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
If the requirement to be narrow and time limited is not codified in law (which afaik it is not) it is pretty much guaranteed such broad searches will happen. All it takes is convincing a judge.

If the past has taught us anything it's that law enforcement will use any tool to the maximium of what is allowed and then beyond (e.g. coerced phone searches, racially motivated stop and search, drug dogs to force vehicle searches, privately sourced licence plate tracking and face recognition, criminal DNA testing from rape kits, forced biometric collection and more).

>>lin83+49
It is codified, in the Fourth Amendment.

> no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

Legally, the term is "particularity".

>>ceejay+I9
It gets fuzzy when third parties are involved. For example, looking at security camera footage seems to require a warrant, but no warrant is generally required if the search is consensual (and most people aren't against sharing video camera footage to aid an investigation of a serious crime as long as it is practical).

This whole system really highlights a flaw in using a 200 year old document as the basis of our legal system. Pervasive surveillance in the form of video cameras, photographs, audio, and now Google search requests wasn't really a thing at the time. I suspect with the present conditions, the authors of the 4th amendment would have put in an even stronger requirement for warrants regarding data from third parties and maybe even searches generally given how non-consensual consensual searches often feel to everyday citizens. Unfortunately, I think textualism is more in vogue with the current SCOTUS.

>>slayma+vn
If we want stronger requirements for warrants regarding data from third parties, we can just pass laws with stronger requirements. The constitution is not a barrier here. Even if had been written 25 years ago it wouldn't have predicted the data dystopia we are in now.