I don't have any proof that they know or even that they suspect they happened. Do you have proof that the police didn't make these same requests to other search engines? If this information exists it may help the police find the scammer and they don't seem to be overreaching to me.
> Do you have proof that the police didn't make these same requests to other search engines?
That would make it worse not better.
> If this information exists it may help the police find the scammer and they don't seem to be overreaching to me.
Yes, that's clear. But I'd rather they found the scammer first and then petitioned google or whoever they feel might have relevant information with a targeted request. Instead they now will use this information to generate a suspect which is the wrong way around.
Ok, that's a great point. You're concerned with the effectiveness of the evidence in a later trial. You cited a good example of how this could backfire on the police.
Having said that I am concerned with the alarmist tone this article takes and the clickbait nature of the headline. The police are not doing what the article makes it sound like they are doing. This kind of thing undermines the fair criticism of police evidence collection and a productive conversation about privacy.
It's a personal value judgment whether you think the camel's nose is a problem. The facts remain, however, since once the police get this list, they're going to ask for more search queries from the people on the list, because it's easier to create a defendant that way.
