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
I hope courts require both that the requested search data is very specific to the crime (which you are right, a specific address is specific), and I also think that such requests should be by court order/search warrant. The specificity requirement is most important, but I think law enforcement should not get a blank check to do these sorts of queries. It's a lot harder to convince a judge/jury that a query was too broad after it turned up good evidence compared to rejecting the query before it is run and collected.

That's all from a legal perspective. From a policy perspective, I think our search histories should not be collected in the first place as much as practically possible. In meatspace, libraries are actually very protective of what books you look up/checkout. Seattle City Library actually requires you to opt-in for tracking of your checkout history because they know this sort of data is sensitive.