The long arm of the Google

By Felix Salmon
February 20, 2013

Is Google becoming a key arm of the law-enforcement complex? It certainly seems to be so with respect to art thefts. I first came across this idea back in November, when Bloomberg Markets profiled Jeff Gundlach, who was hit by art thieves in September:

The cerebral Gundlach also gave investigators a tip for solving the crime. He says that while he was at home in his family room, it dawned on him that thieves would do a Google search using his grandmother’s name to find out more about the paintings and how much they might be worth.

Gundlach told the authorities that they should check the Internet to see who might have googled the name Helen Fuchs. He says exactly two such searches were executed: one by him and one by the thieves.

Now, another man has been arrested for art theft, and was found in much the same way:

In their investigation into the art theft, [officials] found that Mr. Istavrioglou had searched the Internet for reports about the robbery after it took place but before the story became news.

Law enforcement officials, it seems, have pretty easy and routine access to Google’s search-history database, and this is surely only the beginning when it comes to sifting through huge amounts of data to find evidence of crimes. The SEC, for one, has had a large data-mining team in place for a good five years now, going through enormous quantities of data to look for signs of suspicious activity.

Even journalists are getting in on the act of using data to uncover criminal activity. The Sun Sentinel, in Florida, managed to obtain a year’s worth of SunPass toll records for cop cars. That meant that they had data on the amount of time it took cops to drive from one toll plaza to the next. All they needed to do then was measure those distances, divide the distances by the time taken to drive that length of road, and come up with an average speed, for cops who were often just commuting to or from their houses, out of their jurisdiction. The result? The Sun Sentinel found “almost 800 cops from a dozen agencies driving 90 to 130 mph on our highways” — in a state where speeding cops have caused at least 320 crashes and 19 deaths since 2004.

Part of the reason why it has taken so long to bring Libor prosecutions is that going through millions of email and IM records, looking for smoking guns, is still a laborious and time-consuming process. But as data mining techniques continue to evolve, and as databases become increasingly unified and tractable, and our lives are lived almost entirely online, it’s going to be harder and harder for criminals not to leave a discoverable data trail — especially opportunistic criminals, who break the law when they’re given a chance, as opposed to more considered criminals, who spend a lot of time plotting a crime before committing it.

It stands to reason, given advances in computer power and given the size of the networks that we all involve ourselves in every day, that the kind of data crunching that used to be solely the domain of places like the NSA and GCHQ is now going to be available to local police forces and even ordinary citizens, including journalists. The privacy implications are profound, of course: millions of innocent people are going to have their personal data combed on a real-time basis, every day. But that seems to be inevitable, insofar as it isn’t already a reality.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

This will work consistently for the police for a few more years, until people learn that they need to anonymize their searches.

Posted by KenG_CA | Report as abusive

Hold on. This comb is a series of algorithms and filters. It’s not a room of people parsing your personal records and finding out that you watched porn at work.

And referencing the Sun Sentinel review of cop-speeders, is irrelevant to Google. In this particular case, your argument is against Big Data, not specifically Google.

So about Big Data:

Mind you, Bing, Yahoo (powered by Bing in the US) are tracking you. Every retailer and credit card company is tracking you. Every bank is checking up on your credit score, and sending you applications to join them. Your ISP has a log of the IPs you’ve visited. Your phone / cellular carrier tracks the phone numbers you’ve dialed. The internet is full of resellers of data concerning any speeding violations or convictions, the owner of any particular address, and whether your property is in foreclosure. If you buy something from CafePress, I, as a seller via CP, have information on the buyer and their location.

Please tell me you people aren’t this ignorant.

Posted by GRRR | Report as abusive

@GRRR I agree, but although “This comb is a series of algorithms and filters. It’s not a room of people parsing your personal records and finding out that you watched porn at work” is accurate, I’m not so reassured that it won’t be misused. And “who watches porn at work”, although embarrasing, isn’t the worst example I can think of.

You are certainly right about Felix’s choice of headline. Google might be the most widely used search engine, but it’s in no way the only source of this kind of information.

Posted by dandraka | Report as abusive