Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Andrew Strasser, 11 Nov 2005 @ 7:07pm

  
  

  You computer keeps copies of everything.

  Did you really miss the annoying on-line reminder of this that has plagued the internet. I back-up and wipe my drive every few months just because it makes the system run better period. I've used other techniques that even cost money but this is the best one I've found.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2005 @ 11:30pm

    
    

    Re: You computer keeps copies of everything.

    I did a search on google.com for "neck", "snap", "break", and "hold".
    
    I tried every combination and looked through tons of pages. I can't find shit about breaking someone's neck.
    
    I then proceeded to find articles about how to break a neck using my own personal searching techniques. I couldn't find shit.
    
    http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/irresponsible_activities/22kill.html
    
    That url is to an article containing "22 ways to kill a man with your bare hands."
    
    None of the 22 ways to kill someone from that article would seem like an accident.
    
    
    
    I'm not buying anything the prosecution has on this guy.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2005 @ 11:34pm

      
      

      Re: You computer keeps copies of everything.

      "Edwards said the Google searches just came up, though the investigation began nearly two years ago."
      
      For me, the first place to search is the history of the web browsers...
      
      Sounds like a set up.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        ThinkBot, 12 Nov 2005 @ 3:31am

        
        

        Re: You computer keeps copies of everything.

        Remember ol' Isaac Asimov? Then you might remember him writing about why robots couldn't be a witness. Because you can tell them to lie! It's not too far from today's computer witness. Even I could set up an incriminating Google search history at any time.
        
        It’s scary to think such a piece of evidence is used without knowledge of its authenticity.
        

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  eskayp, 11 Nov 2005 @ 7:15pm

  
  

  Tracking perps online

  Interesting tug-of-war on this issue between individual freedom/privacy on one hand, and public safety on the other.
  Could this murder have been prevented by scanning popular search engines and evil how-to sites?
  OTOH how many of us want our web adventures monitored, databanked, and reviewed for possible 'criminal potential'?
  And how long would it take before 'criminal potential' morphs into 'politically undesireable' and then 'liquidation'?
  How do we get past having to choose between saving lives and saving freedom?
  Is there a way to accomplish both?
  The pragmatist in me says prevent or minimize death and destruction.
  The idealist in me says preserve individual freedom and privacy.
  Heh, our present administration seems unable to do either.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    JoBlo, 12 Nov 2005 @ 4:18am

    
    

    Re: Tracking perps online

    You are asking the questions that are ultimatly is wht this country may or maynot stand for. When we the people were givin all these rights back in the day, there has always been someone high in the food chain wanting to take away are freedoms. I beleve that if we want to keep these freedoms we need to fight for them, and not just sit here talking about it...
    
    Your freedom is worth much more than this government wants you to beleve. They give you the preseption that it is better for "us" to let the goverment control what they determan what is right for us...
    
    Only "the people" should have the right to choose what we consider is an important freedom.
    
    I would much rather have the right to own a gun, with the thought that some one else will have a gun and possably harm me with it, than the government just say that know one can have a gun except for us the "government" because of the millitary or some other bullshit excuse. If this were to happen we the "people will not have anyway to stop the "government from wanlong into owr homes and doing what ever the fuck they want because they are the ones wi the guns... This also goes along with damn near any other "Freedom/righs/safty" issue.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2005 @ 4:29am

      
      

      Re: Tracking perps online

      Actually, it's not the government that's pushing gun laws, it's the police. They are the ones that usually end up on the other end of the barell.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Whitelitr, 12 Nov 2005 @ 5:21am

        
        

        Re: Tracking perps online

        No, it is not the Police, as a retired Police Officer I can say that we recognize that when the citizenry is armed, our job is easier and crime rates go down. You will see big-wigs in the Fraternal Order of Police or the Nat'l Assoc of Chiefs of Police pushing for guns laws, but not the line officers that is actually out there.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Tom, 12 Nov 2005 @ 6:01am

        
        

        Re: Tracking perps online

        No, it's not the police pushing gun control. The police know all too well that the guns used by criminals are not legally purchased guns and, therefore, won't be affected by more gun laws.
        

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Fleshbiter, 13 Nov 2005 @ 12:19am

        
        

        Re: Tracking perps online

        I am a cop and I can tell you that 99% of us do not support gun control. Most of us want an armed public, as we believe it saves lives. Criminals want the gun control, it makes their victims easier to control. Who would try to mug, rob, rape, etc. a person they know to be armed? They will find the easier target.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          A.S., 13 Nov 2005 @ 9:19am

          
          

          Re: Tracking perps online

          An armed society is a POLITE society.

          [ link to this | view in chronology ]

          • 

            @$$, 13 Nov 2005 @ 3:13pm

            
            

            Re: Tracking perps online

            Yea because every one is to scared to do anything. Bob: Ohh hey Jerimy
            Jerimy: ahhh terorist BANG

            [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Mandrew, 12 Nov 2005 @ 9:15am

      
      

      Re: Tracking perps online

      What happen to our right to keep and bear arms I believe as our country`s founding fathers did and most of the people living here do guns do not kill people,people do the killing,it does not matter were they learn how to kill it is still done by a person,after reading about this court case and how it took the DA and local police two years to come up with it,sounds like it must have been a election year,WE THE PEOPLE still have a say in the way things are done anybody else ever heard of the BILL OF RIGHTS besides me???

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Stoned4Life, 12 Nov 2005 @ 8:16pm

    
    

    Re: Tracking perps online

    Umm, scanning this information for possible 'criminal potential'? Anyone seen the movie Minority Report? If we start jailing every person who does a "how to" search on killing someone, probably 1 in 1000 might be serious.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Seth, 3 Apr 2010 @ 8:14pm

    
    

    Re: Tracking perps online

    No because for those who are doing other stuff on the internet should not be punished for what some people look up. I am not saying that scanning the mans computer could have saved her life but is there total evidence that he killed her? We do however have a right to our own searches. There is no reason to search other peoples browsers because of what one man did.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Tony K, 11 Nov 2005 @ 7:54pm

  
  

  Googling

  It could also conveniently be used to set someone up to make it LOOK like they did it, as well.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Hey, 11 Nov 2005 @ 8:40pm

    
    

    Re: Googling

    Don't you agree that it is a good thing that evidence, no matter where it was located, aided in the prosecution of a dangerous murderer? Get real, if a pedophile is in my neighborhood and the law uses search strings he typed in Google to locate child porn, use the evidence and lock him up. It's a good thing, I am not saying give up privacy, but if you are going to use services like Google, read the user agreement! If you think it is too invasive you have a choice, don't use it. If you don't wipe your hard drive, and commit felony crimes, tough shit. Go to jail, the world will be a better place.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      eskayp, 11 Nov 2005 @ 11:00pm

      
      

      Re: Googling

      The current online molester stings by law enforcement are a good example of preventing harm by employing modern tech.
      Also, web investigations and tracking have exposed a city official in Spokane, WA. trolling for homosexual partners and offering them city employment.
      A separate incident resulted in the arrest of an individual researching and purchasing ingredients to make ricin -- a very lethal poison.
      The downside comes when people (usually in authority) misuse technology to attack others who are on their enemies list.
      The problem is how to protect the public while also assuring their freedom and privacy.
      Prehistoric man faced a similar problem with fire, which could protect him or kill him.
      Many millenia later fires continue to warm us and harm us.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Kat, 12 Nov 2005 @ 10:16am

      
      

      Re: Googling

      I agree with Tony K.... it could be very easy to set someone up using the internet. ... but... on the other hand... I agree with you too.
      
      but what of the situation, where more than one person are living in a house... and multiple people use the same computer, how do you then prove who actually looked at what? I live with 3 other people, with 5 computers in the house, we all use all the different computers at different times...

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Evidence of nothing, 11 Nov 2005 @ 9:39pm

  
  

  Digital Evidence

  Bits on a hard-drive can't be dusted for fingerprints.
  Windows has had numerous zero-day exploits for the entire history of the OS.
  Police shouldn't look for a shortcut around good traditional forensic work in "digital" evidence.
  
  (And I agree that these criminals need to get caught, just realize any defense attorney with a teensy bit of understanding of computers is going to have this thrown out very quickly.)
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    patrick, 12 Nov 2005 @ 6:21am

    
    

    Re: Digital Evidence

    Um, on what grounds? Just because the evidence isn't 100% isn't a reason to throw the out.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Frank, 12 Nov 2005 @ 9:20am

      
      

      Re: Digital Evidence

      I saw a quote the other day that I think is a pretty good response to patrick's comment.
      
      In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” --Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945
      
      
      Food for thought.
      
      
      Eventually the little things add up to bigger things. By then it's generally too late to do anything but scream.
      
      I'd rather fight to keep the freedom's I have.
      
      There are no shades of grey when it comes to evidence that may or may not lead to a conviction in what, in some states, could be a capital offence (Meaning they kill you). Evidence HAS to be 100% or what is the point?
      
      You can't go up under oath in a court of law and state, "We're not 100% sure the search was done by the defendant, but that it was on his computer and found sometime later, it has to be his".
      
      That right there introduces "Resonable Doubt". No prosecutor in his right mind would try to bring in evidence that wasn't clearly an asset to the case.
      
      So, to you patrick, shame on you, just because it doesnt affect you now, it might. Then what?
      
      
      

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        tommy, 12 Nov 2005 @ 1:13pm

        
        

        Re: Digital Evidence

        You know it really makes me laugh.But i know it's not funny.But anytime a crime is commited and the person has a computer in his home,They grab they hard drive.That's kinda stupid?Well if it's child molestration,ok i can see it.because most that commit these crimes picks up kids in chat.But any thing else i wouldn't look to deep on the persons computer.But you right evidence is evidence no matter where from.Then there's proving it.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Tim, 13 Nov 2005 @ 4:58am

        
        

        Re: Digital Evidence

        Frank writes:
        > That right there introduces "Resonable Doubt". No prosecutor in his right mind would try to bring in evidence that wasn't clearly an asset to the case.
        
        In some countries/courts/cases you also have the concept of `balance of probability'. Treat it for what it is: a single data-point of evidence with error-margins around it. Let the prosecution raise it, but also let the defendants counter if they can.
        
        Personally I'm sort-of glad they actually found it on his computer - one hears a lot of them being taken and not so much of the outcomes. Plus it's better than the RIAA/MPAA approach where they need to prove a link between "something to do with this IP#" and a given person.

        [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anand Kishore, 11 Nov 2005 @ 11:42pm

  
  

  Google Search Profiles

  Now that Google has integrated its services like Orkut with the Gmail id it seems to be creating a profile for their users. Also it keeps a track of your searches based on your id. This way alot of info can be gathered about a person for example his/her interests, activities based on the search queries...interests based on the communities joined in Orkut etc.

  But using this info in the Court as evidence sounds baffling as there is no way to establish whether the search qery was actually performed by the particular person. For instance I keep my self logged into Google with "remember me" option. In my absence it could be misused.

  Andy
  Da Tek ee

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Joe, 12 Nov 2005 @ 4:11am

  
  

  No Subject Given

  Above artice contains the line: Technical experts from the Irish police fraud squad later examined Whelan’s work computer and found searches like “How long does it take to die from asphyxiation?”
  He got life in Jail....

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Kat, 12 Nov 2005 @ 10:22am

    
    

    Re: No Subject Given

    That just seems like a silly thing to get life in jail over... maybe he has a morbid sense of curiosity... or.. maybe he was looking up information for a character in a story... or... any number of things could cause him to want to know the answer to that....

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Joe, 2 Dec 2005 @ 1:43pm

    
    

    Re: No Subject Given

    Actual URL is above

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Dave McBride, 12 Nov 2005 @ 6:31am

  
  

  Nice Headline Grabbing

  So the real issue here is that evidence may be leveraged against you from your internet cahce not from your google searches. That doesn't make quite as snappy a headline though does it.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    nobody, 12 Nov 2005 @ 6:42am

    
    

    in that case

    Get as many people as possible to touch your keyboard on a regular basis, and never clean it.
    Surely then there would be no way to prove who was searching for what.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Andrew Strasser, 12 Nov 2005 @ 7:49am

      
      

      Re: in that case

      They can know everything you do as you do it in most cases. They can monitor and change things. Weird things can happen with your computer. They are not a viable solution to law enforcement. Of course they are needed for that as well as most everything else in the world. At least the laws do state that it has to be in it's original device for it to be used in court, though as said above with expert witness you could easily have that changed.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  hAcKeR eXtRaOrDiNaIrE, 12 Nov 2005 @ 8:01am

  
  

  I'll frame you if I want...

  At this day and age, computer evidence and the art of computer forensics is far more hazy and tricky. If I wanted to, I could get you arrested and ensure the evidence is solid enough to lock you up or otherwise F@CK your seemingly normal life up...and it would be relatively simple. Simply plop down at a local Starbucks (or any other open WiFi spot) long enough for me to access your computer. Even someone with simple System Administrator skills can do this. I can snoop around your hard drive to find out your name and even perhaps your phone number (but a name and a call to 411 will suffice). I can then copy over a nice little collection of kiddy porn to your hard drive. I then make an anon call to my local authorities with some made-up story that will prompt a visit to your house where your computer will be confiscated. You will be caught red-handed with the evidence and you are now guilty in the eyes of the local news, neighbors, your job, your family, and so forth.
  Think it can't really happen?? Do a quick search on the case of Julian Green in 2002. One of countless examples....

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Teh_0n3, 12 Nov 2005 @ 8:02am

  
  

  wtf

  he could of done a yahoo search too you dumb fucks

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    .treo., 12 Nov 2005 @ 12:13pm

    
    

    Re: wtf

    pfft... searching yahoo is like using internet explorer... so overdone...

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2005 @ 9:43am

  
  

  Pretty Misleading

  Google has nothing to do with auto-complete being turned on within your browser. Auto-complete works the same for any search engine. The fact that they used Google was irrelivant. That is a terrible headline.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Going into Law, 12 Nov 2005 @ 10:01am

  
  

  This is why

  This is why I am going into law school, coming from a previous decade plus of computer work.
  
  Jurors, judges, and attorneys no very little about technology. They use expert witnesses, but that only goes so far. It isn't the same as the attorney knowing the technology.
  
  There is little doubt in my mind that there are a substantial number of people who sit in prison today because they were framed using computers. During trial, the right questions weren't asked; the right case wasn't made. And something that was just a sequence of bits on a hard drive was distorted as if it were the same as a pool of blood.
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anger Monkey, 12 Nov 2005 @ 11:49am

  
  

  I may finally

  start using filevault in Tiger. Personally in this case it seems subjective as to whether it can be used as evidence, many people know how to do many things that are deemed dangerous or are actually illegal, but last I checked knowledge isnt a crime, maybe a health risk if you are viewed as a future threat by a government or crime syndicate.
  I see my computer as an extension of my mind and I believe I have the right to know anything I deem interesting and as long as I do not inflict harm on another person and do not solicit others to do so my privacy should be respected. I am glad that several US supreme court justices believe that the bill of rights guarantees a right to privacy

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  none, 12 Nov 2005 @ 12:52pm

  
  

  Almost right

  "...for the potential criminals among our readers, perhaps you shouldn't Google up stuff related to your crime before committing it."
  
  You should Goolge stuff up, just be sure it's on the PC of a plasuable suspect.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Midnight, 12 Nov 2005 @ 3:19pm

  
  

  Google

  If this man had half a brain, he would have cleaned out his web History, cache and other traces.
  What a Moron!!!

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  NoMorePoints.com, 12 Nov 2005 @ 6:46pm

  
  

  Google-ing

  Question? If you google the winning lotto numbers and you win the next day, will they take your money away?
  
  NoMorePoints.com

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2005 @ 10:23pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  Security is an illusion, Protection is just an excuse to take away your rights.
  
  Trading freedom for an illusion.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2005 @ 10:27pm

  
  

  No Subject Given

  Wipe your HDD before you kill someone, people.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Fleshbiter, 13 Nov 2005 @ 12:26am

  
  

  I think we've missed an important point

  Nowhere in this article are they saying this is the only evidence they have. Certainly there was more evidence than just the hard drives. I'm sure the google searches just support other evidence in the case.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  sparko, 13 Nov 2005 @ 6:49pm

  
  

  wat the heck

  isnt that invasion of privacy or something
  
  
  -SPARKO

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    computer cop, 13 Nov 2005 @ 8:52pm

    
    

    Re: wat the heck

    RTF Posting...
    
    the searches were found ON THE SUSPECT's computer. Google doesn't store that. Take the fact that they are one of the largest search engines and then multiply the amount of storage it would take to catalog everyone's search terms, ip addresses, etc.
    
    Forensics on computers are very involved and very detailed. You can try to plant evidence all you want, we'll figure it out

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      dan, 13 Nov 2005 @ 9:24pm

      
      

      Re: wat the heck

      ok computer cop, but realize google has over 500k machines in every major city in the country. Thats a lt of storage.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Marshmallowclock, 13 Nov 2005 @ 9:56pm

  
  

  Heh.

  That's actually a bit funny. But if you are going to end up killing someone relying off of your google, you'd best delete your history first.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    schirk, 13 Nov 2005 @ 10:26pm

    
    

    Re: Heh.

    And probably have a program that generates random information on your hard drive of retarded 0's and 1's that mean nothing. When you delete something it's not gone, it's just not there for the eyes of the common user; It's gone when something else takes its place. And plenty of hardly "sophisticated" computer analysists dealing with crimes will have some sort of software that can recover deleted files from beyond the grave. That's why when you see movies and the bad guy is about to get it he takes a magnet to his hard drive, cuz just deleting his incriminating files won't do.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  I don't know, 7 May 2006 @ 7:06pm

  
  

  Ha!

  I tried this because my friends told me to, right? Well nothing happened. This site was one of the many that pulled up. It's actually kind of funny. I said "I heard someone knock on the door" and they said "Just get out of google search and delete all of the history relating to 'Neck' 'Snap' 'Break'." I died of laughter. I was a bit scared that it'd trigger an alarm like they said it would but yea right. Nothing happened.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  comment0r, 30 Nov 2006 @ 1:29am

  
  

  jo oida, des is jo vui zach! wos sui der schas? checkt's ihr des? wo kumm ma denn do hin? vadaummta übawochungsstoot!

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    benkt, 30 Nov 2006 @ 1:31am

    
    

    Re:

    i totally agree

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  the wrecker, 28 Dec 2006 @ 2:44am

  
  

  google searches

  DUH!

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]