RSS
If You're Going To Kill Your Spouse, You Probably Shouldn't Google 'How To Commit Murder'
from the just-a-suggestion dept
Back in 2005, we noted that your Google searches can be used against you in a court of law, after a man who searched on Google for "neck snap break" just before his wife was murdered, saw that evidence presented at his trial. The latest is that a woman is accused of searching for a variety of incriminating phrases days before her husband was murdered. Among the searches were "How to Commit Murder," "instant poisons," "undetectable poisons," and "fatal digoxin doses." She also researched various gun laws in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A week and a half later, her husband was murdered using a gun bought in Pennsylvania (and soon after the woman had obtained a prescription for a well-known "date rape" drug). Whether or not the woman is actually guilty, it is a reminder that your Google searches can (and probably will) be used against you, if you happen to research your crimes that way.
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I’m looking for research...
The Growing App Market
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
The Future Of Commerce Will Combine Your Social Network And Mobile Device
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
... I mean, don't kill people!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well then, maybe she should sue Microsoft for not clearing her history when she closed her browser?
er.. um...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not "forever" just until you tell Google to clear them and not to ever save them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I like when things work out like that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Between the USGOV and the BIG CORPS, we have absolutely no privacy at all.
Just remember, every thing you do or say on the Interweb, can be traced back to you. Consider email like a postcard. Dont write anything that you would not want the entire world to hear or see what you wrote.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: sammys comment
how do they know it is you who is searching. Especially if you have dynamic ip address?"
Google says they've revamped their privacy practices, announcing they'll make search data largely anonymous after 18-24 months "unless we’re legally required to retain log data for longer" (which is very possible). "By anonymizing our server logs after 18-24 months, we think we’re striking the right balance between two goals: continuing to improve Google’s services for you, while providing more transparency and certainty about our retention practices," says the company. Either way, if you're planning a murder, you should probably avoid Google entirely.
Also, read Officer Friendly's post. Good advice for all.....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the crime, do the time.
Uh.. divorce is messy, but at least you don't have a cell-mate who'll think of you as his new girlfriend. Murder is SOO stupid. Use some imagination!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
this article
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this article
Your search also stays in your browser, unless you've cleared your history, again, something average users won't or don't know how to do.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: this article
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: this article
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: this article
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this article
"At exactly 5:45:34 on April 18, 2004 a computer taken from the office of the attorney of Melanie McGuire, did a search on the words "How To Commit Murder."
and
"Jennifer Seymour, who worked for the State Police digital technology unit, testified thismorning how she examined the digital contents of computers and hand held devices obtained as part of the investigation"
and
"She testified that she isolated data that was accessed in the weeks leading up to the murder, by inserting the keyword "search," which showed activity by Google and MSN search engines, with the searches center-ing on poisons and gun laws."
and a few more references to the computers which were confiscated and had the search histories pulled from them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
id be more worried about..
then them starting trouble with you
like i look up a ton of weird shit all the time cause i like to investigate .. news
like the other day i was looking up '3000 children missing from florida CPS' cause apparently florida CPS literally lost 3000 kids, and half of them turned up in other countries, some turned up dead, with no heads, or being used as sex slaves in saudi arabia... nice work CPS..
i was also following info about pedophiles in the CPS... i mean these searches could flag me and get me investigated without any real probable cause..
just for trying to be informed you end up with people spying on you..
any information that can be collected can and will be abused as well...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment really has nothing to do with the original post - is sounds more like a vendetta against CPS than a comment pertaining to the main subject. By the way, I did a Google search using that exact phrase and got no hits.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just search 3000 children missing from florida CPS, or 3000 children from CPS, and you will have hits . But search without "" .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Serves Her Right...
Just watch CourtTV for a few days, no one can trace that back to you and it's a wealth of forensic evidence.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serves Her Right...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Serves Her Right...
If she really wanted to learn how to do it, she needed to be commited (no pun intended).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Google keeps up with your searches.
Found out I had searches saved from 2005.
Made for a good laugh but I quickly turned that off.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
FireFox2
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't get something
Did they search her personal computer? Or Google gave the court the search results?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I didn't get something
Did they search her personal computer? Or Google gave the court the search results?
I don't get something, do people even read the links before posting dumb questions? Way to go Ale.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I didn't get something
;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm about to write?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yesterday I did a search for "hot wookie sex" just to see what I would get. By your logic that makes me a heinous wookiephile.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Should the government be looking at people that might need to be looked at? I sure think so. Think maybe someone should talk to your next door neighbor if he is searching and downloading information on how to build bombs? Do you think maybe someone should?
As for writing a book, unless its a really bad book, there is nothing illegal about your activities. Whats your problem?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, Einstein. I'm writing a novel and have had reasons to look up many strange search terms over the past year.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Conspiring with who?.. Google?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
xD nub
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Search smarter
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
lol :p
gotta love google
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
dynamic IP
In addition most ISPs who use DHCP use PPoE (Point-to Point of Ethernet) which can require you to "log in" before you are assigned the IP address. if you don't think your ISP keeps track of this your kidding yourself. It is used to troubleshoot network issues should you call in for customer support.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
What about privacy?
Check this out:
http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~thedude/bbs/index.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
cache...all designed to "make your searches better" my a$$!
Google's privacy policy is the worse in the industry and it all stems from popularity. Now where do I google "how to kill Google"?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
An item
How to get away with murder
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing is tracked by IP anymore
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing is tracked by IP anymore
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
At least there aren't that many of them
Then I checked on Google and discovered it returned pages from my site at #1, #3, and #4. (IIRC, #2 was an essay on how there are no undetectable poisons.)
They were eventually knocked off the first page of results by all the news coverage of the UK ricin scare.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
how to clear yourself
"It wasn't me, I swear" and
"it was someone else. I didn't do it."
and
"it was my neighbour. or someone else on my street."
and
"Check their search histories."
and
"You'll find something, I'm sure."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The Right Way to Commit Murder
Everyone's guilty lets not bother to explore other scenarios that may prove a person's innocence.
Now future searchers for this phrase will likely have this site included in their search....amazing how this search technology works....
We are living amongst the idiotic america...god help us
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Search
How to Kill (and here you enter the name of the person you want to kill)!!!
That should be effective
and then search
How to Save Children from Molestors
and
How to Avoid being known as a Hero
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
extensions
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Murder is easy--so is the STUMBLE defense
Murder is so incredibly easy that any intelligent person could commit a completely untraceable act of first degree premeditated murder and remain completely above proof! There are natural agents that will mimic a heat attack so well that physicians are fooled, and there are at least ten other drugs that will kill without providing need of medical suspicion or leave easily detectable trace evidence.
Murder Anyone.... Ummm?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"Jennifer Seymour, who worked for the State Police digital technology unit, testified thismorning how she examined the digital contents of computers and hand held devices obtained as part of the investigation."
The first article thats linked about Google searches being used against people explicitly says that its just data retrieved from a hard drive.
The headlines of these articles are misleading, but they are eye catching because as soon as you see it you think what the people in these comments asked "Does google or our ISPs archive and hand over our searches to the police." Since the content of both articles say nothing about that I dont think the question can be answered using them.
A better question might be, "Why do headline writers think that its ok to mislead people with these sorts of tricks?" Surely they know that once a person realizes that the headline is crap that the person is less likely to believe future headlines and click on them.
For those who are a little slow, the fact that the evidence is a google search is not important. What is important is that the evidence came from the suspect's computer not google. If instead of a google search the evidence was a MS Word document detailing the suspects plans the headline could have been "MS WORD USED TO COMMIT MURDER.!@!!!! OMG MURDERERS DONT TRUST MICROSOFT WITH YOUR PLANS."""!!!""!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
"Jennifer Seymour, who worked for the State Police digital technology unit, testified thismorning how she examined the digital contents of computers and hand held devices obtained as part of the investigation."
The first article thats linked about Google searches being used against people explicitly says that its just data retrieved from a hard drive.
The headlines of these articles are misleading, but they are eye catching because as soon as you see it you think what the people in these comments asked "Does google or our ISPs archive and hand over our searches to the police." Since the content of both articles say nothing about that I dont think the question can be answered using them.
A better question might be, "Why do headline writers think that its ok to mislead people with these sorts of tricks?" Surely they know that once a person realizes that the headline is crap that the person is less likely to believe future headlines and click on them.
For those who are a little slow, the fact that the evidence is a google search is not important. What is important is that the evidence came from the suspect's computer not google. If instead of a google search the evidence was a MS Word document detailing the suspects plans the headline could have been "MS WORD USED TO COMMIT MURDER.!@!!!! OMG MURDERERS DONT TRUST MICROSOFT WITH YOUR PLANS."""!!!""!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LOL
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a son
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
kill now
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: kill now
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
kill your wife
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
kill her
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
killing your ex
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Search " murder your wife"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment