Sign up for our daily briefing
Make your busy days simpler with Axios AM/PM. Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes.
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday
Denver news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver
Des Moines news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines
Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Twin Cities
Tampa Bay news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa Bay
Charlotte news in your inbox
Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Charlotte
AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File
A Minnesota judge has approved the use of a warrant to reveal who searched for an alleged financial fraud victim's name in Google. The court order gives police permission to review all searches for the victim's name over a given period of time made by the residents of the 50,000-person Minnesota town. The document was first uncovered by independent journalist Tony Webster.
The setup: Police suspect that the perpetrator in the case may have Googled the victim's name to get an image to use on a false passport used to transfer the funds in question to a new account, according to court documents. They argue that the search "is unique, and even more unique when used in the Google search engine."
Google rejected a previous subpoena for the information. "We always push back when we receive excessively broad requests for data about our users," said a Google spokesperson in a statement issued in response to the new warrant.
Why it matters: The case raises questions regarding online privacy for users over how much information police are entitled to get from Google, or any web company for that matter. Some argue that the scope of the warrant is too broad, potentially entering unconstitutional territory.