Warrantless FBI Searches of Google User Information in America

In a bizarre interpretation to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, a Federal Judge in San Francisco ruled against Google's attempt to stop the FBI from using secretive warrantless search program. The judge ruled they must comply with the FBI's request for sensitive user information. The program advocated by the Department of Justice, use edicts, called "National Security Letters" (NSL), to force internet search providers, financial institutions and other telecom companies to hand over whatever the FBI deems fit for 'national security' investigations, including but not limited to:

• User IP addresses
• User search histories
• Youtube videos viewed
• Gmail content
• Travel bookings

Some may believe the FBI and other federal agencies need this 'tool' for genuine terrorist threats and not against undeserving Americans. However, recent history has already shown contrary. A 2007 report by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, found the FBI used its NSL based secretive warrantless searches committed various unlawful activity and serious misconduct. The report found that 53% of all search requests in 2006 were targeted for Americans. 

Given the FBI can levy these search commands on telecom and internet companies in secret, without notifying the user of his or her Constitutional rights, what makes this government violation of privacy and liberty any different than the third world dictatorships that we detest? History government over-reach, and recent events such as the recent IRS scandal and the AP reporter phone record tracking, shows the wisdom behind Founding Fathers desire to protect Americans' right to free speech, personal property and other activity from government infringement and intrusion. 

As Big Data's scope and importance for companies such as Google, Facebook, Twitter and others evolve at an increasingly greater rate, it will be imperative for US citizens to demand its Congress to act to clarify the constitutional protections of free speech and personal autonomy in the 21st century. If there is any silver lining in this recent ruling, hopefully this judge's decision will sound off an alarm across the country to constrain the government from further intrusive and unconstitutional activity.