So say they get 1 name, and that name happens to be you. I'm sure you had a perfectly good reason to google that name, no matter how obscure it was, and it happens to be a day and a bit before the money was taken (which, btw according to TFA it wasn't).
No matter how you spin it, you will look suspicious. Maybe you'll even admit to doing it when you didn't, maybe you'll be offered a plea if you confess.
Case closed, crime solved, right?
Or rather not, because it is you and you'd never do such a thing?
A similar thing happened here in NL. A number of burglaries in a region that was only accessible via a single bridge, and that bridge had a camera on it.
Correlate the license plates crossing the bridge with the nights of the burglaries and only one car was left.
So that had to be the person that did it. Which, in fact it was! Still, the judge threw out the evidence because it was gathered without specific intent to confirm, not discover that such a person existed, and in theory anybody that crossed that bridge suddenly became a suspect in the case until they could be ruled out.
So +1 for clever thinking, -100 for botching a case where there might have been a legitimate way of obtaining this information.
Total surveillance means very little crime, but as a society we should push back against that because it also means that we are enabling an element of government that already has a lot of power over our lives.
It's worth the occasional $28K loss (presumably to insurance companies) in order to safeguard the rights of the rest of us.
Oh, and that's besides the potential for a Joe Job, where you would go to someone else's computer that you access in a coffee shop or some other place where you can get momentary access to someone's computer (co worker, whatever) and then google the name of the person you intend to hit causing them loss of their job and potentially much more.
This is just wrong, on many levels.