Your use of quote marks around “evil” is unnecessary.

How is “evil” defined?

Like any word it is defined by classic usage, and the usage of the most influential users, which in this case, are the writers of classic fairy tales. In which case:

Evil means harm

Evil means intent to willfully do harm for inadequate reason.

Evil means harm intentionally caused by person.

Evil is the act of doing harm

An evil person is a person who might likely do harm for no very compelling reason.

Any characteristics or behavior indicative of intent to do harm or propensity to do harm is evil.

In which case, these searches are evil, no quote marks required, because the searcher intends to do harm, and the searches are indicative of intent to do harm.

Your use of quote marks suggests that your usage of the word “evil” is unduly influenced by moral philosophers, but philosophers do not define correct usage of words. Actual non ironic usage by influential speakers and writers defines correct usage of words.

Spammers are evil, phishers are evil, people who break in to other people’s web sites to use them for their own purposes at the expense of the rightful owner are evil, no quote marks are necessary. Most of the time it is not that hard to say who is evil and why.

For example, would it be a good idea to follow the standard way of keeping airport screeners awake – inserting artificial ‘tests’ which happen more frequently than real crises? Maybe rather than prescribing what capabilities a bank needs to withstand a crisis, the regulator should actually introduce defaults into the system and see what happens.

I know at least some of you guys are interesting in economics. Could you get yourselves invited into this regulatory design activity?