Pa Supreme Ct allows non-warranted access to your Google searches

reason.com

14 points·mwexler··4 comments

They asked Google for “who searched for this address or this person’s name” and got back a list of people. That’s chilling (vs - eg - “what’s this specific person’s search history?”).

Makes you think about this capability if the government decided to crack down on specific types of speech.

Google shouldn’t store this information in the first place.

The court relied on Google's TOS to conclude that users opted to use the service, fully aware of their data being stored:

* when a person performs a Google search, he or she is aware (at least constructively) that Google collects a significant amount of data and will provide that data to law enforcement personnel in response to an enforceable search warrant. For present purposes, what Google does with that information, including the standards it imposes upon itself before providing that information to investigators, is irrelevant. For Fourth Amendment purposes, what matters is that the user is informed that Google—a third party—will collect and store that information.

IANAL and can't understand whether now, every 3rd party storing my data is obligated to share it without a warrant.

That's why I use DuckDuckGo

This should be appended to the article title

Reply on news.ycombinator.com