• Sentau@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is like going to a hotel and asking to see a list of people who stayed in the hotel last week because the suspect is probably staying nearby.

    And the hotel can deny to provide this information if it is an informal request. Only with a warrant will they forced to give up that list and a judge issuing the order will want some proof as why the police believe the suspect stayed in the hotel.

    I am not a lawyer so I could be wrong about the criteria for the issue of warrants.

    • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right. Google could have just looked that shit up voluntarily. I mean, it can’t be a long list.

      • Sentau@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But Google didn’t. They were forced by a warrant which was issued on grounds so weak, that judges themselves agreed that it was unconstitutional.

        • tsonfeir@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          There was a fire and maybe people who looked up that address could be further investigated.

          Do you think that’s weak grounds? How could that specific and very small list of IP addresses violate a persons privacy?

          I obviously haven’t read the warrant request, and it could have been worded pretty poorly.

          • Sentau@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes I think that’s weak grounds. And so does the judge who presided over the case as well as several other judges who deemed the warrant as unconstitutional. The only reason the evidence was allowed was because the judge declared that the justice system broke the rules in good faith. I haven’t read the warrant request either just forming my opinion from articles on the issue.

            I think that the warrant was issued on weak grounds because what the cops had was a hunch (a calculated one but still a hunch). They had no proof that the perpetrators/murderers searched for the apartment. It is not like they identified that searches for that addressed spiked at some point and served a warrant for those ip addresses during that spike. They just asked for all ip addresses in the last 15 days and that was because they did not have evidence pointing towards a search just a calculated hunch.

            Edit : This precedent will have a lot of avenues for misuse. In States were abortion is banned, police can request warrants for abortion searches without the warrant specifying who specifically they are searching for and then investigate women whose ip addresses show up on the list. These will be woman whom the cops had zero evidence against, women who were not even suspects before an unconstitutional warrant like this makes them one.