Google Searches Play Role In Murder Trial

[intelliot]

If Robert Petrick is convicted of murder, his use of Google may be the key piece of evidence that convicts him. I guess it's not a good idea to search for "neck snap break" just before your wife is killed.

Petrick is defending himself in Durham, N.C., in his wife's murder trial. Other Google searches, such as for the depth and topography of the lake his wife's body was found, were presented at the trial as well. So was a document he downloaded, titled "22 ways to kill a man with your bare hands." Emails that may have implied he was having an affair were found as well.

Those searches and documents were found when investigators examined Petrick's hard disk. But if Petrick had used a Google search history service, then those searches could have been found by issuing a subpoena to Google. And there lies something for everyone to think about.

Google has a feature that allows you to keep a history of your searches, stored on the search giant's servers. That way, wherever you are, you can call up your past searches. And if the searches are cleared from your computer, you can always get to them with the search history feature.

But that also means that others can view that history. Google, of course, tries to protect your privacy. But how about the government?

No doubt, you have no plans of murdering your spouse, and you most likely don't do searches for "neck snap break." But keep in mind laws like the Patriot Act, that lets the feds peer deep into just about every aspect of your life. The FBI has been using that law these days against regular citizens, not just terrorists.

So while the Google search history feature is a very useful one, the next time you use it, realize it makes it more likely that others, including the federal government, can find out what you've been searching for.

[kcmandava]

This is kind of scary. I mean using search for legitimate purposes yet having that opened to public eyes in the future. I was thinking of uninstalling Google Desktop recently, after reading a similar article which said google could be indexing files as well as saving searches on its servers.

[mondine]

Umm...author? Source?
To me, this is a story with a happy ending. A murdering piece of crap is nailed; the end.
Such information isn't provided without some kind of probable cause; like information from any source, like phone or bank records.
As for vague statements like "The FBI has been using that law these days against regular citizens", I'd ask how? If a 'regular citizen'
is not breaking a law, how exactly can information be used 'against them'?

[Trikinomitry101]

I couldnt find an exact source to this story, but, I did find a longer article about it... and I used google too! my search and I found an article!

And when I google "neck" "snap" "break" and "hold", all I find are things about this trial...

[mondine]

Yes, I'd heard about the case before. I was wondering about that particular story, and the author that was using the death of that unfortunate woman as background to 'spin' a story about 'privacy from government'.

[BadBoy]

Article from TechWeb News

[mondine]

Originally Posted by BadBoy

Article from TechWeb News

Even better.

Prosecutors claimed that Petrick, who stands out in his Christian North Carolina community as a self-professed Pagan, left behind a trail of digital evidence including a visit to a site called bloodfest666. Investigators are also focusing e-mails to women they said Petrick was having affairs with and a download of a document entitled "22 ways to kill a man with your bare hands."

And yet, the guy decided to dismiss his lawyer, and represent himself because he's a 'computer expert'.

[kcmandava]

Well, its not all bout nailing criminals. Search results can be used for firing employees, divorces, and so on. Its not about how information is used. It can be used against anybody and can be twisted to suit the regulatory processes existing in that country. There are countries where people have been imprisoned for using the internet to contact people from other countries.

[mondine]

Yes, but the author was obviously talking about the US, with the references to the Patriot Act, and the FBI.
A divorce lawyer doesn't have power of subpoena, ISP records are not public domain, and if someone is foolish enough to misuse their employer's computer, they probably deserve to be fired.

If you live in a totalitarian state, of course it's a different story. For one thing, it's probably illegal to have internet access, so search history is rather a moot point.

[kcmandava]

Don't want to start a fight here but the U.S props up a lot of governments even if they are totalitarian just for its selfish interests. The Law in one country is not the Uniform Law the world over. Invading a person's privacy except for public good is not acceptable. In this case, I accept it was okay to use the search history. Tomorrow it could be you or me. It could be confidential information related to a client. Look at it from a perspective that you are not used to. Its difficult but is possible if you have travelled to other countries.