Jared Loughner isn't going to be put to death for his search history, he's going to be put to death (or more realistically, lifetime psych containment) for killing six people and wounding more than a dozen others, including a prominent public figure.<p>Library records have been used in this manner for decades, if not longer. The records are obtained via due process of law. What's the issue here?
Maybe the problem is expectation of privacy when we act in a public sphere (The Internet). Imagine a situation without a computer where a murder suspect with an insanity plea was seen weeks in advance browsing a gun store and asking really specific questions of the clerk. He was acting in public space and has no expectations of privacy.<p>Should we amuse that any unsecured, unencrypted activity is equivalent to doing it in public and if we want privacy than we should encrypt our communications? Maybe there should be an easy to use mode in browsers which encrypt your traffic. Any information stored on your computer would be treated as private in the same way as mail correspondence is.<p>Also, the judges should really be careful and demand that any search history evidence presented before them should really be relevant to the case. Just because I was curious at one point how much a handgun would cost, does not necessarily mean I am guilty of the murder that I am accused of. The evidence should be persistent and without doubt linked to the crime.
We are entering what I call the "Orwellian Era" of computing. Google, Apple, and your data carriers (wired & wireless) are battling it out right now to become the one all-powerful big brother.<p>Encryption will absolutely be outlawed in the future.