Internet footprint led to conviction of killer

In 2002, the FBI tracked and convicted a man for murder, using information kept by his internet company regarding his web use.

After a reporter received a tip of a slain prostitute and a map of West Alton, marked with an ‘X’, he called the authorities. From the map, the authorities found a dead body and the investigation began. Authorities believed the map came from the internet, specifically expedia.com. To discover who printed it, the FBI requested all records of maps of West Alton acquired within the time period that the killing was suspected to have occurred. Microsoft eventually responded to the request, telling the FBI that only one computer had accessed a map of that area during the time period specified (Shinkle, 2002).

From this information, the FBI knew the IP address of the suspect was 65.227.106.78, but they did not know his name. To acquire his name, the FBI turned to WorldCom Inc. WorldCom Inc. is a company that provides local telephone numbers to connect their dial up customers to the internet. To make this connection, they assign a temporary IP address to each customer to use for each internet session. After a bit of research, the FBI discovered that the man they were looking for was MSN user maurytravis. Microsoft then told the authorities the user’s full name, Maury Travis, and his address (Shinkle, 2002).

Combining his use of the internet with DNA and tire evidence, Maury Travis was convicted of murder.

The FBI has not revealed how they obtained the information from Microsoft so it is presently unknown if they utilized the powers granted in the Patriot Act or not. Regardless, this case brings up relevant issues of the privacy as it relates to the internet. After all, most users are unaware that they leave a trial of information with their providers wherever they go (Shinkle, 2002). Because many web users think they are anonymous, some believe in strengthening the protections already granted to them in the federal law.

As it stands, the Patriot Act gives prosecutors the authority to obtain a temporary assigned IP address and other relevant information from internet companies through the use of a subpoena, which doesn’t require the oversight of a judge. The lack of checks and balances here lead some civil rights activists to argue that this not sufficient protection of the public and is an unfair use of power.