The United Press International reports that "[n]ewly released documents in Florida's Caylee Anthony case show ominous search words entered on the family computer prior to the child's disappearance." Some thoughts:
1. I've yet to see an investigation wherein the search terms at issue came from the service provider (e.g., Google or Yahoo!). Rather, they appear to be taken from the defendant's computer pursuant to a warrant.
2. I think the introduction of search terms into evidence presents a real danger in the context of inchoate crimes such as attempted murder. Searches can be snapshots of a person's mind, but no more than that. The concern is that a jury will see concrete intentions in Internet searches and not require a showing of a firm will to go through with the crime.
3. As Search Engine Watch points out, searches can lead to convictions in another way -- by allowing citizens to make connections and report them to the police. In one case, a Florida woman reported a man for practicing medicine without a license after an Internet search revealed that his license had been revoked.
4. Why is it always Florida?
Hi
I think its good that it allows citizens to make connections and report them to the police.
Dave
In most cases I can see the benefit of the public doing searches and finding out information that would be helpful in fighting crimes and other wrong doing. As long as our society doesn't turn into the German Gestapo.
Since it is common for criminals to think they are invisible this scenario is not a surprise.
The current anonymity and ubiquity of the Internet play right into the hands of those that are looking to take advantage of those that are most vulnerable, and those without their guards up.
I feel that legalities allowing specific and pointed investigations into these type of criminal elements will keep the Internet safe for all future users. General and/or undocumented reason for access, however, is going too far. A thin line to walk.
Post new comment