[tehwebguy]

Google is super relevant to the case if they identified someone who downloaded a non-protected file in response to a police request. Not sure there is any slope left to slip on, this is basically the worst case scenario already I think.

Edit: Whoops, all of my assumptions were wrong!

[denton-scratch]

I beg to differ. I don't think Google is relevant.

As far as I can see, Google provided a search-result, which eventually (after Google's batted it around internally a few times) turns into an HTTP request to the CBS website, which resulted in password-free access to a public document.

So that will show up in the CBS webserver's access log; that's how they got the IP address. Nothing to do with Google.

Getting from the IP address to the person is messier; websearches, requests to ISPs, and presumably searches of activist databases the cops no doubt maintain might all have played a part.

My guess is the cops knew there was no case against him, because they tried the URL, and saw that there was no password challenge; but charged him anyway, because he was an activist, and they wanted to intimidate him.

[ChrisKnott]

He wasn't charged.

[denton-scratch]

You're right, he wasn't charged. He was "just" arrested.

[Maxburn]

I did not get that impression. The defendant said he used google to find these things, google did not snitch on him. He was in turn discovered by sharing them on social media.

[jsnell]

But we know from the article that's not how he was identified. Instead it was from the access logs of the company that he downloaded the file from.

> Hutchinson said his identification by Leathermarket and subsequent arrest raised questions in his mind, saying police confirmed to him that the company had handed over an access log containing IP addresses: