by computerliker on 8/12/24, 7:57 PM with 177 comments
by Terr_ on 8/12/24, 8:45 PM
For example, a small cottage in the woods is burned down with gasoline on a night the owner is absent. The police want to find the arsonist by asking for phones that connected to that tower that night, and there happen to be only 3 results, two of which are known neighbors. Still too broad?
In other words, should some of this hinge on the varying size/specificity of the result-set, rather than the query-parameters in isolation?
by from-nibly on 8/12/24, 9:09 PM
This single ruling, does nothing to make me feel any better about this. Everyone can be swept up in "some digital dragnet" because everyone's data is everywhere, and it's impossible to manage without hauling off to the woods and disconnecting from the internet at large.
by fsckboy on 8/12/24, 8:56 PM
A geofence warrant is a type of search warrant that allows law enforcement to collect location data from devices within a specific geographic area (the "geofence") during a particular time period. This warrant enables investigators to:
1. Identify devices present in the area
2. Collect location data, such as GPS coordinates or cell tower information
3. Link devices to specific locations and times
by datahack on 8/12/24, 11:21 PM
However, until we get clarification from FISA courts we will still have to deal with it. The problem is the line where FISA has been used to acquire information for criminal prosecution rather than for intelligence purposes, and the broader and broader definition of terrorist and the dramatic expansion of domestic watchlists in recent times.
Let’s hope that it gets unilaterally outlawed and then FISA is forced to follow the supreme law of the land in future rulings.
by toomuchtodo on 8/12/24, 8:09 PM
No reasonable expectation of privacy in one's Google location data - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40958458 - July 2024 (163 comments)
by hed on 8/12/24, 8:15 PM
That the guy's case gets a right affirmed yet in his individual case it won't make a difference has to be a pretty bitter pill to swallow.
by grahamjameson on 8/12/24, 11:35 PM
by fortran77 on 8/12/24, 8:13 PM
That's how many burglaries are solved in my area. If the exact time of the burglary is known (from alarm or security camera) a very specific warrant is given for all phone activity at or near that time at that location.
I'm hoping if the warrent is more specific (perhaps finding similar burglaries and requesting information only for matches between the two locations) they can still be used.
by ckemere on 8/12/24, 10:56 PM
by xyst on 8/12/24, 9:03 PM
by andrewla on 8/12/24, 9:21 PM
by jmyeet on 8/12/24, 10:48 PM
First, the Fifth Circuit is conservative. It includes Texas, Louisianna and Alabama. It's become known as the fast-track to the Supreme Court as it has ruled very conservatively at both the district and appellate level. This problem is exacerbated by how the Fifth Circuit is organized where the districts in the circuit are divided into divisions of often 1-2 judges, allowing plaintiffs to very effectively "judge shop".
Second, in modern times the Fourth Amendment has been consistently weakened by successive Supreme Court. A notable example if the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio that allowed police to stop people and search them without probably cause. Another huge example if the whole concept of civil asset forfeiture, which was justified by (IMHO) the most contorted mental gymnastics: this pile of money has no rights. But it was found in someone's car. How is it not their property and thus the Fourth Amendment limitation on unlawful search and seizure should apply?
Third, the Supreme Court will likely take this case up now. Why? Because the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have issued conflicting rulings. That's when the Supreme Court steps in, more often than not.
Fourth, if a user's location data has a rasonable expectation of privacy, it raises the question of what other data has a reasonable expectation of privacy? What about law enforcemen tuse of Stingrays? Or facial recognition systems?
by gpm on 8/12/24, 11:20 PM
I haven't read the ruling, but this has always struck me as the key problem with geofence warrants that courts have been ignoring. A geofence warrant doesn't just involve a search of the location data that is in the area, it involves a search of all the location data collected worldwide to determine that it wasn't in the area. It couldn't be less localized.
by ggm on 8/12/24, 11:53 PM
I Am Not A Lawyer
The construction of "but what does it mean" invites the response: "it depends". I wouldn't depend on a theory or statement from anyone not involved in the law here. I have no idea how this will or will not limit the use of geofence technology, warrented or otherwise.by hnburnsy on 8/13/24, 1:51 AM
I would imagine someday, police will say geofence every radio detected by a their (or third parties) sensors network and then drive around looking for those radios, or wait until they pass one of their detectors again.
by dsq on 8/14/24, 11:07 AM
by kylehotchkiss on 8/13/24, 7:46 PM
by whartung on 8/12/24, 10:30 PM
This is in contrast to having a named suspect, and then analyzing their phone data to see if they were in the area? That's still legit discovery?
by yieldcrv on 8/12/24, 11:50 PM
But I can appreciate the distributed nature of this system
by creer on 8/12/24, 11:32 PM
by user3939382 on 8/13/24, 7:38 AM
by w10-1 on 8/12/24, 9:14 PM
In that case, it's illegal to look in the phone book for names starting with "john" because that's not a specific user.
From the ruling emphasizes a search through the "entire" database as a kind of rummaging through everything in a house, but that's clearly inapt. First, it shouldn't matter whether Google just needs to check an index vs. doing a full scan. Second, there's no reason to assume a digital search has the same privacy implications as a house search. It's just assuming what you're trying to prove. `While the results of a geofence warrant may be narrowly tailored, the search itself is not` is relevant only if the search itself is an invasion of privacy.
So even (especially?) if I preferred the result in this case, that reasoning is not likely to hold up in a conflict with the 4th circuit. It's exactly this kind of weak conflict that gives the Supreme Court too much latitude to draw lines as they see fit.
edit: sorry, removed disrespect for the EFF