I wasn't responding to the headline, but to the article. The headline is inaccurate, but that is not something that should surprise any of us.
The 'much more specific' is that they theorize that such a search query must exist. If they had a suspect they would have raided that persons computer, if the computer was encrypted or erased they they could have used google's search data + the IP address they already had to confirm (not discover) that such a search had indeed been made which would serve as corroborating evidence absent the search history on the computer.
Essentially the police is looking for something that they hope exists and will implicate someone who is currently not on their radar and who could very well be innocent.
This case is one of the ones I have studied in a bit more detail:
The 'much more specific' is that they theorize that such a search query must exist. If they had a suspect they would have raided that persons computer, if the computer was encrypted or erased they they could have used google's search data + the IP address they already had to confirm (not discover) that such a search had indeed been made which would serve as corroborating evidence absent the search history on the computer.
Essentially the police is looking for something that they hope exists and will implicate someone who is currently not on their radar and who could very well be innocent.
This case is one of the ones I have studied in a bit more detail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield
It shows clearly how much damage LE can do with the best of intentions if you give them too much power.
Now imagine the target would not have been a lawyer.