Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge Grants Search Warrant For Everyone Who Searched a Crime Victim's Name On Google (startribune.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the constitutional-violations dept.

Hennepin County District Judge Gary Larson has issued a search warrant to Edina, Minnesota police to collect information on people who searched for variations of a crime victim's name on Google from Dec. 1 through Jan. 7. Google would be required to provide Edina police with basic contact information for people targeted by the warrant, as well as Social Security numbers, account and payment information, and IP and MAC addresses. StarTribune reports: Information on the warrant first emerged through a blog post by public records researcher Tony Webster. Edina police declined to comment Thursday on the warrant, saying it is part of an ongoing investigation. Detective David Lindman outlined the case in his application for the search warrant: In early January, two account holders with SPIRE Credit Union reported to police that $28,500 had been stolen from a line of credit associated with one of their accounts, according to court documents. Edina investigators learned that the suspect or suspects provided the credit union with the account holder's name, date of birth and Social Security number. In addition, the suspect faxed a forged U.S. passport with a photo of someone who looked like the account holder but wasn't. Investigators ran an image search of the account holder's name on Google and found the photo used on the forged passport. Other search engines did not turn up the photo. According to the warrant application, Lindman said he had reason to believe the suspect used Google to find a picture of the person they believed to be the account holder. Larson signed off on the search warrant on Feb. 1. According to court documents, Lindman served it about 20 minutes later.

17 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. First and second reactions by mccrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At first, I was ready to get mad about an over-broad search. But after reading the facts and background info, the warrant doesn't seem unreasonable.

    --
    Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    1. Re:First and second reactions by dex22 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The warrant is specifically for Google, specifically about people who searched within a specific timeframe for the specific details used in a specific crime that happened later. They have shown their work to show that Google was the only likely source for that info used in the crime. There are not likely to be any matching results that are not related to the crime, and those that are can be easily eliminated.

      Just how specific do you want them to be?

    2. Re:First and second reactions by Zocalo · · Score: 2
      Perhaps not, but I'm not sure I get this bit:

      Google would be required to provide Edina police with basic contact information for people targeted by the warrant, as well as Social Security numbers, account and payment information, and IP and MAC addresses.

      Google might have *some* of that data - possibly even the MAC, if it's an Android device - but even with Google's reach, expecting them to be able to produce that data on a whole bunch of essentially random Google users just based on their searches seems a bit of a stretch. Am I missing something here, or is it just those involved in writing and granting the warrant badly need to run a few Google searches of their own?

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re:First and second reactions by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The warrant is specifically for Google, specifically about people who searched within a specific timeframe for the specific details used in a specific crime that happened later. They have shown their work to show that Google was the only likely source for that info used in the crime. There are not likely to be any matching results that are not related to the crime, and those that are can be easily eliminated.

      Are you on crack? They are looking for someone that googled a person's name. There is absolutely zero, zip, nada, no requirement they searched for anything remotely related to any crime. Or that they searched for this particular individual and not just someone sharing their name. And while the police found the image on Google image search, the warrant is for everyone who used Google the search engine. It's likely the identity thief visited all pages about the victim, there's no reason to believe he used the image search directly that's just a red herring. And well over a month is hardly a specific time frame, if he lost his wallet in the morning and was cleaned out by evening I might agree but this just throwing a huge dragnet. But with bootlickers like you I understand why totalitarianism will win.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:First and second reactions by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2

      > So in other words they used information that any intelligent facebook user / developer has access to via clever social engineering or the app itself

      No, as the article points out, it's not the actual victim's details that are at issue here. It's the fact that the perpetrator used the *wrong* photo, and that the photo they used comes up in a Google search (but not in other search engines). If they had have got the photo through Facebook or social engineering, they likely would have got the right photo.

    5. Re:First and second reactions by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Or he means his employer happens to use Google Sheets to store employee data. Which is hardly a far-fetched concept.

      I suppose, though that's hardly "giving the date to Google". Google not only doesn't mine docs or sheets

      How cute! Now all you have to do is get people to believe that. I know, I know, "Trust us - we can't tell you why you can trust us, but yeah - we're really trustworthy!"

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How does Google have our SS numbers if all we do is search? Is that legal?

    1. Re:WTF by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2, Informative

      How does Google have our SS numbers if all we do is search? Is that legal?

      --

      Google might have *some* of that data - possibly even the MAC, if it's an Android device - but even with Google's reach, expecting them to be able to produce that data on a whole bunch of essentially random Google users just based on their searches seems a bit of a stretch. Am I missing something here, or is it just those involved in writing and granting the warrant badly need to run a few Google searches of their own?

      --

      In general, they wouldn't know SSNs. Maybe if someone was logged in while doing the search and earlier associated a SSN with their Google account for some reason. Google probably doesn't have people's MAC addresses either. It seems the police is asking for anything that would help them identify a person no matter how unlikely that Google can actually provide it.

      --
      Google has become the most powerful information broker on the planet. Gmail has over a billion users a month. Google scans the contents of each and every email sent and received. -- Are you sure nobody has ever discussed your SSN on that platform?

      People lives their lives plugging info into google controlled mobile platforms, which google also scans, including a pretty good voice to text algorithm. --- Are you sure nobody has ever spoken, or otherwise worked with your SSN on that platform?

      Google provides land-line calling and texting for free via their comms platform, google hangouts, which was re-branded from google+. Google had claimed 540 million monthly users of google+ in 2013. ---- Are you sure nobody has ever handled your personal business on that platform?

      The google search platform has become so popular that it has entered the English language as a synonym for searching data. Google claims 40000 search queries a SECOND. Each search is scanned, cataloged and cross referenced with the rest of the profile that this giant has been actively building on each and every user. ----Are you sure nobody has googled your name and/or social?

      YOU are careful and aware. Good for you, so am I. This does NOT mean we don't have a profile on googles servers somewhere connected to our names, location history (down to the minute is some cases-and spanning years), ISP history, B-day, MAC, SSN, favorite color, political affiliation, family ties, and sexual preference. This info is all worth something to somebody, and google's business is knowing both the data in question, as well as who is willing to pay for it.

      It's folly to assume this is not the case... This is where Google makes its money. Once the cat is out of the bag regarding how easily google can and will respond to law enforcement...... well... nothing will likely happen.

      The amount of this collected data that is shared with government entities around the world is STAGGERING, and that's only the stuff they want us to know about.

      --
      You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    2. Re:WTF by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

      Legally Google should only have SSN's for their own employees, though with the level of spying and data analysis they conduct for their advertising it's possible they can connect the dots and statistically identify an individual including their ID numbers.

      The thing is, an SSN is not considered confidential information. It's merely an identifier. The fact that banks and credit companies and lenders have USED it for identification and credit ratings and such is entirely of their own volition. They're not supposed to do that. It's not meant for that purpose. But the barn door was left open long ago.

      In fact, there are algorithms that can deduce your SSN with good rate of success just by knowing your DOB and place of birth. So if it's possible to figure out your number based on what would be public information, can you really call the SSN confidential? If you can just guess and get it right, no.

      The real problem is this number was never meant to be used the way it is. It was never meant to be the key to unlocking credit and loans and money. It was never meant to be secure. We have stupidly allowed it to be all those things and done nothing to secure it along the way, besides just saying "Oh wow don't share that!" and assuming that's all we had to do.

      If things were the way they should be, an SSN would have no more usefulness than someone's phone number. It's not a lot of good beyond using it to call them. And an SSN should not be any good for anything beyond crediting stuff to your retirement, if there is any by the time you retire.

      --
      Sig for hire.
  3. Hah, joke's on them by by+(1706743) · · Score: 4, Funny

    I only use Bing!

    1. Re:Hah, joke's on them by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2
      Joking aside, it looks like this is the reason Google was singled out:

      Investigators ran an image search of the account holder's name on Google and found the photo used on the forged passport. Other search engines did not turn up the photo.

      According to the warrant application, Lindman said he had reason to believe the suspect used Google to find a picture of the person they believed to be the account holder.

  4. Proud of myself by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Informative

    30+ years of being online and not one picture of me anywhere, either under my pseudonym Dunbal (which I've used since 1986), or my real name.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re: Proud of myself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I bet your one ugly mother fucker.

    2. Re:Proud of myself by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Oh that's easy. No friends :P

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  5. Re:So what? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Uh, isn't the bank the one who is responsible for credit card fraud? Someone stole $30k from the guy's bank. I'm pretty sure the bank wants to force the guy to cough up the money, and I'm pretty sure a decent lawyer would tear the bank apart and force them to prove the guy was complicit in this theft.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Unite citizens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We should all do a Google search for "Hillary Clinton Sex Tape", so when it gets leaked Biden will have plausible deniability.

  7. Any reason to think that, or completely made it up by raymorris · · Score: 2

    > Uh, isn't the bank the one who is responsible for credit card fraud?

    Yes, in most cases the bank loses the money. That doesn't mean the thief isn't prosecuted for the crime. This story is about the police investigation to prosecute the criminal. It has nothing whatsoever to do with who loses the money (thank bank). Also, this case isn't about credit card fraud, but similar enough.

    > Someone stole $30k from the guy's bank.

    Yeah and the cops are trying to put the thief in jail.

    > I'm pretty sure the bank wants to force the guy to cough up the money

    Huh?!?! Do you have some *reason* to even suspect that, much less be "pretty sure" of it. I don't see anything in the article that even HINTS that there might be any question that the bank is the victim of the theft, that the bank, not the customers, are suffering the loss. Did I miss something, or did you completely make that up out of thin air? Did you just imagine something and you're pretty sure it's true because you were able to imagine it, or do you have some reason think that?