Your Google Search history provides one of the most detailed windows into your private life, and I know this because when I looked at my own search history last year, I was overwhelmed by the information buried within.

Across just 18 months, Google tracked the 8,079 searches I made and the 3,050 websites I visited because of those searches. That included my late-night perusal of WebMD because of medical symptoms I’d looked up just seconds before, my tour of Goodwill donation sites as I searched for where to drop off clothes ahead of an upcoming move, and my ironically tracked visit to a Reddit thread titled “How do I delete most, if not all, of my info off of the Internet?” (One answer I learned: Don’t use Google Search.)

Google tracked my every question, concern, and flight of fancy—almost literally. On just one day in August 2025, Google recorded the seven flight searches I made on Google Flights and the six hotel searches I made on Google Travel.

Google also recorded the many questions and requests I made when researching topics for the Lock and Code podcast, which I host. And while all of that Google data made for an interesting investigation into what Google knows about me (which you can listen to below), it also made it clear that more people should know how to access this same information.

For most Google users, if Web & App Activity is turned on, Google is saving what they look up, what time they looked it up, and what websites they clicked on as a result. There are ways to turn that data tracking off, but the first step is to know where to look.

Here’s how to do that.

How to find your Google Search history

You can start by opening your web browser and signing into Google’s centralized hub for your data online at myactivity.google.com.

Once logged in, you’ll see the above welcome screen with quick settings that you can change, if you want to. Those settings are different for some users, but may include:

• Web & App Activity
• Timeline
• Play History
• YouTube History

Further down on the page, you can browse through your Google Search history. (Our screenshot gallery below can help walk you through the steps.)

• First, look for the search bar in the welcome screen that says Search your activity.
• Right below, you will find the words Filter by date & product. These words are clickable. Click them.
• Once you’ve clicked Filter by date & product, you’ll see a pop-up menu where you can look through your Google activity by date or product. Instead of focusing on the date, scroll down through the list of Google products and check the box for Google Search.
• Press Apply.

After you press Apply, you’ll be taken to a webpage that lists your Google Search history in reverse chronological order, showing you your most recent activity first. As you scroll down, you can find older activity. You can also use the search bar at the top of the page to look for individual pieces of activity, like a search or series of searches that you previously made.

From here, you can also delete individual Google Search entries so that Google no longer stores that data. This will only apply to the individual search you made.

If you want to better protect your privacy, making targeted deletions from your Google Search history is a difficult, lengthy, and imperfect method. Instead, you can simply tell Google to stop recording any of your searches from now on.

How to turn off Google Search history

There’s a simple way to instruct Google to stop saving your online searches to your Google Account, and it takes just a few clicks. Follow the instructions below, along with the image gallery, for guidance.

• Go to your My Google Activity homepage (this is the same page you saw when first signing into myactivity.google.com)
• Click on that quick control button we saw earlier: Web & App Activity
• From here, you will see a new screen with the title Activity Controls
• Find the button that says Turn off and click it
• Choose between Turn off and Turn off and delete activity

If you selected Turn off, you’re done. Google will no longer save your Google Searches as part of your overall Google profile activity. This option means that Google still has your prior searches recorded, though. So, if you want, you can choose the second option, Turn off and delete activity.

When you select that option, Google will walk you through additional steps to choose what types of data you want erased, such as past activity tied to Google Search, Maps, Ads, Image Search, Google Play Store, Help and other services. All of these options reveal just how many products and pipelines Google has built to vacuum up your data.

Don’t be overwhelmed, though. Go through the list at your own pace and start making decisions about your data that are right for you.

We don’t just report on data privacy—we help you remove your personal information

Cybersecurity risks should never spread beyond a headline. With Malwarebytes Personal Data Remover, you can scan to find out which sites are exposing your personal information, and then delete that sensitive data from the internet.

This week on the Lock and Code podcast…

On February 8, during the Super Bowl in the United States, countless owners of one of the most popular smart products today got a bit of a wakeup call: Their Ring doorbells could be used to see a whole lot more than they knew.

In a commercial that was broadcast to one of most reliably enormous audiences in the country, Amazon, which owns the company Ring, promoted a new feature for its smart doorbells called “Search Party.” By scouring the footage of individual Ring cameras across a specific region, “Search Party” can implement AI-powered image recognition technology to find, as the commercial portrayed it, a lost dog. But immediately after the commercial aired, people began wondering what else their Ring cameras could be used to find.

As US Senator Ed Markey wrote on social media:

“Ring’s Super Bowl ad exposed a scary truth: the technology in its doorbell cameras could be used to hunt down a lost pet…or a person. Amazon must discontinue its dystopian monitoring features.”

These “dystopian monitoring features” aren’t entirely new, but that’s not to say that most Ring owners knew what they were allowing when they originally bought their devices.

Bought by Amazon in 2018, Ring is the most popular manufacturer of a product that, as of 15 years ago, didn’t really exist. And while other “smart” innovations failed, smart doorbells have become a fixture of American neighborhoods, providing a mixture of convenience and security. For instance, a Ring owner away from home can verify and buzz in their mailman dropping off a package behind a gated entrance. Or, a Ring owner can see on their phone that the person knocking at their door is a salesman and choose to avoid talking to them. Or, a Ring owner can help police who are investigating a crime in their area by handing over relevant footage. Even the presence of a Ring doorbell, and its variety of motion-detecting alerts, could possibly serve as a deterrent to crime.

What has seemingly upset so many of those same owners, then, is learning exactly how their personal devices might be used for a company’s gains.

Today, on the Lock and Code podcast with host David Ruiz, we speak with Matthew Guariglia, senior policy analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation, about Ring’s long history of partnering with—and sometimes even speaking directly for—police, who can access Ring doorbell footage both inside the company and outside it, and what people really open themselves up to when purchasing a Ring device.

 ”There’s this impression, a myth practically, that ‘I buy a ring doorbell to put on my house, I control the footage… But there is [an] entire secondary use of this device, which is by police that you don’t really get a lot of say in.”

Tune in today to listen to the full conversation.

Show notes and credits:

Intro Music: “Spellbound” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Outro Music: “Good God” by Wowa (unminus.com)

Listen up—Malwarebytes doesn’t just talk cybersecurity, we provide it.

Protect yourself from online attacks that threaten your identity, your files, your system, and your financial well-being with our exclusive offer for Malwarebytes Premium Security for Lock and Code listeners.

Google has weighed in on a court case that will decide the future of a powerful but contentious tool for law enforcement. The company submitted an opinion to the US Supreme Court arguing that geofence warrants are unconstitutional.

A geofence warrant is a form of “reverse warrant” that turns a regular warrant on its head. Police get a regular warrant when they want to target a particular person. With a reverse warrant, police don’t know exactly who they’re looking for. Instead, they ask someone (typically a technology company) for a broad data set about a group of unknown people based on some common behavior. Then they analyze that data set for potential suspects.

With a geofence warrant, that data set is defined by a location and a time window. Law enforcement officials obtain a list of phones that were in that area during that period. Every device that was inside the circle comes back in the results, even if nobody on that list has been suspected of anything. Proximity is the only criterion.

That’s how Okello Chatrie was charged with armed bank robbery in Virginia in 2019: His phone showed up in a geofence warrant covering 17.5 acres (larger than three football fields). He argued that this kind of search isn’t constitutional and shouldn’t have been used as evidence.

In 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with him, overturning a Fourth Circuit ruling. Now prosecutors have taken the case to the Supreme Court, with parties due to make oral arguments on April 27.

The case has seen a flurry of amicus curiae briefs, which are opinions from interested expert parties that have no direct involvement in the case. One of these is from Google, which on Monday urged the justices to consider the geofence warrants unconstitutional because of their broad scope. It has objected to more than 3,000 of them on constitutional grounds in recent months.

Google’s brief stated:

“Many of these overbroad warrants swept in hundreds, sometimes even thousands, of innocent people. State and federal courts have repeatedly granted Google’s motions to quash these overbroad warrants.”

How the database gets built

Although Google is just one of many organizations that filed amicus briefs, its position is especially notable because it has historically collected so much location data. Its Timeline feature (formerly Location History) logs device position via GPS, Wi-Fi networks, Bluetooth, and mobile signals, including when Google apps aren’t being used, according to its policy page.

At the time of the Chatrie warrant, it was recording position as frequently as every two minutes. All of that fed a centralised internal database which held 592 million individual accounts. So responding to any geofence request required Google to search essentially the entire store before producing a single name, according to an analysis by privacy advocacy group EPIC, which also regularly submits amicus briefs on privacy cases.

Google moved Timeline storage from its own servers onto users’ devices in July 2025, closing the door to fresh cloud-based requests against its own systems. But the constitutional question survives for historical data and for any company that has not followed suit.

The warrant that grew and grew

A geofence warrant does not stay fenced, according to a separate brief that the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) filed in the case last week. It said Google’s standard response to warrants had three steps. First it would deliver an anonymized list of devices inside the geofence. Then, police could ask for movement data on chosen “devices of interest,” which could track them outside the geographic boundary and beyond the original time window. Finally, again without any further judicial approval, police could ask for subscriber-identifying information for whichever devices police chose to unmask.

In the Chatrie case, positioning data was imprecise enough that, as the district court found, the warrant may have included devices outside the intended area. According to the CDT brief:

“The Geofence Warrant could have captured the location of someone who was hundreds of feet outside the geofence.”

The CDT argues in its brief that this can expose the privacy of people going about their everyday lives, engaging in legal activities that they might not want others to know about. The warrant that scooped up Chatrie included a hotel and a restaurant.

Some of these requests are far broader. Google successfully challenged a warrant asking for the location history of anyone in large portions of San Francisco for two and a half days, it said. Google complained in its brief:

“No court would authorize a physical search of hundreds of people or places, yet geofence warrants sometimes do so by design.”

What can you do to stop yourself getting swept up in a geofencing search?

If your phone stores detailed location history with Google, that data may be included in geofence warrant responses. Limiting what gets saved can reduce how much location information exists in the first place.

There are two Google settings that matter: Timeline (Location History) and Web & App Activity. Turning off one does not automatically disable the other.

Timeline stores a detailed record of where your device has been, although it’s off by default. Web & App Activity can also log location signals when you use Google services like Search, Maps, or other apps.

Google provides instructions on how to review and disable these settings in its support documentation:

• How to turn Location History / Timeline on or off
• How to manage Web & App Activity

Google has previously settled lawsuits accusing it of misleading users about how location data is stored across these settings, so reviewing both controls is important.

Reverse warrants may not stop at location data

The implications of the case extend well past maps, though. The CDT brief warns that if courts endorse the logic behind geofence warrants, then law enforcement may try to apply the same approach to other large datasets held by technology companies, such as AI chatbot data. That’s a step the DHS has already taken, issuing what has been reported as the first known warrant for ChatGPT user data.

We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.

Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.

The idea of a “Great British Firewall” makes for a catchy headline, but it would be riddled with holes and cause huge problems.

The Guardian reports that the GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters), a UK intelligence, security, and cyber agency, is exploring the idea of a British firewall offering protection against malicious hackers. It falls within its remit, but one of the measures reportedly discussed—banning VPN software—raises practical and technical questions.

Here’s what you actually need to know, and why you shouldn’t panic about your VPN just yet.

• There are no current plans on the statute books to ban VPNs for everyone. Ministers and regulators explicitly acknowledge VPNs as lawful services with legitimate uses.
• The current political focus is on “online safety”, especially kids accessing porn and harmful content, and how VPNs can undermine the Online Safety Act’s age‑assurance and filtering regime.
• The latest move is an online‑safety consultation that explicitly mentions “options to age-restrict or limit children’s VPN use where it undermines safety protections”, not an outright nationwide ban.

So what may happen is tighter controls around minors, and perhaps pressure on app stores and platforms, rather than a blanket prohibition for adults.

Options

Technically speaking, these are some of the measures available to address VPNs bypassing geo-blocking and local legislation.

• App‑store and download pressure: Require Apple/Google to hide or age‑gate VPN apps for UK accounts, or block listing of some consumer VPNs. This raises friction for non‑technical users but is trivial to route around (sideloading where possible, non‑UK stores, manual configs).
• Commercial provider lists: Buy accounts at popular VPNs, enumerate exit IP ranges, and require ISPs or certain sites (e.g. porn sites) to block those IPs. This can catch a large chunk of mainstream VPN traffic but is high‑maintenance and easy to evade with IP rotation, residential proxies, self‑hosted VPNs, and lesser‑known services.
• Targeted site‑level blocking of VPNs: Require certain categories of sites (e.g. adult sites) to reject traffic that appears to come from VPN IPs, an idea already floated by some experts as more likely than an outright technology ban. That still leaves VPNs usable for everything else, including general browsing and work.
• Age‑based device/network controls: Mandate school networks, child‑oriented devices, or parental control routers to block known VPN endpoints and app traffic, as media regulator Ofcom and others have suggested may be possible at the home‑router level. Again, this targets minors rather than adults and is only as strong as the weakest network they connect to (a friend’s Wi‑Fi, mobile hotspot, etc.).

All of these are “making it harder” tactics rather than a hard technical kill switch.

Why a watertight VPN ban is essentially impossible

To comprehensively block VPNs, the government would need to require internet providers to inspect traffic, restrict apps from app stores, and attempt to cut off access to thousands of VPN servers worldwide. That would be a massive, expensive, and deeply complicated undertaking—and it still wouldn’t work.

Problem 1: VPNs are basically invisible

Modern VPNs are designed to look very similar to normal web browsing. When you load a website over HTTPS (the padlock in your browser) and when you connect to a VPN, the traffic flowing through your internet connection looks almost identical. Reliably telling them apart is a bit like trying to spot which cars on a motorway are taxis versus private vehicles based solely on their tire tread patterns at motorway speed, for every car, in real time. You’d end up accidentally blocking huge amounts of perfectly ordinary internet traffic in the attempt.

Problem 2: Too many legitimate users depend on VPNs

VPNs aren’t just for privacy-conscious consumers. They’re how millions of people securely connect to their workplace from home. The NHS (the UK’s National Health Service) uses them for remote access. Journalists use them to protect sources. Researchers use them to access academic resources. Any serious enforcement effort would have to grapple with the risk of collateral damage to businesses and public services.

Problem 3: The ban would be trivially easy to bypass

Even if the government successfully blocked every major commercial VPN app and service, technically skilled users could simply rent a cheap server anywhere in the world and set up their own private tunnel in under ten minutes. There are also tools designed to evade exactly this kind of blocking, disguising encrypted traffic as ordinary web activity.

We know this because Russia has been trying to block VPNs for years, using the full weight of state enforcement behind it. But VPN usage in Russia has surged, not declined. Blocked services pop up under new names and addresses and new tools emerge overnight. This track record suggests that long-term, comprehensive suppression is difficult, even with aggressive powers of enforcement.

What does this actually mean for UK citizens?

The government can probably make consumer VPN use slightly more inconvenient, removing apps from UK app stores, for instance, or creating legal grey areas for certain uses. But a genuine, technical ban on VPN software and encrypted connections is not realistically achievable without causing serious collateral damage to the UK’s digital economy and the millions of people who depend on this technology for entirely legitimate reasons.

Don’t ditch your VPN. The Great Firewall of Great Britain isn’t coming. And if it tried, it would have more holes than a fishing net.

Hat tip to Stefan Dasic and the Malwarebytes VPN team for their invaluable input.

We don’t just report on privacy—we offer you the option to use it.

Privacy risks should never spread beyond a headline. Keep your online privacy yours by using Malwarebytes Privacy VPN.