In yet another instance of internet overlord Google working in mysterious ways, far beyond their intended scope, the entire city of Minneapolis could have their search history reviewed.
While the behemoth internet company continues it’s pushback against conservative opinions in America, many believe that the invasiveness of Google products into our daily lives should come with some privacy protection. Unfortunately for the people of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the police force there has an utterly different opinion of the 4th Amendment, and Google may just play along with it.
“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 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.
“The ominously worded warrant makes some chilling demands — all over a small fraud case.
“A Google search, the warrant application says, as reported by Ars Technica, reveals the photo used on the bogus passport. The image was not rendered on Yahoo or Bing, according to the documents. The warrant commands Google to divulge ‘any/all user or subscriber information’—including e-mail addresses, payment information, MAC addresses, social security numbers, dates of birth, and IP addresses—of anybody who conducted a search for the victim’s name.”
That’s right: Google is seeking to create an extremely worrisome precedent over what many prosecutors would consider a mid-level crime. Should Google cave to the police’s wishes, this would set up an alarming legal chain of events that could be used to glean other, more damning information from the search engine company, including research into the demographical makeup of voters in certain regions. That information could, in turn, be used to target individuals and their micro-locales for unwanted attention from liberal politicians.
Worse yet are the implications regarding thought crime or future crime, in which search engine results could be used to determine the likelihood that an individual has committed a minor crime, and then have them unfairly targeted by police due to the warrantless peeping of their Google history.