Are Geofence Warrants Headed for Extinction?
Geofence warrants face scrutiny for potential Fourth Amendment violations. Google will stop storing location data, impacting their use. Public pressure and privacy concerns may limit their future effectiveness.
Read original article
Geofence warrants, which allow law enforcement to request location data from Google based on a specific geographic area and time, are facing significant scrutiny and potential decline. Initially embraced for their precision in identifying individuals present at crime scenes, these warrants have been criticized for being overly broad and violating the Fourth Amendment's requirement for particularity. Recent legal cases, such as United States v. Chatrie and United States v. Rhine, have highlighted these concerns, with judges questioning the warrants' constitutionality while still upholding them due to existing legal precedents. In response to growing public concern over privacy, especially following the Dobbs decision that raised fears about the use of geofence warrants in abortion-related prosecutions, Google announced it would cease storing location data in its Sensorvault. Instead, users will manage their own location data, which will be encrypted if backed up to the cloud. This shift indicates a significant change in how location data is handled, potentially leading to the extinction of geofence warrants as law enforcement can no longer access this data en masse. However, concerns remain about other sources of location data that may still be accessible to law enforcement.
- Geofence warrants are under legal scrutiny for potential Fourth Amendment violations.
- Google plans to stop storing location data in its Sensorvault, impacting geofence warrant usage.
- Recent court cases have upheld geofence warrants despite constitutional concerns.
- Public pressure and privacy concerns are influencing changes in data handling practices.
- The future of geofence warrants may be limited as companies adapt to privacy demands.
Related
No reasonable expectation of privacy in one's Google location data
The Fourth Circuit Court ruled users lack privacy expectations in Google location data. Google offers control over data, including location history stored in Sensorvault. Geofence warrants addressed, requiring law enforcement to follow specific procedures. Court found geofencing compliant with the Fourth Amendment, sparking debates on tech-law enforcement balance.
Google says it is obligated to disclose confidential info to U.S. government
Google must disclose certain user information to U.S. authorities, balancing legal obligations with privacy concerns. Competitors like DuckDuckGo and Brave emphasize user privacy as alternatives to Google.
Google's real monopoly is on the user data
A US judge ruled Google's search monopoly unlawful, citing its financial deal with Apple and extensive user data collection, which raises concerns about competition and potential legal intervention regarding data monopolization.
Federal Appeals Court Finds Geofence Warrants Are Categorically Unconstitutional
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the need for specific targeting in searches to protect individual privacy rights and referencing the Carpenter ruling.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. This decision contrasts with a similar ruling in the Fourth Circuit, raising privacy concerns.
6 commentsWell that only took 7 years. [0]
[0] "first federal [geofence warrant] arrived in 2016"
Most warrants are issued by very low-level judges with practically zero thought about the legality. Especially if it's out-of-hours and it's an on-call judge who got the night shift, you're probably getting an Aileen Cannon level of legal sophistication who will sign whatever-the-hell law enforcement shove under her nose. And you're smoked because it was signed in "good faith".
I do wish the cases would actually involve harm to people who are “gold star” - it’s really annoying when I see people going “this is letting people off on a technicality” rather than “the police violated the constitution and in doing so let people get away with criming”.
"Oh you were in X area during Y crime according to google location data? You are now a suspect"
Related
No reasonable expectation of privacy in one's Google location data
The Fourth Circuit Court ruled users lack privacy expectations in Google location data. Google offers control over data, including location history stored in Sensorvault. Geofence warrants addressed, requiring law enforcement to follow specific procedures. Court found geofencing compliant with the Fourth Amendment, sparking debates on tech-law enforcement balance.
Google says it is obligated to disclose confidential info to U.S. government
Google must disclose certain user information to U.S. authorities, balancing legal obligations with privacy concerns. Competitors like DuckDuckGo and Brave emphasize user privacy as alternatives to Google.
Google's real monopoly is on the user data
A US judge ruled Google's search monopoly unlawful, citing its financial deal with Apple and extensive user data collection, which raises concerns about competition and potential legal intervention regarding data monopolization.
Federal Appeals Court Finds Geofence Warrants Are Categorically Unconstitutional
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing the need for specific targeting in searches to protect individual privacy rights and referencing the Carpenter ruling.
US appeals court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional
A federal appeals court ruled geofence warrants unconstitutional in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, citing Fourth Amendment violations. This decision contrasts with a similar ruling in the Fourth Circuit, raising privacy concerns.