leap by jumping on the "politically correct" bandwagon here and announcing that the word "Colored" does not just refer to Negroes. It also includes Mexicans and any race of people visibly tainted by the sin of Ham (Genesis 9:20-28). And just because Negroes have smaller brains and extra bones in their ankles doesn't mean we should be prejudice toward their children. We are all God's people, even if we are of lesser value to Him because of our sex or race. Please note that the pricing table below reflects current rates as of January 17, 2003.

Note: this is satire - it's not a reflection of any personally held beliefs.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

Of course, if you live in the US, they can make just about anything evidence (see my post). At least this way, you have plausable deniability. Also, TCGina supports wrapped containers - you can have multiple passwords, and only disclose one. It's impossible to prove or disprove that there are or aren't any more containers on the device.

Also, you are still innocent until proven guilty, at least if you have enough money to appeal it to a court that follows the law.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

The second point is that wiping incriminating material is a crime. If there was evidence on your computer - no matter what it might be - and it is provably deleted you are guilty of spoilation.

Unless, of course, the system routinely deletes the system as a matter of course. Then it's not destruction of evidence. After all, you aren't legally _required_ to log your history for years at a time - it just can be used as evidence if you do.

An unmotivated cop is your friend. He has lots of stuff to do, probably more pressing and more important.
My case was over one fire cracker (M-80). I provided all the motivation they needed when I made them get a search warrant. I was threatened with death, had two felony charges (Posession of explosive devices, and posession of explosive materials) pressed (and a "Obstruction of justice" for good measure). I spent the weekend in jail until bond could be set. The prosecution was willing to make a deal, but the officer wanted a conviction - and that's when they started digging through the computer. Part of the reason for the officer's spite seems to be the fact she was new on the job. I was her first search warrant, and it took her several hours. I also overheard how much she was really looking forward to questioning her first suspect. I, of course, shut up and got a lawyer - that really made her mad.

They accused me of pedophelia, arms trafficing, child trafficing, terrorism, and a number of other things - all in front of my family. It took me over 7 months to get the so-called "evidence" (a bunch of satire, and some pictures of guns for a mod I'm working on). As the computer was publically available in a dorm, there was a possibility someone else had used it to do something like that - it scared the crap out of me.

Do not destroy evidence. It can go extremely hard on you. Do not believe for a moment that your computer contains all the evidence in total and there exists nothing else.
Well, here's the thing - there was no evidence on the computer. All there is is some satire, and some automatically generated thumbnails (non-nude) from a non-child porn related easynews search. That doesn't stop them from smearing my name in front of my family. Also, I lost a lot of faith in our police when they threatened to kill me if I didn't let them search. Had I encrypted the hard drive beforehand, the case would have been dropped long ago.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

Encrypt everything. Always. That way, it's not evidence of anything. You might get the cops attention, but you can achieve that by simply excercising your constitutionally protected rights (in my experience, 4 and 5 really tick them off). If you aren't guilty, you have everything to hide. If you are guilty, even more so.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

Well, you can have two passwords for plausable deniability - the first decrypts some stuff, the second decrypts the rest. Disclose one.

Also, I asked this same question to the EFF - I was told that they had been looking for a case to set precident; however, the few cases there were settled out of court. So, to the best of my knowledge, this has not been the case.

IANAL (yet), but I do believe there is a strong case for 5th amendment protection for disclosure of passwords. Your "stuff" can be used as evidence against you; however, you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

And then when they accuse you and can't find anything, sue the ever loving crap out of them and get it all over CNN.
Soverign immunity. You can't sue the government (or it's agents), unless the government decides to allow you to.

I say if you have nothing to hide ... leave it open, unencrypted and accessible.
I did. They still accused me (in front of my family) of a variety of charges, from pedophelia to arms trafficing and human trafficing. They also threatened to kill me, but that's a different matter. It took me over 7 months to get a copy of this so-called "evidence", and find out it was satire from theonion.com, satirewire.com, some gun pictures for a mod I was working on, and the Landover Baptist Church ("Christian Gamers are Leading Gnomes and Elves to Jesus! "). I had nothing to hide, and they still used it against me.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

I ticked them off because I a) made them get a search warrant (how dare I), and b) didn't let them question me without a lawyer present. Because of this, I had my property ransacked (and a bunch of stuff broken), a number of things just "disappear" that weren't on the property report (small electronics, mostly), was threatened with death if I didn't consent to an illegal search, and had my name smeared through the mud.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[sholden]

Sounds exactly like you lucked out to me.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[Tim C]

That's all well and good, but if the police suspect you enough to seize your PC, they're going to take such heavy use of encryption as an indication that they may well be on to something after all. They certainly aren't going to take "no, you can't have my password" for an answer, and may well charge you with wasting police time and possibly withholding evidence (although that might be pretty hard to make stick as they don't know for sure that there is any evidence), interfering with an investigation, etc.

At the very, very best, if you manage to hold out and they finally give up and let you go, you'll be on their List of known troublemakers, and will be in the frame again in the future should anything happen that could potentially have been down to someone like you.

The bottom line is that unless you genuinely have something to hide, cooperating with the police is always a hell of a lot less painful than not doing so. If you *do* have something to hide, and they know it, then by the time they have you and your PC, encryption isn't going to help anyway, unless the penalties for whatever it is are higher than what you'll get for not surrendering your key.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[karmatic]

If that's "lucky", I'd hate to be "unlucky". Not getting killed by the police is a good thing, but it shouldn't be anything special.

Re:How to avoid having your PC used as evidence

[sholden]

I speak Australian English, which in this particular case means the exact opposite of the American English phrase:

luck-out
        verb to run out of luck; to have bad luck.

http://www.macquariedictionary.com.au/anonymous@0F 26529347/-/p/dict/slang-l.html

Whereas I guess you have the following meaning:

luck out
        Also, luck into. Gain success or something desirable through good fortune.

http://www.answers.com/luck+out

So I agree, it'd just be less confusing if I spoke Chinese or something that wouldn't have such fun exact opposites...

Reiser's book evidence...

[mutterc]

Remember that one of the pieces of circumstantial evidence against Hans Reiser was that he had gotten books on homicide investigations? This isn't any philosophically different.

Of course, the searches are probably more damning (but still circumstantial). I can see where an innocent person who is the target of a homicide investigation might want to read up on the process, to make sure they don't make fatal missteps.

It was on her computer.

[RealProgrammer]

Actually, she didn't have the savvy to flush her cache.

Actually, she'd have done much better to degauss her hard drive after the dirty deed.

Actually, she'd have done much better not to have killed anyone in the first place.

As a detective friend of mine once said, "Yer criminals'r mostly stupid - it's why they're criminals."

Re:It was on her computer.

[soft_guy]

If criminals are mostly stupid, why do most crimes go unsolved?

Most people who get caught make a bad mistake. Otherwise police couldn't catch them.

The police have a hard job trying to solve most crimes.

Re:It was on her computer.

[Phisbut]

Actually, she didn't have the savvy to flush her cache.

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. But, from the article :

Seymour, now employed by the U.S. Department of Defense, testified how digital investigators can trace activity on a computer, including information the user has deleted.

Maybe Seymour felt the need to explain how she could trace deleted files because the accused had indeed deleted the files. She might not have had the savvy to degauss the drive though (how many people do?)

Actually, she'd have done much better not to have killed anyone in the first place.

Well said.

Re:It was on her computer.

[mgblst]

If criminals are mostly stupid, why do most crimes go unsolved?
 
Mostly due to time and resource constraints. If Police forces had the resources to bring in CSI on every crime, we would have a much higher prosecution rate. Also, there is only one Columbo, and he deosn't get around much.

Re:It was on her computer.

[alphamugwump]

"As a detective friend of mine once said, "Yer criminals'r mostly stupid - it's why they're criminals.""

Yagami Light would beg to differ.

Re:It was on her computer.

[Anonymous Coward]

No one ever said that the police were any cleverer, did they?

Actually, the chief qualification for being a policeman is to be a bully with a messiah complex. Having any brain cells is strictly optional, and, given the lack of ethics of the average policeman, I don't suppose they think about much at all.

Re:It was on her computer.

[badasscat]

If criminals are mostly stupid, why do most crimes go unsolved?

Because most crimes are not serious enough to devote the manpower to solving. It may sound crass, but that's the reality. If you wake up one day and find some kids have knocked your mailbox off its post with a baseball bat overnight, do you expect your local police to form a task force to solve the crime through DNA evidence? These types of crimes make up the bulk of crime in this country - petty offenses that often get an afternoon's worth of investigation by a cop knocking on doors, if that.

Serious crimes have a higher clearance rate, though still too low - again, because our crime rates are higher than other industrialized countries and we don't have the manpower to clear them all. Our clearance rate for murder, for example, is around 64% - still well over 50% (your "most" crimes threshold) but below Japan's 96% clearance rate for the same crime.

I think the latter, though, pretty conclusively proves that most criminals are dumb enough to get caught - unless you believe Japanese criminals are dumber than American ones (wouldn't their cops be too, then?). The vast majority of criminal cases could be solved through simple effort and legwork, but often those are resources that are not readily available.

Re:It was on her computer.

[BBandCMKRNL]

I think the latter, though, pretty conclusively proves that most criminals are dumb enough to get caught - unless you believe Japanese criminals are dumber than American ones (wouldn't their cops be too, then?). The vast majority of criminal cases could be solved through simple effort and legwork, but often those are resources that are not readily available.

AFAIK, the high conviction rate in Japan is mainly due to the fact that persons accused of crimes in Japan have very few rights.

Re:It was on her computer.

[Anonymous Coward]

I work on the development and administration of a number of aptitude tests, including those used to evaluate candidates for the police force -- the chief qualification for being a policeman, in fact, is the ability to write a coherent police report that is free of ambiguous word choices and spelling/grammatical errors.

The reason for this is because of the paramount importance placed on making sure a defense attorney can't get the report ruled inadmissible.

Re:It was on her computer.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If criminals are mostly stupid, why do most crimes go unsolved?

May be the police is dumber? I am no Perry Mason myself, but gosh, atleast I am better than Hamilton Burger of Lt Tragg or Sergeant Holcombe.

Re:It was on her computer.

[fredklein]

http://www.microsuck.com/content/ms-hidden-files.s html

"There are folders on your computer that Microsoft has tried hard to keep secret. Within these folders you will find two major things: Microsoft Internet Explorer has not been clearing your browsing history after you have instructed it to do so, and Microsoft's Outlook Express has not been deleting your e-mail correspondence after you've erased them from your Deleted Items bin. (This also includes all incoming and outgoing file attachments.) And believe me, that's not even the half of it. "

Re:It was on her computer.

[imikem]

Rather, perhaps it's the stupid criminals who get caught, and convicted at higher rates. The smarter ones tend to still be out there among us. We aren't even aware of many of them, I suppose.

[clears browser cache and history]

Re:It was on her computer.

[blake3737]

Actually, she didn't have the savvy to flush her cache.
Actually, she'd have done much better to degauss her hard drive after the dirty deed.
Actually, she'd have done much better not to have killed anyone in the first place.
one of these sounded dirty to me.. I'm going to make you guess which one: ) /giggity.

Re:It was on her computer.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yer criminals'r mostly stupid - it's why they're criminals."

The smarter ones become law enforcement officers.

Re:It was on her computer.

[Airline_Sickness_Bag]

Yagami Light would beg to differ.

Another Death Note fan - great series.

Who would you kill if you only had to write their name in a special notebook?

Re:It was on her computer.

[RyoShin]

but below Japan's 96% clearance rate for the same crime.

That's surprising.

You'd think ninjas would be better at covering their tracks.

Re:It was on her computer.

[swimmar132]

Yeah, there was an article about Japanese (or maybe Chinese) prisoners being interrogated for a month before confessing. Also, they confess as a way to avoid an embarrassing trial.

Re:It was on her computer.

[poopdeville]

I'm gonna have to start watching it. I've caught up with my other shows: One Piece, Naruto Shippuden, Dexter, Lost. Who are the best Death Note fansubbers?

Re:It was on her computer.

[Airline_Sickness_Bag]

I don't know who is the best, but I've got episodes 1-12 by Live-Evil, and the rest by C1, and they seem decent.

Re:It was on her computer.

[grassy_knoll]

AFAIK, the high conviction rate in Japan is mainly due to the fact that persons accused of crimes in Japan have very few rights.

True, but there's another factor. Regular citizens are eager to help the police, at least when the crime is violent.

When I lived in Japan, a sailor murdered another sailor with a knife in Roppongi. The killer was in a car passing by the victim, who seemed to be arguing with a woman. The killer stopped the car, got out, and attempted to "defend" the woman. He was losing the fight, so he drew a knife and stabbed the victim. As the victim was bleeding out, the killer jumped back in his car and drove off for ( IIRC ) NAF Atsugi.

Before the car had left, a number of witnesses wrote down his license plate and dialed up the Japanese Police. By the time the car reached the gates of the base, the Japanese Police had alerted the Navy who arrested the killer on the spot.

Perhaps it's Japanese society; the idea of Japan as a number of small villages pushed together holds some weight; violent crime disrupts the village. Common people seem to come together to deal with the disruption, so to speak.

Re:It was on her computer.

[alphamugwump]

Except they licensed it after about episode 15. Animanda and kuro-hana are the only ones who are subbing it all the way through. Animanda is slow, but kuro-hana does bad translations. Take your pick...

Re:It was on her computer.

[all_the_names_are_ta]

True - from the Economist:

Confess and be done with it

Feb 8th 2007 | TOKYO
From The Economist print edition
Almost everyone accused of a crime in Japan signs a confession, guilty or not

A TAXI driver in Toyama prefecture is arrested for rape and attempted rape, confesses to both crimes, is convicted after a brief trial and serves his three years in prison. Meanwhile, another man, arrested on rape charges, also confesses to the two crimes the first man was convicted for. He, too, goes to jail and serves his time. Is this a story by Jorge Luis Borges, a case of trumped-up charges from the annals of Stalinist Russia, a trick question in a Cambridge tripos? None of the above. It is a recent instance, and not an uncommon one, of the Japanese judicial system at work.

On January 26th Jinen Nagase, Japan's justice minister, apologised for the wrongful arrest of the taxi driver and declared that an investigation would take place. After all, the suspect had an alibi, evidence that he could not have committed the crime and had denied vociferously having done so. But after the third day in detention without access to the outside world, he was persuaded to sign a confession.

With too many instances of wrongful arrest and conviction, few expect anything to come from the justice ministry's investigation. But the spotlight has begun to shine on the practices of police interrogation as well as on the court's presumption of guilt. More and more innocent victims of Japan's judicial zeal are going public with grim accounts of their experiences at the hands of the police and the court system.

Now a new film about wrongful arrest by one of Japan's most respected directors, Masayuki Suo, has just opened to critical acclaim. The movie, entitled "I Just Didn't Do It", is based on a true story about a young man who was accused of molesting a schoolgirl on a crowded train--and refused adamantly to sign a confession. Thanks to support from friends and family, the real-life victim finally won a retrial after two years of protesting his innocence, and is today a free man.

The film, which was premièred in America and Britain before opening in Japan, depicts how suspects, whether guilty or innocent, are brutalised by the Japanese police, and how the judges side with the prosecutors. Mr Suo argues that suspects are presumed guilty until proven innocent, and that the odds are stacked massively against them being so proven.

The statistics would seem to bear him out. Japan is unique among democratic countries in that confessions are obtained from 95% of all people arrested, and that its courts convict 99.9% of all the suspects brought before them. Prosecutors are ashamed of being involved in an acquittal and fear that losing a case will destroy their careers. Judges get promotion for the speed with which they process their case-loads. And juries do not exist, though there is talk of introducing a watered-down system called saiban-in for open-and-shut cases. Apparently, members of the public are not to be trusted with cases that might involve special knowledge. Those will still be heard and ruled on--as are all cases in Japan today--by judges alone.

Despite Article 38 of the Japanese constitution, which guarantees an accused person's right to remain silent, the police and the prosecutors put maximum emphasis on obtaining a confession rather than building a case based on evidence. The official view is that confession is an essential first step in rehabilitating offenders. Japanese judges tend to hand down lighter sentences when confessions are accompanied by demonstrations of remorse. Even more important, prosecutors have the right to ask for lenient sentences when the accused has been especially co-operative.

It is how the police obtain these confessions that troubles human-rights activists. A suspect can be held for 48 hours without legal counsel or contact with the outside world. After that, he or she is turned over to the public prosecutor for another 24 hours of grilling.

Always sanitize

[Anonymous Coward]

The moral of the story is don't leave tracks.

If you do ALL your searching from an "appliance" virtual machine that uses TOR and doesn't save any state, you should be OK. Yes, there is some risk the host PC's virtual-memory file will give you away but having lots of RAM reduces this risk.

Note I said do ALL your searching this way. This makes "I have nothing to hide but my love letters and bank accounts" at least sound plausible.

By the way TOR isn't perfectly anonymous but it's darn close.

How to really commit murder

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Find someone to murder.
2. Decide how to murder them.
3. Murder them.
4. ?
5. Profit!!!!

easy workaround

[cpeikert]

Just wait 18 to 24 months before doing the deed.

(Oddly, the captcha for posting this was the word 'acquit'....)

I hope she didn't search for "failure"

[dagurp]

.. she might be charged for planning to commit regicide

Correct me if I'm wrong...

[dnc253]

But couldn't they have just found these searches in her browser's history? I don't know about MSN's search, but whenever you search for something in Google, the search terms are included in results page's title and url. A simple look at the history would reveal what had been searched for.

So, always remember to clear out your history after you research how to kill someone......

Re:To Be Evil or Not To Be Evil? That is the quest

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in the article is it stated that Google turned over these logs?

They seized at least one computer from the suspect. It sounds as if they just checked her browser history.

Re:To Be Evil or Not To Be Evil? That is the quest

[voice_of_all_reason]

I don't know: is turning these logs over to prosecute someone "evil"?

Depends on the crime. This case? Murder. It's generally agreed that that is No.

China? Political dissidents and religious undesirables. That is horrifying.

A Vist From the F.B.I.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you're a bad guy and you want to frustrate law enforcement, use a Mac."

Don't Click Here before killing

[objekt]

Here's the missing link for this story

Re:To Be Evil or Not To Be Evil? That is the quest

[soft_guy]

Google actually meant "Don't be evil - to our profits."

Evidence of premeditation

[wsanders]

It is not evidence w.r.t.. who done the crime, but evidence of premeditation, which significantly enhances the crime in most jurisdictions.

wrong support level

[Anonymous Coward]

"your company's helpdesk is NOT very cooperative in a situation like that."

Ah, but that's premium level support, for CEOs!

What an idiot.

[JRHelgeson]

What a noob, if she knew anything she should have Googled: "How to commit murder" poison OR shooting ~suicide -"get caught"

In other news

[jesser]

Don't Google "How to waste time at work" before reading Slashdot.

Autocomplete

[XantheKnight]

They wouldn't have to ask the ISP or Google for the information if she had autocomplete turned on in her browser.

The number of times I've been using someone else's computer, started typing something in the search box, been prompted with a list of previous searches via autocomplete, and been completely shocked by the stuff listed there, well...

Not just Google but MSN as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote: "Google and MSN searches".

I wouldn't have minded so much if she hadn't used a bloody Microsoft product.

Doesn't she know Google uses open source software on its servers? Doesn't she know Microsoft is the enemy? Evidently, she's not a Slashdotter.

You can kill a man...

[Hymer]

...with viagra. What is the big deal here ? Use a handfull of blue pills in a cup of coffe... run them thru a blender first. When he is dead you tell the police that you gave him a couple of pills in his coffe... 'cause you wnated some fun tonight.... and it obviously seems that he too wanted some fun too and took a couple of pills himself.

...and now he's all stiff all over...
...and officer, would you like a nice warm cup of coffee ?

There's a way around this...

[raehl]

Just search for 'border guard fetish'. They should wave you right through...

But you may also want to read up on 'personal lubricant', just in case you get an agent who stops you anyway - then you might REALLY be in trouble.

what she SHOULD have googled

[virtualization_dork]

Maybe she should have googled, "competent defense attorney" ...lol ;)

Forgot being careful about searches

[Anonymous Coward]

The crime occurred in 2004; of course, people now know to be careful about their searches.

If someone has enough of a brain to know to be careful about searches ... hopefully they have enough of a brain to also not committ murder. Unfortunately though, the news media presents evidence of that lack of brainpower on a daily basis.

Re:Huh? (MOD UP)

[sjwaste]

Since I'm learning here, then (and I do appreciate the lesson), what would you argue on defense if you wanted to attack admissibility? Is there a credible argument? I realize you couldn't likely plead 5th amendment privilege since the "document" (the search itself) wasn't made under compulsion, and I don't see any other privilege available. I don't think it's hearsay. All I can come up with is that it's far too prejudicial, but it's also very probative, so I think that might fail too. Do you think anything could be argued against admissibility?

Stick to mystery novels.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you should use the library. The ALA code of ethics says your borrowing history is confidential information. Nearly all circulation systems disassociate borrower IDs with the material after return, providing you don't owe fines, etc.

If your checkout slip has your name on it, complain.

Re:Stick to mystery novels.

[Scootesti]

IANAL either, seriously not :D, but the problem with that, is many things that are typically confidential can easily be gotten with a warrant. Doctor patient confidentiality is another that is easily overturned. See I did learn something watching CSI and Law and Order :D

Patsy

[CraigoFL]

Alternately, Google those things using the system of the person you'd like to frame for the murder you're going to commit.

Oh Geez, I'm in big trouble...

[rholland356]

About a decade ago I heard a song on college radio that featured a phone conversation between a guy who wanted to kill his wife, and the hired killer who had murdered his neighbor's wife by mistake, and the guy didn't want to pay the bill. I could have sworn the name of that song was "Don't hire a killer" or some such.

I have not heard that song since and I occasionally google for lyrics or titles, to discover the artist so I can find the song and hear it again. I've not been successful, and I'm sure I have left a long trail of incriminating searches.

Say, anyone out there got any pointers for finding this song?

Re:Huh? (MOD UP)

[hearingaid]

Too prejudicial? Huh. No, it's not. It's what we would call "damning."

Prejudicial evidence is evidence that actually doesn't mean all that much, but tends to sway juries a lot more than it actually should. This is a rare exception; evidence in this category that gets ruled out is usually of the "she was wearing a miniskirt so of course he didn't rape her" variety.

In this case, I suspect the jury impact might actually be less than what it should be. Most jurors are not that technically skilled, and they'll probably be forced to listen to a complicated explanation in court of how the search terms were obtained. Some may doze off. Bah.

Re:Huh? (MOD UP)

[Brian See]

You would first look at the methdology used to acquire the evidence -- akin to whether the investigator used "good lab procedures". Does the MD5 hash match up? Did they "contaminate" the scene by booting up the computer first? You might get a bite or two on admissibility that way, but standard methodologies are pretty well known and understood these days.

Don't forget that there's really no 5th amendment issue on the computer search, because the defendant isn't being compelled to give testimony.

If I were defending the case, I think the more compelling cross-examination would be to attack the lack of evidence between whatever is on the computer and the defendant herself. For instance, do you know how many other people had access to that profile? So anyone in the house could have sat down at that computer and searched for those terms? Bonus points for those of us with tinfoil hats if you can make a plausible case for some remote access software being used on the computer to plant the browser history from afar (although that would probably try the patience of any judge without more than just hypothetical conjecture.)

This line of cross-examination is less effective if you have lots of browser history showing that during the searches for drugs, guns and murder, she engaged in her "normal" web browsing patterns or accessed personal websites (ie, webmail) that other hypothetical users wouldn't have been able to access.

Also, don't use Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

's "killer" voice recognition.

pleasant experience with the police...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know anyone who has had a pleasant experience with the police. I've had one, once: I got arrested for speeding by that tall blonde cop with a short skirt, and...

oh

sorry, that was a TV ad :-(

Probably did, but that's not what's important.

[Kadin2048]

They almost certainly did, but what sways juries is testimony, generally explaining or about physical evidence, not the evidence itself. A bunch of files wouldn't do anything by themselves; a good expert can take the evidence and explain it in such a way that it's compelling to the jury.

Uh, yeah...

[DragonWriter]

...its circumstantial evidence. Which isn't unusual, most evidence presented in almost every criminal case is circumstantial. The issues of interpretation that apply here are pretty much the same issues that apply to any other evidence (even, often, physical evidence.) That someone who looked like you was seen committing a crime doesn't mean it was you, it could have been someone with a strong resemblance. That DNA with a strong match to yours was found doesn't mean that you left it, it could be the other 1 in (say) 100 million people whose DNA would match. That's why we have trials and juries to weigh the credibility of evidence, etc.

I don't see the particular problem with this kind of evidence. Perhaps you could explain it rather than "illustrating" it with an example which would be equally possible with many kinds of utterly uncontroversial evidence that has been accepted in court forever.

Re:Uh, yeah...

[Maxo-Texas]

I do not see a particular problem with it either. I just think it is a bit weaker than they try to portray.

Courtesy of Riaa, we have a huge caseload of work showing those accused based on computer logs and it later turned out that they were
a) innocent
b) didn't own a computer
c) were computer illiterate and not likely to be the perpetrator.

There is a tendency of the computer ignorant to say "HA! IP address matches! You are guilty" when in reality the evidence is extremely weak. Unless they can show she had exclusive access to those computers- it is very weak evidence to put away someone for 20 years (or even worse- sentence them to death).

Re:Uh, yeah...

[DragonWriter]

There is a tendency of the computer ignorant to say "HA! IP address matches! You are guilty" when in reality the evidence is extremely weak.

Um, perhaps in the RIAA cases. Here, the evidence was drawn directly from history files, etc., from several computers the defendant had access, and tied to suspicious prescriptions drawn by the defendant's lover and the clear history of physical violence between the defendant and the defendant's spouse that became the victim of murder. Its not just some kind of IP matching from a file sharing request or search engine serving as the sole evidence of guilt.

Its not the same kind of evidence, its not the same kind of case, its not the same context, its not, really, at all similar except that computers are involved in some way.

Re:Uh, yeah...

[Maxo-Texas]

Okay-- could anyone have entered those search terms including a guest to her house, a worker in her house, or her husband?

Is there anything to prove that she had exclusive control of the computers?

I agree, it's okay as one piece of circumstantial evidence in a mass of other circumstantial evidence. But I would never convict someone based on that alone.

Wait, I've seen this one before ...

[mmell]

Here.

Re:To Be Evil or Not To Be Evil? That is the quest

[DragonWriter]

I don't know: is turning these logs over to prosecute someone "evil"?

Once again, RTFA. Google didn't turn over any logs, the electronic evidence was taken from computers seized by the police that the defendant had access to, not from Google.

Have you ever been Married?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or alternatively, don't kill anyone?
Somehow that seems simpler to me."

It definitely shows.

another important safety tip...

[BoothbyTCD]

When planning to murder your husband, you should also be careful not to leave copies of '14 Exciting Ways to Shoot People' or 'Corpse Disposal for Dummies' around the house.

Potential Murderers, meet TOR. TOR, meet Potential Murderers.

Re:another important safety tip...

[jimicus]

TOR is a great tool, but all it would do in this context is remove one (probably not very important) piece of evidence out of many.

Things like card receipts for the weapon, CCTV evidence of the shop where the weapon was purchased, evidence gathered from whatever sources as to where the defendents car was around the time of the murder.

Re:another important safety tip...

[BoothbyTCD]

Well, yes, I wasn't really saying that TOR = foolproof crime in this case, but the article emphasizes the Google aspect.

What if it was the husband who searched?

[kbahey]

One problem here is that they lived together, so probably they shared a computer. They were not estranged or separated. The way people setup home computers is that anyone can use it, so we cannot know if the searches are done by her, or by him.

The article discusses other computers, but does not say what searches were found on which computers.

Of course, other evidence goes against her, such as buying the sedative and the gun, but just want to point out that the search alone cannot be tied to her exclusively on its own.

Browser History

[Radon360]

If you go to Google, and search on "Hippopotamus" for example, the next page that you visit is the search results. Its URL is:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Hippopotamus

As you can see, the search term is in URL as part of the query request. Now all you have to do is go back through your browser's history file, find this particular URL, and from it you can derive that someone using the browser on your computer searched for Hippopotamus.

Just plain needed killin

[onkelonkel]

True Fact! In the state of Texas "He needed killin" is a valid defense against a homicide charge.

Re:Just plain needed killin

[hedgemage]

True Fact! In the state of Texas "He needed killin" is a valid defense against a homicide charge
Actually, the appropriate Texan legal phrase is "He done need killin'."

Parent is Underrated

[Radon360]

Too many responses think that this information was obtained by supoenas and dissecting Google/Yahoo/MSN logs and tracing IP's. Not the case.

The Chewbacca Defense

[scottennis]

It seems somehow wrong to me that you can be suspected of murder based on an internet search, but if you've already been acquited of murder you can sign a book deal on how you "hypothetically" might have committed the murder you were acquited of.

Maybe she should write a book entitled, "How I would have searched for murder methods using Google." Then she could use the Chewbacca . . . er, OJ defense.

Re:Huh? (MOD UP)

[networkBoy]

So thought experiment time...
If the computer had HDD encryption and the browser cache/history/etc. was on the encrypted volume would you be protected from divulging the key based on the 5th?
I've often said (and believe) that you would be, but failing that there is the ollie north defense of "I forgot" and as I understand it you then could only face contempt (as opposed to the damning evidence on that encrypted volume).
-nB

Italy, before

[Anonymous Coward]

In Italy we had a similar story.
A guy committed murder and part of the evidence (not the only one of course) was a record of his searches containing phrases like "woman murdered near river XXX" and similars BEFORE the media reported the news.

What about pure research?

[kbielefe]

When the draconian pseudoephedrine restrictions came out, I googled meth recipes to see if the restriction would even prevent significant amounts of meth from being made or if it just made it inconvenient for us allergy sufferers. Bad idea. All the links kept urging me to admit I have a problem and check myself in to a rehab center, saying my IP was recorded and sent to the DEA.

I can imagine novelists or journalists doing research on undetectable poisons, etc. Since the DEA never called me to follow up, I guess it's safe to google anything as long as you don't commit the commensurate crime.

"Rubberhose" and deniable encryption systems

[toby]

In some situations one cannot be paranoid enough - civil rights activists, environmentalists - and this talk by Jacob Appelbaum gives some perspective on the inadequacy of most ordinary approaches to encryption when confronted with a truly hostile adversary (such as many/most governments).

the link - Re:"Rubberhose"

[toby]

Rubberhose transparently and deniably encrypts disk data, minimising the effectiveness of warrants, coersive interrogations and other compulsive mechanims, such as U.K RIP legislation. Rubberhose differs from conventional disk encryption systems in that it has an advanced modular architecture, self-test suite, is more secure, portable, utilises information hiding (steganography / deniable cryptography), works with any file system and has source freely available. Currently supported ciphers are DES, 3DES, IDEA, RC5, RC6, Blowfish, Twofish and CAST.

Written by Julian Assange, Ralf P. Weinmann and Suelette Dreyfus

Proving once again that the Internet is for Pr0n

[517714]

How-to websites are just plain dangerous.

Re:Huh? (MOD UP)

[sjwaste]

We're actually covering the privilege in my white collar crimes course now. I would say that the 5th would not apply to turning over your private key for an encrypted volume because the key itself is not testimonial. On the other hand, as defense, I would argue that production of the key is admission that the encrypted volume, and therefore what it contains, is yours and that IS incriminating. But that probably wouldn't fly because it's a foregone conclusion that the drive is yours based on other evidence. Now, just because the drive contains incriminating stuff, it's not that you're being compelled to CREATE the incriminating evidence.

Re:obligatory one

[Anonymous Coward]

And Reiser kills women.

Google Suggest?

[D4rk Fx]

How could she be held accountable when google will suggest things like this:

how to murder
how to murder your wife
how to murder someone
how to murder someone and get away with it
how to murder your husband

Perhaps she was originally going to type "how to multiply fractions"
Don't believe me? Head here and type "how to mu". It brings the suggestion of how to murder.

Was this posted by the guy who used to do TBTF?

[commodore73]

Back in the 90s "Tasty Bits from the Technology Front" was a great source of tech news. I can't remember the owner's name - Keith Dawson or something? Just curious if the person posting this story is the same guy.

Can I..

[JFlex]

Google 'wood chipper rental' before killing?

What else not to do...

[cparisi]

For that matter, here are a few other things you should not do:

Don't post stories about what you are not supposed to do before commiting murder.
And don't read stories about what not to do before commiting murder.

Chris Hansen

[paranode]

You should redirect it to that JPEG of Chris Hansen that says "Why don't you have a seat right over there..."

Concerning

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hate to think how many life sentances I could be put away for based on my google searches. I'll google "how to rape and murder a child" just to see what comes up. I'm a curious person. Her defense attorney isn't worth a shit if he doesn't find some other "how to" searches to throw in the witnesses face.

Should read "Do not murder".

[tocs]

Then you do not have to worry so much about getting caught.

Run-on sentence...

[DragonWriter]

There wasn't a run-on in that post. There was a misspelling in one sentence and a dropped word in another, but no run-on.

An extremely long sentence, sure, but that's not the same thing.

Come now

[Atario]

Or alternatively, don't kill anyone?

Well now, that's hardly in the geek problem-solving spirit, is it?

solution is obvious

[rubycodez]

need for a script that loads any and all keywords for all manner of crimes, from stealing office supplies to barbecuing endangered species to genocide. Then get say 25% of the populace to run it, either unknowingly by internet worm or overt hip fad. result: web searches then meaningless as evidence.

Still Don't Know if she did the searches!

[Slashdot Parent]

The article states the former--that they analyzed her computer and found that she made those searches.

What bugs me about using this evidence is that the article states her husband was abusive. Given his history of violence, how can we be so sure she made those searches? Isn't it equally if not more likely that he, with his documented history of violence, was plotting to kill her?

Where the heck was her attorney when that evidence got admitted?

Dumb query

[naoursla]

That is just stupid, seriously.

You would be much better off searching for "How to get away with murder."

Mostly stupid....mostly

[Atario]

Yer criminals'r mostly stupid - it's why they're criminals.

The more effective ones get to the laws from the inside (cf. US government's executive branch as of this writing).

Re:Huh? (MOD UP)

[networkBoy]

Right, so plan "b" then.
Uh.... I think it's "password" Didn't work? hmmm... "Password?", nope? "PaSsWoRd?" still no? eh got me! I can't remember. Think I'm lying? prove it.
-nB

Jury Duty

[xvx]

It's great to see this case on /. I was in this jury pool for 3 days while they selected the jury. I feel sorry for you guys that there is not a picture of the defendant. One word sums it up SLIDESHOW.

stupid analogies...

[peektwice]

From TFA: She told the jury that it is known in the computer industry that if information stored on a 12 gigabyte computer was put on paper it would create a stack of paper higher than the Empire State Building.

See my previous posts about dumbing down relevant facts at:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218008&cid =17700180
and:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=218630&cid=177 46858
I mean are we talking 24 pound cotton stock? Card stock? What kind of paper? Are we printing the 1's and 0's? Or are we printing the text of documents? What size font? AUTHORS, PLEASE STOP USING TERRIBLY DUMBED DOWN ANALOGIES.

To continue the Engvall joke....

[sconeu]

Actually, the appropriate Texan legal phrase is "He done need killin'."

There ya go!

You obviously...

[CrimsonScythe]

...haven't met my wife!

I kid, I kid; as if a Slashdotter would ever have a wife...

The Title of the Story & OH ...Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

The Title "Don't Google"
Again Google used as the phrase to search web content on the web.
I wish people wouldn't use this description of searching.

The same goes for the ipod. idiots seeing the ipod, not as a brand name but as a techology. I have to admit, i stupidly bought an ipod shuffle last christmas as a gift to myself
. I should have know better. For one, the ipod is tied to itunes. You have to open itunes in order to transfer music to the player.
Why does apple get so little stick about this.
Can anyone explain?

Perceived Intent

[nurb432]

How long will it be until just the fact you searched some 'forbidden knowledge' puts you in front of a 'team' to explain your actions, regardless of any intent to actually use the information for more then a learning experience.

Re:Perceived Intent

[Tim C]

Given the number of Internet users versus the number of police and associated investigative officials, I'd say "a very, very long time indeed". Even assuming an automated system to automatically summon people in for questioning, the workload would be completely unmanageable for any "useful" list of forbidden knowledge.

Wow, we can shorten this a little

[MrCopilot]

to: Don't commit murder.

Almost anything you do that is related to the crime is irrelavant. Google crimes all you want just don't commit them.

There is nothing special about this case. I buy Garbage bags, shovels and duct tape all the time, But unless I kill someone, these are innocent acts. But as soon as I report my wife missing they look like very suspicious purchases and the reciepts are exhibit A,B, and C.

And rightly so.

Digg?

[Football Player]

man u guys are way behind this was on Digg like yesterday. Digg is thes cool site where user's control tha content

Re:Huh? (MOD UP)

[Khashishi]

Try this link: http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+defend+yours elf+in+court+for+murder

Re:I've got it made

[Peter Eckersley]

According to the article, they got the search results from her computer. Not Google nor MSN.

Well, that's the easier way to do it if they're there (as URLs in a browser history). If not, they can get them from Google or MSN by subpoena. It's quite hard to prevent your search engine from having these records, though we've produced a guide at EFF explaining how to do it.

Well

[okinawa_hdr]

Only an idiot would do that.

"shadow of a doubt"

[cascadingstylesheet]

>There's your shadow of a doubt.

Is "shadow of a doubt" a legal standard anywhere
in the world?

AFAIK, in the U.S. it is typically "reasonable doubt".

"Cockamamie story that is just barely theoretically
possible"

!=

"reasonable doubt"