Pennsylvania’s highest court just handed Big Tech and law enforcement a massive win. Police can now dig through Americans’ private Google search history without a warrant.

The court has determined that individuals do not possess a “reasonable expectation” of privacy when it comes to their online activity. This decision comes amid widespread awareness that tech companies routinely track and sell user data for profit.

In their ruling, the justices emphasized the prevalence of corporate surveillance, describing it as “common knowledge” that digital platforms collect and monetize user information. This business model, they argued, now provides justification for government access to such data. Once privacy is compromised by corporate practices, the government steps in to utilize what’s left.

Reverse Keyword Dragnets Get the Green Light

The case originated from a stalled investigation into a rape and home invasion incident. With no clear suspect, law enforcement turned to Google, requesting data on anyone who had searched for the victim’s address in the days leading up to the crime. Google complied, and this data led authorities to John Edward Kurtz, who was subsequently convicted.

While no one defends Kurtz’s actions, the investigative approach marks a significant shift. Previously, law enforcement needed a specific suspect to pursue an investigation. Now, they can cast a wide net, capturing the private thoughts of countless individuals who may have unwittingly used the wrong search terms.

Fine Print Equals Forced Consent

The court viewed Google’s privacy policy as a form of informed consent. The justices pointed out that Google clearly informs its users that privacy should not be expected when using its services. This disclosure, though often buried in fine print, was deemed sufficient to nullify Fourth Amendment protections.

Users essentially “agree” to state surveillance by clicking accept. They never imagine their searches will fuel criminal dragnets. The ruling turns terms-of-service legalese into a constitutional loophole.

‘Don’t Like It? Stay Offline’

The court’s most tone-deaf line? People who want privacy can avoid the internet. Justices claimed online data trails are voluntary—unlike cell phone tracking. Using Google is a choice, not a necessity.

That ignores reality. Search engines replaced libraries, maps, and phone books. Telling citizens to ditch Google for privacy is like telling them to stop talking in public to avoid eavesdropping.

Private Searches Become Public Acts

The decision recasts online queries as public behavior. Users “voluntarily disclose” thoughts to Google. That logic opens the door wider. Police can expand reverse keyword searches. They will justify broad fishing expeditions with this precedent.

Civil liberties groups see a dangerous trend. Corporations normalize mass tracking. Courts then declare the Constitution waived. In Pennsylvania, the message rings clear. Use Google, and the state reads over your shoulder.

Read the copy of the ruling:

pa-supreme-court-kurtz-google-search-privacy