It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WARNING: Police Ask For Entire City's Google Searches and The Court Says Yes

page: 1
40
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:10 PM
link   
We knew the time would come sooner or later. Now we have local police who will sift through everyone's search history and "find" crimes.



FOR THE FIRST TIME, POLICE ASK FOR ENTIRE CITY’S GOOGLE SEARCHES AND THE COURT SAYS YES
Published: March 17, 2017

blacklisted news



Edina, MN — An Orwellian precedent is underway just outside of Minneapolis, Minnesota, which could be the downfall of internet freedom as we know it. Police in Edina, MN, have been granted a warrant requiring Google to determine everyone in an entire city who has used its search engine to look up a specific term and identify them to authorities.

The case doesn’t involve some massive terror plot to destroy an entire city or a high-level child trafficking ring. It is for a wire-fraud crime — worth less than $30,000. However, if Google caves to the warrant, it could set off a precedent that will undoubtedly be used by police across the country.

According to Ars Technica, investigators are focusing their probe on an online photo of someone with the same name of a local financial fraud victim. The image turned up on a fake passport used to trick a credit union to fraudulently transfer $28,500 out of an Edina man’s account, police said. The bogus passport was faxed to the credit union using a spoofed phone number to mimic the victim’s phone, according to the warrant application.

According to the warrant, Google must help police determine who searched for variations of the victim’s name between December 1 of last year through January 7, 2017.

 


Mod Note: Please refrain from using all caps in the title.

edit on 17-3-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/17/2017 by eriktheawful because: Edited all caps title.

edit on Fri Mar 17 2017 by DontTreadOnMe because: attempt to fix link




posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Got a link?
To the Ars Technica story?


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

So, drain the ocean of all fish to ensure we catch the 0.00000000001% of naughty fish? Sounds Orwellian to me.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well if he comes up with a link it will probably only confirm what we already know - that All of us are watched,recorded,logged etc.Especially you Americans.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Raxoxane

I found it. The warrant concerns a case of identity theft and the "search term" is the name of the victim.


Google declined to directly address the warrant, but suggested it was fighting it.

arstechnica.com...
edit on 3/17/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/17/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Which only serves to confirm that we are All watched,recorded,logged etc,etc.etc..Especially you Americans.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Raxoxane

If you hadn't figured out that Google (and any other search engine) knows what is searched for...well, naive is a polite way to put it.

Whether or not they can, or have to tell anyone who you are, that's another matter.

edit on 3/17/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
It seems like a reasonable request.

But damn,that's the slippery slope.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raxoxane

If you hadn't figured out that Google (and any other search engine) knows what is searched for...well, naive is a polite way to put it.

Whether or not they can, or have to tell anyone who you are, that's another matter.


Yep:


As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, Google maintains a record of not only your entire search history but also your browsing history and voice recordings of all sounds associated before and after you say the words, “Okay Google.”



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

What if the person used an untraceable machine such as a PC at a public library or a throw away phone? Just saying if I committed a crime I doubt I would keep the smoking gun.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I've never said "Okay Google."



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: jafo1973

That's what I'm wondering. Not only that, but clearing your cookies confuses Google quite thoroughly. It forgets that you went looking for lawn mower parts three years ago and stops showing you ads for lawn mower parts. For example.

edit on 3/17/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Right and my point is you don't have to log into an account to use Google. So if they used a public machine or disposed of the machine it could be virtually impossible to track them through Google.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Minority Report 2002 based on a story by Philip K. Dick




In a future where a special police unit is able to arrest murderers before they commit their crimes, an officer from that unit is himself accused of a future murder.


This sort of thing has been occuring for several years now through social media; every post/tweet is taken seriously especially those of threats... in many cases such people have been taken for psychological evaluations in involuntary commitment orders.

So this sort of thing is nothing new; of course the internet used to be nothing but alter ego's and trash talk to and about strangers as a way to vent in many ways it is still the same; where nothing online was ever meant to be taken seriously or have any integrity but just for entertainment purposes.

Of course; the "intelligence sector" either in not knowing this or with an agenda to FCC the internet things have changed seeing the power it has to connect the entire world beyond the sanctioned prescribed or subscribed scripted dialog everyone is expected to chew on.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
That is actually legal I think. But I do not know the particulars, it could be illegal the way they did it. Looking for one specific term to narrow down a search is not illegal from what I read, that is allowed under one of the law of the National Security laws. What the police can do with the information after that I do not know. I don't think they can do much with it.

Maybe all the cops have to do is get one of those boxes and say....hey google and then ask the question.

edit on 17-3-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Very slippery slope. Hopefully it doesn't get to the point where they do blanket search engine surveillance.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

True.

Its the usage and applications of said information, that is the concern, but you already know that.

Slippery slopes, as darkbake mentioned.

What starts as predictive and "strategic" advertising eventually, potentially, becomes minority report style pre crime and thought policing. Add in some deep mind A.I. assistance and less than optimal conclusions on wild hypotheses and you're left with a battle against nature itself.



edit on 17-3-2017 by CreationBro because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
"If you have done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide then why worry about it?"

Big brother knows best.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

The allowance of this warrant is idiotic. In order to get a search warrant allowed you prove that there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and that there is evidence of that crime in a particular location. What probable cause is there to believe that the person who committed the crime was located within that particular city? What probable cause is there to believe that the perpetrator did a web-search to find info about the person? What probable cause is there to believe that if the person did search the web, that the person used Google? It is a fishing expedition based solely on conjecture and hunch. The exact thing the 4th Amendment is supposed to protect against.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
As I just finished googling 00buck shot ballistics results, 590A1 quad rail, m4 bayonet and preferences between a single, double a 3-point sling.


"ok, google"....."please disregard"


The take away: Google knows I have or likely have a 590A1 and looking to accessorize. Interested in the effectiveness of 00BS, knows I can't have a bayonet with a quad rail and knows I'm undecided on how I'd like to shoulder it.

Did you know 00BS penetrates over 9 inches into ballistic gel? Once it enters its medium the pellets can actually cross paths when fired from 20ft. You can't have a bayonet and a quad rail and depending on your purpose determines witch sling you should consider.

Goes to show, information never comes free.

edit on 17-3-2017 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-3-2017 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join