> “I determined that the incident did not meet the elements of a crime and that no crime occurred,” Mr. Hillard wrote in his report. The police had access to all the information Google had on Mark and decided it did not constitute child abuse or exploitation.
> It contained a letter informing him that he had been investigated as well as copies of the search warrants served on Google and his internet service provider. An investigator, whose contact information was provided, had asked for everything in Mark’s Google account: his internet searches, his location history, his messages and any document, photo and video he’d stored with the company.
> *The search, related to “child exploitation videos,” had taken place in February, within a week of his taking the photos of his son.*
So maybe no crime occurred, but google doesn't want that kind of user. I assume you can just type "child exploitation videos" into Google without breaking the law, but google may terminate your account.
You man the search into his account by the San Fransisco PD? Who later cleared him of any wrongdoing? Note that Google, after hearing from the police, stood by their choice as well.
I strongly suspect we're talking past each other. The man under investigation didn't make "a search" that Google deemed unsavoury. The police department conducted a search of his account, looking for any additional examples of child pornography or abuse. You're confusing who actually performed the search (SFPD, not Mark), as well as what the search was for (searching through Mark's Google account photos, documents, and more, not Mark making a Google search).
> “I determined that the incident did not meet the elements of a crime and that no crime occurred,” Mr. Hillard wrote in his report. The police had access to all the information Google had on Mark and decided it did not constitute child abuse or exploitation.