zlacker

>>ceejay+(OP)
To be honest, this seems like a pretty reasonable search; a warranted search, narrowly scoped in both keywords (a specific address) and timeframe.

Meanwhile, this:

> “If Google is allowed or required to turn over information in this Colorado case, there is nothing to stop a court in a state that has outlawed abortion to also require Google to turn over information on that kind of keyword search.”

seems like it's of entirely different magnitude, far less amenable to such a narrow scope.

>>ceejay+i6
Everyone agrees preventing criminals from burning people alive is wrong, but some people don't think abortion is wrong so there's grey area there.

>>matt32+i7
Sure, but there's still a big scope difference; "who searched for this one address right before it burned down" versus "who searched about abortion; we don't know anything much more specific than that".

> Google delivered information on 61 queries, according to court filings, along with the IP address — a unique number for each computer on the internet. Investigators focused on a handful of those queries, asking Google to provide detailed user information for them. One of them was linked to the 17-year-old.

That's pretty narrow.