U.S. News

2244 readers

31 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Powderhorn@beehaw.org

Geofence warrants - general warrants demanding information about all people within a specific geographical boundary - are unconstitutional, Appeals Court rules (www.eff.org)

submitted 2 months ago by tardigrada@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Here is the Court ruling (pdf)

In a major decision, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that geofence warrants are “categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”

The court found that geofence warrants constitute the sort of “general, exploratory rummaging” that the drafters of the Fourth Amendment intended to outlaw.

"The Electronc Frontier Foundation (EFF) applauds this decision because it is essential that every person feels like they can simply take their cell phone out into the world without the fear that they might end up a criminal suspect because their location data was swept up in open-ended digital dragnet," the EFF says.

The new Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Smith, involved an armed robbery and assault of a US Postal Service worker at a post office in Mississippi in 2018. After several months of investigation, police had no identifiable suspects, so they obtained a geofence warrant covering a large geographic area around the post office for the hour surrounding the crime. Google responded to the warrant with information on several devices, ultimately leading police to the two defendants.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] elfpie@beehaw.org 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I understand that companies have to submit to these rulings, but do they have to do it quietly? It's mostly a rhetorical question. They could keep a tally of every instance the government made they do something they disapproved of and make it public. Not profitable at all unfortunately.

[–] Malgas@beehaw.org 7 points 2 months ago

I'm under the impression that these sort of third-party warrants are often accompanied by a gag order. Which is why warrant canaries are a thing.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

What about not collecting the data in the first place?

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not really an option, when the data is being used for billing purposes (which phone, used what services, and when).

The US has no laws forcing data retention like the EU, but it would take something like anonymous micro transactions in order to have a working billing system, without collecting the data (and it being available to law enforcement).

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That data comes from Google. They aren't billing android users. They're just hoarding data for no good reason.

Police isn't going after Apple for this kind of data, probably because Apple isn't collecting it.

Even mobile telecom company probably don't need to collect that data. They need to process the location/cell location when a call happens to process it, and to increase a counter for local vs roaming call duration for billing purpose. As soon as the call ends the location information can be discarded.

[–] ravhall@discuss.online 1 points 2 months ago

There ya go. 👍